An easy way to out the op-ed writer

Now, this would be completely insane for a president to ask his staff, but it would be a way to out the writer. I thought about this today as I was reading that Bob Woodward was also a suspect for the letter, ahead of his book being released on Tuesday.

And I was thinking -- why doesn't Woodward just say: "I publicly give permission to the New York Times to release my name as the author, if in fact I am the author."

The Times knows who gave them the letter. If they had permission to release that, they would. It's an easy way to clear your name.

And then I thought -- why don't the cabinet members in the administration do the same thing? Why doesn't each one give their permission for the Times to release their name?

Why doesn't Trump, in his fits of anger, demand that they do? Does he realize this would be crazy or has he simply not thought of it yet?

What do all you fine people think: is this something the President should demand? Would it be seen as dictatorial?

a reply to: Kharron

I think the President has more important work to do. It's a distraction and a waste of time.

I am not sure, my brain has been going in different directions trying to figure out who it maybe. The thing is, I keep coming back to the thought that if there really is a group(coup) with a God Complex in the upper administration that to be so bold as to put out this letter who is to say they would not assassinate President Trump if they felt so inclined. Truly insane times we are living through.

a reply to: Kharron

Assuming it were legal, I wouldn't expect editors to act upon a coerced letter indemnifying them of their obligation to protect the identity of a confidential source.

If the source truly wanted to out himself, he could just do it. Since he's not doing just that, he'd clearly be acting under duress.

I think we can rest assured that it isn't any one in the WH. Trump said that he always hires the best people and trump inspires total loyalty.

Trump is President.
He will be for 2 more years.
He may get re elected because the Democrats/Liberals can't stop screaming at the sky long enough to get their sh** together and come up with a decent candidate.
They've thrown everything but the kitchen sink and nothing sticks.
Anonymous articles are not going to change that, it's just more for them to scream at the sky about.
No matter what Trump does, the Dems are going to find fault ....and keep screaming at the sky.

Carry on.

originally posted by: Kharron
Now, this would be completely insane for a president to ask his staff, but it would be a way to out the writer. I thought about this today as I was reading that Bob Woodward was also a suspect for the letter, ahead of his book being released on Tuesday.

And I was thinking -- why doesn't Woodward just say: "I publicly give permission to the New York Times to release my name as the author, if in fact I am the author."

The Times knows who gave them the letter. If they had permission to release that, they would. It's an easy way to clear your name.

And then I thought -- why don't the cabinet members in the administration do the same thing? Why doesn't each one give their permission for the Times to release their name?

Why doesn't Trump, in his fits of anger, demand that they do? Does he realize this would be crazy or has he simply not thought of it yet?

What do all you fine people think: is this something the President should demand? Would it be seen as dictatorial?

Trump can demand this all he likes but the Constitution protects such sources (as you might see from many cases about "anonymous whistleblowers" stretching far back into history.) He can't demand a loyalty oath as part of being president, much as he'd like it. He can't force the identity of this person to be revealed -- again, as legal cases involving anonymous whistleblowers have shown.

If Anonymous (who seems to have a better grasp of the constitution and the processes of government) does not want to reveal themselves yet, then they are protected by our laws.

Yes, it is something president should demand.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Kharron

Assuming it were legal, I wouldn't expect editors to act upon a coerced letter indemnifying them of their obligation to protect the identity of a confidential source.

If the source truly wanted to out himself, he could just do it. Since he's not doing just that, he'd clearly be acting under duress.

Naturally, the source made a deal to stay anonymous.

But would this not start an avalanche if one cabinet member did it. Imagine if someone with the reputation of a scholar, like Mattis, did this? Or how about family, like Kushner?

It would put all others in an awkward position where if they don't they almost admit guilt.

Beside the fact that this would be insane to ask for, I almost feel like its coming. Like he hasn't thought of it yet. But I wouldn't put it past him to tweet it and then the White House puts out a statement that he meant nothing by it.

originally posted by: Kharron
But would this not start an avalanche if one cabinet member did it. Imagine if someone with the reputation of a scholar, like Mattis, did this? Or how about family, like Kushner?

Mark Felt denied being Deep Throat even though Nixon suspected it was him.

a reply to: Kharron

No Trump should not go after anyone to force them to release the names of sources. Sadly both parties are for it when it hurts the other and against it when it hurts them.

The Obama Administration went into dangerous territory in it's attempt to control the media. Likely the worst in history.

Source

On May 17, 2013, the Washington Post reported the Justice Department had monitored reporter Rosen's activities by tracking his visits to the State Department, through phone traces, timing of calls and his personal emails in a probe regarding possible news leaks of classified information in 2009 about North Korea.[8] In obtaining the warrants, they labeled Rosen a "possible co-conspirator" with Stephen Kim.[9][10]

In a written statement, the Justice Department said it had followed “all applicable laws, regulations, and longstanding Department of Justice policies intended to safeguard the First Amendment interests of the press in reporting the news and the public in receiving it.”[8]

Some analysts have described the Justice Department's actions as "aggressive investigative methods"[11][12] that have a chilling effect on news organizations' ability to play a watchdog role. Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano commented: "This is the first time that the federal government has moved to this level of taking ordinary, reasonable, traditional, lawful reporter skills and claiming they constitute criminal behavior."[13]

An editorial board of the New York Times wrote: "With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible 'co-conspirator' in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news."[14]

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post stated: "The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of. To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based."[15]

a reply to: Blaine91555

Agreed. The Obama administration was just another in a series. It was almost an extension of the Bush administration and it advanced such things as the surveillance of Americans, retaliating against leakers and so on.

But, would you be surprised to see the President demand this?

We all know it's not a good thing, I called it crazy in the OP, but can you see it happening?

a reply to: Kharron

Actually I would be surprised a bit and I don't expect it. He might call for them to release it, obviously he has, but to force them to do it no. I could be wrong of course, I'd hope not and I'd hope that is never in the cards in the future.

What media does should be driven by their readers, not by any form of government control. The First Amendment is the most important of all and I'm personally sickened by how that has fallen by the wayside. Attempts from both parties to control speech and the media is scary. Both deny doing it, both do it.

I would not call Trump crazy anymore than I would have called Obama crazy when he was clearly throwing the Constitution under the bus. He did not get away with it and I suspect Trump won't try. Even the NYT's broke ranks with Obama and Trump would get the same and I hope he knows that.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Kharron
Now, this would be completely insane for a president to ask his staff, but it would be a way to out the writer. I thought about this today as I was reading that Bob Woodward was also a suspect for the letter, ahead of his book being released on Tuesday.

And I was thinking -- why doesn't Woodward just say: "I publicly give permission to the New York Times to release my name as the author, if in fact I am the author."

The Times knows who gave them the letter. If they had permission to release that, they would. It's an easy way to clear your name.

And then I thought -- why don't the cabinet members in the administration do the same thing? Why doesn't each one give their permission for the Times to release their name?

Why doesn't Trump, in his fits of anger, demand that they do? Does he realize this would be crazy or has he simply not thought of it yet?

What do all you fine people think: is this something the President should demand? Would it be seen as dictatorial?

Trump can demand this all he likes but the Constitution protects such sources (as you might see from many cases about "anonymous whistleblowers" stretching far back into history.) He can't demand a loyalty oath as part of being president, much as he'd like it. He can't force the identity of this person to be revealed -- again, as legal cases involving anonymous whistleblowers have shown.

If Anonymous (who seems to have a better grasp of the constitution and the processes of government) does not want to reveal themselves yet, then they are protected by our laws.

Anonymous (and the majority of Trump haters) have yet to realize the op-ed has as much weight/validity as the name of the writer.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Agreed. Thanks for commenting.

And thanks for the quote from NYTimes. It sort of gives them a bit more credibility in this that they are impartial. They most likely printed what they thought was important and it's probably well sourced -- we'll see. They had an issue with Obama over the same things.

a reply to: Onlyyouknow

wow thats a big shark to jump.
I dont see any of the people working in the white house resorting to murder.
Sorry I just dont.

a reply to: Kharron

Why doesn't Trump, in his fits of anger, demand that they do? Does he realize this would be crazy or has he simply not thought of it yet?

Maybe he did. From recent events it doesn’t sound like anyone is listening to him. And if the person is someone close to him do you really think they’re going to help out themselves?

I do not think that trump will do this. If his lawyers are smart and he is advised by people he trusts and he listens to them they will tell him that he cannot violate the first amendment.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Onlyyouknow

wow thats a big shark to jump.
I dont see any of the people working in the white house resorting to murder.
Sorry I just dont.

This situation is very serious, and to my knowledge unheard of. I cannot remember a time when an Op-ed has been written by a senior group within the President's administration that is openly stating that they are working against his agenda? It is not a far stretch to believe that they may pull off the ultimate betrayal to the voting public!

a reply to: Kharron

Well, Bob isn't apart of the Trump administration so that theory is shut down.

Now the NYT's has verified that the writer works for Trump. Of course, conservatives will cry Fake News because they're sheep but Trump believes the NYT's and wants to polygraph his entire administration. Oh the irony of a pathological liar wanting his people to take a polygraph!