Thinking the Anonymous Op Ed was Disinformation

[JCMach1]

Think about how it went down. Op Ed basically mirroring the Woodward book, but it completely moved Kavanaugh off the front pages insuring his appointment.

Also, took steam out of Woodward story.

It changed nothing about what we knew about Trump...

Squirrel!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. It didn't take the steam out of anything; it just added to it.

[JCMach1]

2. But think about, story is op Ed today, not Woodward, or Kavanaugh

And proves Trump's conspiracy talking points.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Woodward's book will be released in its entirety on Tuesday

and then it will be back above the fold again. So far we've only seen excerpts. Kavanaugh has never left the news that I've been following, and in any event there's more to come next week (it's Sunday and nothing is happening) because the confirmation procedure is ongoing. News stories go in cycles, it's their nature. These are not going away.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Also, it was the NYT, not the op-ed writer, that decided when

to release the piece. They'd had it for about a week and held it while they vetted it. So if there was some intent to divert attention from other stories, it would have been the Times' intent.

[Grasswire2]

14. A little like the documents that made Dan Rather the story years ago...

...instead of George W.'s AWOL status, eh?

That was the second ratf^%ery regarding Bush's AWOL.

The first came on the Friday before the election when Senator Bob Kerrey called a press conference to ask Bush why he was absent from his duties during wartime. On THAT day, a FOX News affiliate broke the story of Bush's old DUI, and it blew the AWOL story off the news. The story that could have prevent Bush's election was simply blown off the news. Karl Rove.

[elleng]

3. Right.

Too bad folks spending so much time on OTHER THAN the issues raised in the OP. Just what repugs want.

[MFM008]

4. Woodward book

Not even out yet, it will flare up again soon.

[Grasswire2]

6. That's what I said from day one of it. Ratf%#ckery. Rove-style ratf%3e.

Too, too convenient. Too, too successful! I suspect Kellyanne of being part of it.

Thought process: We'll concoct a letter. The NYT will be suckered. All of the media will be distracted with the goose chase. It will blow Woodward's book drop out of the news. It will distract from chasing Kavanaugh's past. It will be sensational, and it won't tell the public what they don't already know; Trump is a schmuck and dangerous.

I said it here. Ratf*^ckery. Pure and simple.

The letter also enables Trump to continue in office with citizens thinking there are steady hands on the wheel.

[Merlot]

9. That was my first thought as well - gop propaganda

It's just to convienient, and trumpft is using it to his benefit.

It's gop-prop.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. No, this is a three-day story. It will flare up again if the identity of the author

is discovered within the next week or so, but the media know people will soon tire of the endless masturbatory speculation over whodunit and it will fade into the background. Anyhow, the NYT decided when to release the op-ed because they spent about a week vetting it and debating whether to run it. When Woodward's book is released on Tuesday it will take center stage again (and of course it just confirms what the op-ed writer said about Trump being nuts), and the Kavanaugh matter is not over yet. I think there's more to come. Nobody thinks there are steady hands on the wheel at the WH.

[Grasswire2]

13. It wasn't meant as a long-going story. It served its function.

On to the next shiny thing.

[eleny]

7. I'm reading House of Trump House of Putin and today I agree with you

Squirrel, shiny keys - take your pick. It is what it is.

[JCMach1]

11. I will fully admit if I am wrong,

But that's where I am with my thinking too...

[eleny]

16. It's a fair question to ask - Who does it serve?

And it's fair to answer that the SCOTUS hearings might have been obscured by a juicy whodunit. The timing is fair game for scrutiny.

[Grasswire2]

12. It's not the ratf*ers' first rodeo at this stuff.

Rove perfected it.

We've seen it at half a dozen CRITICAL times in the last twenty years.

I could name them, but I'm on my way out the door.

[hlthe2b]

15. Next week will be all about Woodward with release, more excerpts & wall to wall interviews

So, if that was the intent, I don't see that working. If anything Woodward my well be helping to validate some of the oped.

Ditto, Omarosa is back with another recording "drop" and saying much the same things.

[JCMach1]

18. Or, Trump does X to find leaker... Ratf#$ery outrage of week

That is popular with his base... Wait for it...

[hexola]

17. Anyone could have written that letter - you probably didn't need any exclusive access to hedge

the bet on this letter.

There's a Scaramucci quote from his brief stint - and more or less lays out the basis for the letter.

The attempts to parrot certain admin semantics makes your guess seem more likley - diversion...disinfo.

[lame54]

19. The front pages don't appoint judges...

The corrupt Repugs do
And there is no stopping them

[Nasruddin]

20. Who else but

Is it a coincidence that textual analysis of the op-ed always shows
Mr Trump as highly correlated (if not highest correlated) to the op-ed author?

Mr Trump dictated it, had someone clean it up and then leak it.

Maybe you can frame it as a form of narcissistic triangulation.
He gets to play both sides and whipsaw all the marks - on both sides.