Gotcha gambits against President Donald Trump have been pretty much the norm for the Left ever since he beat Hillary Clinton back in November 2016. As the main propaganda purveyor for the Left since 1967, the New York Times is absolutely without credibility in its assertions (remember Jayson Blair, for example), but they do provide a useful barometer for Leftist Delusion. That brings me to last week’s Op-Ed in the NYT, claiming a senior Trump aide leads an in-house ‘resistance’ by senior aides, accompanied of course with salacious claims about the President.
The thousand-word essay is conveniently anonymous, the wording is conveniently pro-Democrat, and the timing conveniently compatible with Bob Woodward’s latest fiction (note – Woodward’s alleged sources have already rebutted the statements Woodward claims they made, and everything alleged in Woodward’s book is in conflict with known facts on the Trump Administration). But the media has – conveniently again – treating the essay as if everything it claims is true, despite no proof of any kind, indeed no evidence of any due diligence by the Times to check even the most basic assertions. This analysis examines the four main possibilities, their likelihood, and the impact of each possibility.
There are essentially four possibilities to consider: That the writer is who he claims to be, and is indeed part of a group of senior White House officials working to oppose the President (no 1); that the writer is a White House employee but there is no actual group of senior White House officials working against the President (no 2); that the writer is an anti-Trumper, but neither a NYT employee nor a White House staffer (no 3); or the essay is a creation of the NYT and its claims nothing but fiction (no 4).
The essay’s words are telling in their phrasing and focus, and also in their lack of support for any of the major claims made regarding Trump’s character and qualifications. Words and phrases used in the essay to describe the President include “worst”, “amorality”, “erratic”, “half-baked”, and “ill-informed”. The word “resistance” is used four times in the essay. The primary example of ‘honorable’ people cited by the writer is the late Senator McCain, whose accomplishments as a Senator are limited to self-serving gestures and opposition to major Republican policies – keep in mind McCain was directly responsible for preventing the Senate vote to rescind Obamacare, that McCain directly helped Democrats win a contested Senate seat by attacking the Republican. McCain has many times worked directly against Republican interests, and was especially hostile to Conservative values in recent years. That praise for McCain essentially rebuts any reason to believe the essay author is a Conservative.
The essay author further attacks the President by claiming he has “little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.” Note that in the essay, ‘President’ is not capitalized, a deliberate demotion out of obvious disrespect for the President. More, the idea that President Trump opposes ‘free people’ is contradicted by President Trump’s support for reforms in Saudi Arabia, and his work to free political prisoners from North Korea. The claim that President Trump is against ‘free minds’ runs against Trump’s work supporting free speech in the UK, and his support for conservatives suppressed by social media. The claim that President Trump opposes ‘free trade’ appears to be based on a faulty comprehension of President Trump’s tariff proposals, which seek to establish reciprocity in trade agreements, replacing unbalanced conditions where American products are penalized relative to foreign goods entering the US, with true free trade efforts where the US enters agreements where each side has the same opportunity. Again, the essay writer betrays poor education on finance and history, making it impossible to agree that the writer is actually a senior official.
With that observation, consider some of the sniping attacks made against President Trump in the essay:
“he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.”
“many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations”
“the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.”
“Americans should know that there are adults in the room”
Nothing there shows anything but partisan animus against the President.
The essay write grudgingly admits to some success by the Trump Administration, but then claims that “these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style”. Again, these comments make clear that the writer is nowhere near a Republican, let alone a Trump appointee.
Before moving on, we can reject the claim that the essay writer was really a ‘senior Trump aide’, on the following points:
• The claims made against President Trump are not only based on malicious emotion, but run counter to known facts;
• The essay writer betrays a poor grasp of economics, political history, and foreign affairs;
• None of the claims made by the essay writer have any verifiable support, they are simply thrown out in large numbers as if the writer hopes some will stick out of luck;
• The essay writer makes no effort whatsoever to give credit to President Trump, even for successes known to be directly due to Trump’s work, such as freeing three political prisoners from North Korea, the return of manufacturing jobs to the United States, and his leadership in tax cuts for regular Americans. The essay writer is therefore no one appointed to a senior position by the President. The claim is laughable.
With that in mind, I move on to three statements made by the essay writer, which reveal not only animus but the nature and purpose of the essay. These comments are as follows:
“There were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment” – there is no evidence whatsoever that this ever happened. Further, for that to have happened, Vice-President Pence would have had to be a major part of it, and the VP has directly rejected the notion, and his statements have always supported the President;
“We will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.” – That is a veiled threat to remove the President through illegal methods. The statement alone is evidence supporting Secret Service and Congressional investigations into threats against the safety of the President, and national security violations.
“Everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle” – A simple look at the last four decades of political divisions in the United States makes clear that this is a dishonest statement. Such an opinion ignores the hypocrisy behind ‘bilateral’ agreements, which up to now has always benefitted the Democrats, who make promises but ignore their end of the deal once they have what they want. Don’t forget, for example, that Democrats agreed with President Reagan to secure borders in exchange for amnesty in 1986 – once they had the amnesty, the Democrats ignored their promises. Same for Obamacare – Democrats made a lot of promises to protect access to existing doctors and lower costs, but broke them once they had the law they wanted. With the GOP in control of both the House and Senate and White House, the only value in ‘reaching across the aisle’ would be to benefit Democrats. Ergo, the writer is obviously pro-Democrat, and opposes the GOP, no matter what he/she claimed.
With that in mind, I now revisit the four possibilities in context:
(1) ‘The writer is who he claims to be, and is indeed part of a group of senior White House officials working to oppose the President’ – debunked on the examination of evidence and logic of the situation. No support provided, and the essay in context is illogical. For example, if there was such a group, they would never post an essay to alert the President and supporters of the President that such a group existed. What’s more, if such a group existed, this essay would support the ‘Deep State’ claims made over the months since Trump won the election. If nothing else, the writer of the essay confirmed that people who oppose Trump support actions by an unelected and anonymous group in opposition to the duly-elected President of the United States. Any group of senior advisors would understand this essay would be suicidal, not to their advantage;
(2) ‘The writer is a White House employee but there is no actual group of senior White House officials working against the President’ – debunked on the examination of evidence and the writer’s obvious ignorance on key issues. The essay reads like a high school junior in LA posing as an adult. While a White House intern from an anti-Trump demographic could have written this essay, I have to believe that even an intern would know better than to sell this load of manure;
(3) ‘The writer is an anti-Trumper, but neither a NYT employee nor a White House staffer’ – This is the most likely case, as even the NYT would make an effort to sound like a Trump aide, and provide better support for the absurd claims;
(4) ‘The essay is a creation of the NYT and its claims nothing but fiction’ – This is also a strong contender, except that the essay is so blatantly juvenile and partisan, that a team of professional writers would certainly have done better at crafting a forgery portraying a senior official.
The sum effect of this editorial is really no more than a cheap shot by the NYT, by printing a known fiction to support Woodward’s latest pack of lies, and to take yet another pot shot at the President. They certainly can’t lay a glove on Trump using his actual actions and policies. The NYT is also testing the public mood. The attempts to smear Trump with claims about Russia or ‘Stormy’ have obviously failed, and the economy is something the Left really wants to hide from the voters, so I’m not at all surprised that the Left has fallen back on innuendo. They were hoping that Cohen or Manafort or both would ‘turn’ on the President and provide Mueller’s bigoted inquisition with something they could use to attack the President, but when that failed the Left became desperate, with news about the Grand Jury looking into crimes by anti-Trump officials like Strzok, McCabe and Comey, and so we see this frankly desperate effort to smear the President with anonymous and baseless claims and innuendo. Like everything before it by the Left, this should be treated with derision, but otherwise dismissed as nothing but more noise from people capable of nothing better.