It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who remembers when Trump would use fake names and anonymity to help himself and hurt his rivals

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   
In the midst of the op-ed story that has riled his base to the point of calling charges of sedition or even the highest crime of our land treason.

Many say that allegations that Cohn took papers off of Trump's desk was crossing the line. Keep in mind that Gary Cohn used to be the president of Goldman Sachs, and was appointed by Trump and approved by a Republican majority. Keep in mind that is the story of all of the senior officials alleged to be teaming up to undermine aspects of his agenda while supporting it as a whole (per anonymous op-ed).

People are calling this unprecedented yet we have examples of the same tactics being used by the "victim" crying foul.


In fact, Trump’s use of fake names is far more extensive than most people realize. For more than a decade – 1980 to 1991 — Trump used phony names to promote himself. I know from my work as Trump’s biographer that even prior to the John Miller episode, Trump had posed as John Baron (or Barron). A close look at when and how Trump used these ruses–and how he’s using a new form of verbal trickery today–provides insight into billionaire developer who could be America’s next president.



He used Baron, and later, Miller, to avoid trouble, float ideas, and even spread gossip about himself. In all these cases he sought to protect and polish the Trump image, or brag in ways that would be unseemly, even for a man who is synonymous with self promotion.



After admitting under oath that Baron was a fake, Trump apparently offered a new spokesman, John Miller, to Sue Carswell of People magazine in 1991. Unlike Baron, who was concerned with business matters, Miller served to spread gossip about Trump’s romantic exploits.


Fortune

So is using made up names for business purposes legal or ethical? Does it make it look petty when someone using those tactics for so long flips out when the same tactics are used against them?


Trump used to whisper in my ear, for example, about how a prominent CEO often broke down crying in conversations with him. He wanted me to publish the information, but attribute it to a confidential source. (I didn't.) He slagged his two ex-wives, both on-the-record and while requesting anonymity. (I didn't publish the anonymously sourced information.) He went harshly on the record and on background about the casino mogul, Steve Wynn. (I didn't write the anonymous stuff.) He also had bad things to say – while requesting anonymity – about a host of politicians, celebrities and competitors in the real estate business.
This was from Timothy L O'Brien, who interviewed Trump for his biography "TrumpNation" which published in 2006, sparking a multi billion dollar lawsuit from Trump.

I have also pointed out many times through threads that surely this anonymous source talked to a lawyer(s) before approaching the NYT for the op-ed. The NYT is no stranger to the extent the government will go to get sources. The Obama admin threatened James Risen with jail time if he didn't give up sources for one of his books on the CIA. He also worked for the NYT who allegedly suppressed some of his articles on the CIA, which is included in that link as well. They also had documents seized by the government to obtain some of their sources.

So let's not act like the NYT isn't going to screen the op-ed through an army of lawyers before it gets ran.

At the end of the day, the waters are muddy as always. People are willing to cry foul on their opponents though they themselves have used similar tactics in the past.

When this blows over, and it is shown that there were no illegalities in the situation, I hope Trump's most diehard supporters can realize this was a folly on Trump to appoint these officials, and if he feels so inclined, he can fire them and we can end it at that.

God forbid people get any ideas of sedition and take action into their own hands when this all is last weeks news, and we are on to arguing about something else.
edit on 7-9-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yeah I don’t really see this blowing over like whatever current scandals this is being compared to. At least not while the situation in the White House stays the same.

Republican senator Bob Corker pretty much validates it with his recent statement:


Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said he was unsurprised by an op-ed slamming President Trump published in The New York Times by an anonymous senior Trump staffer. "I didn't look at it as new news. I mean, anyone who's had any dealings over there knows that this is the reality that we're living in. So I think a lot's been made out of nothing," he said.


Link

It seems most people in government have known about Trumps idiocy since the beginning. Whether this was actually illegal or not won’t stop the cries of treason from his base. As long as Donald Trump frames it that way it’ll continue being thought of that way by his cultists. Regardless of what the law or reality have to say about it.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   
hahaha!

good ol john barron, always makes me laugh when I think on it. our president - doesn't he make you proud?


and, yes he looks petty when he's used the same tactics before. he's a puss.

also, it's funny he can't say anonymous.


can he fire pense?


edit on 7-9-2018 by knoxie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker


Ummm...precisely...and fire them he will...if there's any truth to this...

I get the gut feeling though that this is all a ruse...used to smoke out some backstabbing...

Now we have calls by at least one senator...Senator Rand Paul...to polygraph the lot of them...

I wonder if that was the intent after all...







YouSir



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


Yeah I don’t really see this blowing over like whatever current scandals this is being compared to. At least not while the situation in the White House stays the same.


Something will dominate the news cycle in a week or two. It may steal a little more of the attention if/when the name gets dropped.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: YouSir

There are a lot of possible angles to this, but at the end of the day I think it ends with someone getting fired.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: knoxie

I don't think he can fire the Vice President.

If I had to put money on this though, I'd put it on Sessions given the turbulence between the two. I'm no fan of Sessions, and I disagree with many of his viewpoints on the legal system, but I think the man is convicted, and won't allow anyone to bastardize the justice system.

Just an opinion and a guess though.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: underwerks


Yeah I don’t really see this blowing over like whatever current scandals this is being compared to. At least not while the situation in the White House stays the same.


Something will dominate the news cycle in a week or two. It may steal a little more of the attention if/when the name gets dropped.


I just don’t see something like this being forgotten as quickly as everything else that dominates news cycles for a week or two. Mainly just because of the unanswered questions it leaves in people’s minds.

If you’re voting for Trump, who are you really voting for? That question alone will be in the back of everyone’s mind whether they want to admit it or not. From here until next Election Day.

It’s a question I’ve wondered about regularly and I’m about as far from a Trump supporter as you can get. Because we really don’t know. Given the rhetoric I’ve heard I don’t think a lot of Trump voters would proudly vote for unnamed faceless bureaucrats to run the country. Then again, their hate for the other side shouldn’t be underestimated.

So they just might.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: YouSir

There are a lot of possible angles to this, but at the end of the day I think it ends with someone getting fired.



Ummm...I agree...I still think it's using smoke to catch fire...I also think it ends with more than just firing...I also think

charges will be filed...

IMHO...



YouSir



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: YouSir


charges will be filed...


What if it's Sessions, that would make things very interesting. Who would push for files charged if he is the one who wrote it?

That said, do you think this op-ed move wasn't scrutinized by lawyers before it came into fruition?



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
In the midst of the op-ed story that has riled his base to the point of calling charges of sedition or even the highest crime of our land treason.

Many say that allegations that Cohn took papers off of Trump's desk was crossing the line. Keep in mind that Gary Cohn used to be the president of Goldman Sachs, and was appointed by Trump and approved by a Republican majority. Keep in mind that is the story of all of the senior officials alleged to be teaming up to undermine aspects of his agenda while supporting it as a whole (per anonymous op-ed).

People are calling this unprecedented yet we have examples of the same tactics being used by the "victim" crying foul.


In fact, Trump’s use of fake names is far more extensive than most people realize. For more than a decade – 1980 to 1991 — Trump used phony names to promote himself. I know from my work as Trump’s biographer that even prior to the John Miller episode, Trump had posed as John Baron (or Barron). A close look at when and how Trump used these ruses–and how he’s using a new form of verbal trickery today–provides insight into billionaire developer who could be America’s next president.



He used Baron, and later, Miller, to avoid trouble, float ideas, and even spread gossip about himself. In all these cases he sought to protect and polish the Trump image, or brag in ways that would be unseemly, even for a man who is synonymous with self promotion.



After admitting under oath that Baron was a fake, Trump apparently offered a new spokesman, John Miller, to Sue Carswell of People magazine in 1991. Unlike Baron, who was concerned with business matters, Miller served to spread gossip about Trump’s romantic exploits.


Fortune

So is using made up names for business purposes legal or ethical? Does it make it look petty when someone using those tactics for so long flips out when the same tactics are used against them?


Trump used to whisper in my ear, for example, about how a prominent CEO often broke down crying in conversations with him. He wanted me to publish the information, but attribute it to a confidential source. (I didn't.) He slagged his two ex-wives, both on-the-record and while requesting anonymity. (I didn't publish the anonymously sourced information.) He went harshly on the record and on background about the casino mogul, Steve Wynn. (I didn't write the anonymous stuff.) He also had bad things to say – while requesting anonymity – about a host of politicians, celebrities and competitors in the real estate business.
This was from Timothy L O'Brien, who interviewed Trump for his biography "TrumpNation" which published in 2006, sparking a multi billion dollar lawsuit from Trump.

I have also pointed out many times through threads that surely this anonymous source talked to a lawyer(s) before approaching the NYT for the op-ed. The NYT is no stranger to the extent the government will go to get sources. The Obama admin threatened James Risen with jail time if he didn't give up sources for one of his books on the CIA. He also worked for the NYT who allegedly suppressed some of his articles on the CIA, which is included in that link as well. They also had documents seized by the government to obtain some of their sources.

So let's not act like the NYT isn't going to screen the op-ed through an army of lawyers before it gets ran.

At the end of the day, the waters are muddy as always. People are willing to cry foul on their opponents though they themselves have used similar tactics in the past.

When this blows over, and it is shown that there were no illegalities in the situation, I hope Trump's most diehard supporters can realize this was a folly on Trump to appoint these officials, and if he feels so inclined, he can fire them and we can end it at that.

God forbid people get any ideas of sedition and take action into their own hands when this all is last weeks news, and we are on to arguing about something else.






People are calling this unprecedented yet we have examples of the same tactics being used by the "victim" crying foul.

does that make it less of a crime?



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Using fake names? An outrage, I tell you, of outrageous proportions! Who would do such a thing? Now, let's get this straight, so there are no misconceptions: you mean like our names, CriticalStinker? (Apologize if you really are named CriticalStinker, and, I take it, murdered your parents?)



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scrutinizing
Using fake names? An outrage, I tell you, of outrageous proportions! Who would do such a thing? Now, let's get this straight, so there are no misconceptions: you mean like our names, CriticalStinker? (Apologize if you really are named CriticalStinker, and, I take it, murdered your parents?)


Good point.

Except my writings aren't being used for business dealings, and they are also not featured in large media publications.



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Do you have "business dealings" confused with official business of the office of the president of the united states?
Those wouldn't be much different would they?



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


does that make it less of a crime?


In the context of the op-ed? I don't see how anything can be viewed illegal about writing an op-ed.

That aside, I almost humored putting a Pepperidge Farm reference in OP, but I didn't know how many people would catch that, so thank you for "peppering" it in.

edit on 7-9-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scrutinizing
Using fake names? An outrage, I tell you, of outrageous proportions! Who would do such a thing? Now, let's get this straight, so there are no misconceptions: you mean like our names, CriticalStinker? (Apologize if you really are named CriticalStinker, and, I take it, murdered your parents?)


when you use a fake name to call major new outlets to brag about your prowess with women you're a teeny tiny man, period.

who the hell does that?
edit on 7-9-2018 by knoxie because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2018 by knoxie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   


That aside, I almost humored putting a Pepperidge Farm reference in OP, but I didn't know how many people would catch that, so thank you for "peppering" it in.
a reply to: CriticalStinker
one is glad to be of service



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Except my writings aren't being used for business dealings, and they are also not featured in large media publications.
]

Well now, don't get me wrong, o' great, malodorous critical one, but you're not likely to either win a Good Housekeeping Seal, with that moniker? As the wise man once said, "Just sayin'."



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Everyone on this site uses a false name. Is everybody up to something?



posted on Sep, 7 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Do you have "business dealings" confused with official business of the office of the president of the united states?
Those wouldn't be much different would they?


Yes and no. Depends on the use in business, it could violate some FTC laws, though the way in which he did it, I doubt there was legality breach.

As for the office of the president, why would saying unsavory things be illegal? Because allegedly they teamed up with other senior officials to try and prevent select issues from reaching fruition? They may have done so with words, that's what cabinets do. Nothing illegal about that.




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join