General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy New Theory on Who Wrote the "Anonymous" Letter
Yesterday, I picked Kellyanne Conway. After re-reading the letter and watching the ensuing events, I have come to the conclusion that the Op-Ed has far more than one author.
Here's my theory. The letter was written by a speech writer as part of a cabal of Trump Senior Officials. It has a lot of hands in it. At least five and maybe more than that. Each of the members of this cabal has their own pet peeve in it. Russia, Trade, North Korea, Racism, etc. I still think Kellyanne is one of the cabal. "Loadstar" is Pence. "off the rails" is Kelly. I can see Coates' hand in this, as well as Mattis. Mnuchin and former aide, Cohen on trade. Perhaps Nikki Haley. Remember, each of these folks has family and friends that are excoriating them for being a Trump sycophant, including even Stephen Miller. I know that Nazi is running the immigration part of this administration, but he's really a Sessions guy. Although I am giving the least amount of weight to Miller being part of this, I can't discount it, either.
So, when any one of these folks is asked if they wrote this letter, they can say "no". That's not the question that needs to be asked. "Have you any knowledge of how this letter was composed and are any of your opinions included"?
The bottom line, this is a composite letter, in my opinion, of as many as 5 to 7 senior White House aides, past and present, and written by a speech writer who works for one of these people.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Spend more time covering their trail than exposing the enormity of the problem.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,019 posts)dalton99a
(81,570 posts)BadGimp
(4,018 posts)It was intentionally done to take some of the sting out of Woodward's book.
D_Master81
(1,822 posts)its a way for people to say what needs said but still maintain that they werent the writer. Dont know if its actually true, the Times actually first released a tweet about it being a "he", but I could see this being the case.
louis c
(8,652 posts)...and they use his speech writer. The "conspirators" are all in a room with the speech writer and they all air their grievances against this *President. Then you get the type of letter (article, or whatever you want to call it) that has Pence's mark on it, has Kelly's mark on it, has Mattis and Coates mark on it, Kellyanne and so forth. So, you can find individual sayings of each, but written into a coherent style that looks like a speech writer. Now, there is no way a speech writer did this on his own, so that's why my theory makes sense to me.
forgotmylogin
(7,530 posts)with "lodestar" and such to make it more confusing.
Lithos
(26,404 posts)The author is probably one of several people. There may be a covering author who polished this. I recall that one of the reasons the NYT printed this was because the eloquence went beyond the norms of this administration.
I do not think the use of Lodestar means Pence. Pence uses speech writers much like Trump does. Would not surprise me if they are from the same pool Trump and other officials use. This would explain the use.
L-
GusBob
(7,286 posts)Especially in this gang of back stabbing thieves without honor
A group like that would have to be trusting and close-knit.
Think about it: would you trust your career or livelihood with something so dangerous with a bunch of political people you have barely known for such a short time?
No way
They would start to brawl over every little thing ( immigration was left out for example that might piss off just one of them) then the cat would be out of the bag and there would be a turncoat faster than you could say "boy howdy"
And this sounds like a quibble but, it's an Op Ed not a letter, there is a difference. In the admin there are people who are experienced op-ed writers.
louis c
(8,652 posts)Rorey
(8,445 posts)It would be very risky to have to count on several to keep the secret. I think it was one person, or at least not more than two.
fierywoman
(7,694 posts)Doodley
(9,124 posts)fierywoman
(7,694 posts)Doodley
(9,124 posts)orleans
(34,073 posts)forget lodestar and look for the user of "half-baked"
Doodley
(9,124 posts)from the New York Times. Just saying...
orleans
(34,073 posts)sunday morning talk shows
lame54
(35,321 posts)louis c
(8,652 posts)The point is that this letter, or article, or Op-ED is not a single individual, but a cadre of senior officials (my theory). Who actually penned the final version is irrelevant, it is the opinion of the group. Just as a character in a story can be a composite of more than one person, so too is this letter.
Each have contributed, but each can deny they wrote it, since the final version was penned by a speech writer. look at all the theories of who it is. A Bill Clinton speech writer says that the letter is of the style of a speech writer. Others notice the issues that concern the military. Still others notice the "loadstar" connection to Pence. The talk of trade is consistent with the people in charge of the economy. I can easily see the hands of more than one person in the substance of the letter and the wordsmith of a professional. Plus, by the use of words and issues that concern more than one person, and making Trump think it's just one person, it makes the job of finding out what happened that much more difficult.
The fact that the White House has narrowed the possible culprit down to 12 people kinda buttresses my theory.
lame54
(35,321 posts)Even if this was written by a group it was one person who submitted it to the Times and that person is a Senior Administration Official
louis c
(8,652 posts)...if the source was a trustworthy and reliable Senior Staff Member, that person could tell the Times that it was a collective work, deliver it as a Senior Trump Staffer and shield the rest.
lame54
(35,321 posts)Just turn it in
The less the paper knows the better
Then they only have to protect one anonymous source
Whether a group effort or not - whoever turned it in is on the hook
And we know for sure it's a Senior Administration Official
Why would they not want the paper to know? They're trying to get the story out. The article still remains anonymous, but has greater credibility. Remember, publishing it was not a foregone conclusion form the start. The Times rarely, if ever, publishes and oped without a name.
ProfessorGAC
(65,168 posts)We think it's a group effort, as well. Then one highly placed person puts their name on it so the NYT can establish credibility and lineage.
I seriously doubt that one person decided to release this sort of damaging info, while naming names of people also participating in a soft coup.
louis c
(8,652 posts)Quiet_Dem_Mom
(599 posts)Regardless of who wrote it, what if the op-ed is just a public signal to let the "normal" republicans (if that group of mythical creatures exists) know they are in charge, not the Tangerine Tantrum Tosser.
"Hey! We know this orange taint is nuttier than squirrel shit, but us normal, not-insane people < > are actually in charge here, so keep voting for us! GO TEAM!"
In light of the poll numbers / indicators showing a blue wave (please, please, please), maybe this is a hail-mary pass to keep people from jumping the GOP ship.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)And I wouldn't be surprised to find out trumpft himself knew about it, or even orchestrated it. Look how much mileage he's getting out of it, now he gets to call someone else treasonous when so many people have been saying that of him. He is using it to rally his base and justify the "shadow government" proposition.
So, my opinion is that he knew about it, he possibly orchestrated it, and he's using it to his advantage. Sounds crazy that someone would do this to themselves, but he's a master media manipulator. He calls media fake because he knows how many times he's lied and manipulated the press.
I'll be the first to admit that this is far fetched and may not be true. But to me, seeing how craven the republicans have been, and how much trumpt lies and manipulates, I put nothing past them. Who's going to benefit the most from this letter? I think trumpft will, will his base.
Also, notice how the letter denies that the 25th amendment is a solution...how convenient is that?
gordianot
(15,245 posts)Who gains to benefit most with a Trump exit?
TeamPooka
(24,254 posts)this man is unfit is even more important and impactful than one person doing it.
Republicans are sad little cowardly Quislings.
0rganism
(23,970 posts)the transformation is now complete
our national dialogues have been reduced to crap like "who's getting voted off the island next?" and "is Trump gonna fire Kid Rock?"
as far as i'm concerned, the op-ed reeks of Trump himself with a lot of help from Kelly.
this country is circling the drain and we're all too confused and distracted to notice.
Doodley
(9,124 posts)found guilty of writing the article? It certainly knocked the wind out of the coverage of the Bob Woodward book.
niyad
(113,552 posts)for the deranged demagogue, KNOWING who, and what, he is. and they are still there, ON OUR DIME!!!! gutless, thieving cowards, each and every one of them.
Nitram
(22,877 posts)joet67
(624 posts)brooklynite
(94,727 posts)...is that a "cabal", especially one tied to a speechwriter wouldn't throw in giveaway words like "Lodestar" because they'd each act as a check on the others' writing eccentricities. Any phrase you're looking at as a clue is just as likely a red herring to divert attention from the actual writer(s).
louis c
(8,652 posts)"Loadstar", for example, is a common phrase used in the military, as well as by Pence. "Off the Rails" is one of John Kellyy's favorite phrases. Kellyanne Conway uses "half baked" quite a lot. The interest in Russia puts Nikki Haley, Coates and Pompeo in play. The interest in the trade deal being a problem puts Mnuchin and former White House staffer Cohen in the ring.
All of these phrases can either put the light on the people I just said, or off, if someone is trying to pull them off the scent.
Myself, I think all those phrases are in for a reason. I think that if the people I mentioned are all involved, and found out, Trump would be hard pressed to continue and that may be the desired end result.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I dont think multiple people are behind it. Even with just one its too hard to keep the identity a secret. The first consideration is motive. Pence and his staff stand to gain the most if Trump is impeached. Nothing about the OP-Ed strikes me as the work of integrity and sacrifice. Its self-serving.
louis c
(8,652 posts)Texin
(2,597 posts)She believes that the person or persons who wrote this in collaboration are staffers of Pence, and she said they sound very like memos circulated within the West Wing by higher-level staff (those who actually ghost Pence's speeches and other memoranda). This would be a person who knew first hand exactly what's going on, the mindset of the WH staffers, and especially within the Pence cadre.
I found her argument the most compelling of any I've heard. I could easily see this, as these staffers need their jobs - they haven't "arrived" so to speak, and they (or he/she) would be very vulnerable to any fallout, even if everything said in that article is 100% accurate - and I believe the facts are the truth. Higher-up staff in the WW, their bosses as it were, are in agreement with the facts of the article but they are the ones trying to prevent Shitler from pressing Big Red Button. Her key question about this was qui bono? None of the people like Coates, Conway, even Pompeo (who is just another iteration of Chris Christie IMO), those who might have political ambitions, would jeopardize his or her future political career, but the one most obviously who stands to gain immediately is Pence and, of course, those staffers would have a reasonable expectation to see their own fortunes rise with Pence's.
rlegro
(338 posts)Trump immediately would begin undermining him in private and especially in public. So that if Trump himself is impeached or otherwise forced to leave office, our new struggle against a President Pence would be somewhat easier. Or maybe Pence wouldn't survive this onslaught, not to mention whatever comes out of the Mueller investigation. Finally, if you're the NY Times you know who sent this along, and you will have thoroughly analyzed their arguments and motives -- which if it's Pence probably would lead to more embarrassing Pence stories.
DeminPennswoods
(15,290 posts)had a segment on the guessing game this morning. Both Reid and Katon Dawson agreed that the op-ed was written by a speechwriter or someone with that kind of background. Both based this conclusion on their own backgrounds as speechwriters. Reid showed Omarosa's speculation it was Pence staffer Nick Ayers who would have attended all the same meetings as Pence.
Credit to Jason Johnson for being the first person I heard suggest the op-ed was a group effort.
louis c
(8,652 posts)I know, I get worse than Trump some times and make it all about me.
But Did you hear Johnson before Thursday evening?
DeminPennswoods
(15,290 posts)with the panel being Jennifer Rubin, Johnson and another guest. That was the day of or after the op-ed was published.
So you have support for your theory of multiple authors.
louis c
(8,652 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I would say Kellyanne Conway plays no part in it and did not write a word of it. If she writes like she speaks, she didn't participate.
I think you mean "Lodestar."
I don't think Pence played any part. He's too scared. There's too much riding on his actions...he wants a career for years to come, or hopefully ending with the Presidency. He puts his cup down, when Trump puts his cup down. He is not independent or a risk taker, or even one who would notice anything.
He is not likely to see a document on Trump's desk or anything of the sort. He's not part of the Trump inner circle.
Not Nikki Haley. She doesn't office there, so she doesn't see Trump's antics.
In the end, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that it could be just about anyone. That's how dangerous and unfit Trump is.
rlegro
(338 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,088 posts)Setting up a fake controversy to make himself look like a victim is just the kind of thing he would do. Anything to distract from everything else that's going on.
louis c
(8,652 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,088 posts)Trump is a con man. He is known to engage in stunts to manipulate public opinion of himself. Do the names "John Baron" and "David Dennison" sound familiar to you?
louis c
(8,652 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,088 posts)I'm just saying that I wouldn't put it past him to try to pull off a stunt like this, regardless of how much sense it makes to you.
louis c
(8,652 posts)...and you don't think that's an Alex Jones type conspiracy theory?
GoCubsGo
(32,088 posts)All I'm saying is that I wouldn't put it past him to pull such a stunt. I am not saying that I believe that he actually did.
louis c
(8,652 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 10, 2018, 08:08 AM - Edit history (1)
Trump would try to fool all of us be getting us off the scent that he's a dangerous, autocratic, incompetent, immoral idiot by planting a story that he's a dangerous, autocratic, incompetent immoral idiot. And that wouldn't surprise you?
Oh, now I get your logic.
Response to louis c (Reply #61)
GoCubsGo This message was self-deleted by its author.
JCMach1
(27,572 posts)To suck the air out of the media covering Kavanaugh. Op ed said almost nothing that the Woodward book didn't.
louis c
(8,652 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)She is way too ensconced into not only Trumpism, but the pre-Trump tea bagger movement that spawned the Orange monster. You can tell she is all in.
And Pence, are you kidding? The man is in mortal fear of the Don. No way he'd risk it.
Kelly has also chosen sides, and is an active cheerleader, not so much for the man's quirks, but for his racist policies that he shares views with.
No, this was probably one to three mid - lower level bureaucrats.
louis c
(8,652 posts)First off, in any who-done-it the first suspect is the one with the most to gain. If Trump's out, who's in. Oh ya, Pence.
Next, watch this video and tell me that Kellyanne can't turn on a dime:
JI7
(89,264 posts)she was getting mostly positive reviews and was looking forward to, tv, book, and other deals after the election assuming he would lose.
but now she has turned into a joke. remember the earlier snl skits had KC had her as someone who was worried and concerned about trump being president.
but the longer she stayed in and the more she defended him turned her into a joke. her husband is trying to save them with his tweets.
she also doesn't come off as someone like sarah Huckabee sanders when she defends trump. she is mostly just spewing and trying to run the clock out but doesn't come off personally invested as sarah Huckabee sanders.
i don't know if it's her but i would not be too surprised if it was.
randr
(12,414 posts)The whole thing is an attempt to show his minions there really is a deep state out to get him. Republicans need his minions thinking they must show up to vote so Trump is not impeached.
The election has now become all about Trump, just as he planned.