Question about NYT Op-Ed

I have a question...

IF the author of the Op-Ed is in fact a “senior official,” isn’t the Op-Ed an official document that needs to be catalogued by the government for records? And if this is the case, the identity of the author would then need to be confirmed, whether the president says so, or not?

Seems to me, BECAUSE the anonymous author claimed to be a “senior official,” and the NYT chose to publish it (not just using an unidentified source), I would think the NYT LEGALLY has to cooperate...

I could be way off base, which is why I’m asking.

a reply to: japhrimu

They would claim they are protecting the anonymity of their source. It's a journalistic thing.

a reply to: ketsuko


In my opinion that goes out the window when that person is usurping an elected POTUS and effectively implementing a Coup, Hell, even Bob Woodward called it an "administrative coup" That is treason and said source should be forced to be revealed. But we have an impotent Attorney General and the only thing the DOJ seems to be interested in is Trump

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: ketsuko


In my opinion that goes out the window when that person is usurping an elected POTUS and effectively implementing a Coup, Hell, even Bob Woodward called it an "administrative coup" That is treason and said source should be forced to be revealed. But we have an impotent Attorney General and the only thing the DOJ seems to be interested in is Trump

I agree with you, but that doesn't change what the NYT would say about it, and you know it.

a reply to: ketsuko


Yeah I know, then they need to start an investigation and charge the editor with obstruction of justice and arrest him until he sees fit to reveal

a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah, but also, (in theory) you can’t be messing with the Government’s record keeping, especially at such a high level... And this wasn’t just a anon sourced tip, off the record. A (supposedly) “senior official” published a full document.

what really bothers me in this whole thing. is that if it is indeed true. we have a person that is openly admitting to interfering with the government. specifically taking it upon themselves to usurp authority the President. and if such a person is taking things off of the President's desk, what is stopping them from adding what they want? in fact could even be providing the President with misinformation in this way. this if true actually goes far beyond treason. this person could easily be a danger to the entire world, and not just the US, due to the possible actions they could be taking.

a reply to: norhoc

In my opinion that goes out the window when that person is usurping an elected POTUS and effectively implementing a Coup, Hell, even Bob Woodward called it an "administrative coup" That is treason and said source should be forced to be revealed.

Treason? Who is the enemy that is being aided and comforted by this op-ed piece?

a reply to: japhrimu


The op-ed wasn't an official government memo, at the time. But, it is now, and you can be sure that it's recorded in the archives.

What is the crime.

This resistance has been in every admin i can think of.

Many call it politics but when one group decides to punish people for being partisan then we have a problem.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

We'd need to know who he is and what he's done to determine that.

a reply to: howtonhawky

When has a resistance ever done this to what is on the President's desk?

a reply to: norhoc

How is it treason if they are doing it for America and announcing their plans? They are not forcefully removing trump, and talks of removal rest on legal action.

Is talking to journalist about non-classified behaviors in the White House treason?

I don't think so and I believe journalism is on the line. Journalist should have the right to protect their sources. We can't just break this integrity because we think the behavior of said source is distasteful.

a reply to: Sookiechacha


You need to look up the definition of treason, no enemy needs to be involved, see below. I would say stealing documents from the Oval Office desk is a betrayal of trust.

Definition of treason
1
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2
: the betrayal of a trust : treachery

www.merriam-webster.com...

double post

Doesn't matter because the "op-ed" was sponsored by the DNC as a campaign tactic and "written" by a professional PR firm.

Unless of course, it was plagiarized (or bought off) from somebody else.

The Autumn Witch of November is weeks away !!

💥tik😃😃tok💥

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Sookiechacha


You need to look up the definition of treason, no enemy needs to be involved, see below. I would say stealing documents from the Oval Office desk is a betrayal of trust.

Definition of treason
1
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
2
: the betrayal of a trust : treachery

www.merriam-webster.com...

There is a difference between laws and dictionary definitions.

a reply to: blueman12


See my response with a link to the definition of treason. It amazes me how many people don't know what treason is. This is not just talking to journalists as you claim, it is stealing documents from the president that the American people elected and usurping him. And you can't use that claim that this person believed they are doing what they are doing for the "good of the country" so it is ok. Hitler thought what he was doing was for the "good of Germany", Hussein thought what he was doing was for the "good of Iraq" To say it is excusable because you believe it is for the "good of the country " is not a path to go down because who is the arbiter of what is good for the country? The answer should be the voters, and we voted him in, if you don't like what a president is doing then win elections and vote him out that is how it works in this country, not by a coup, that is what makes us different than third world banana republics.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: norhoc

In my opinion that goes out the window when that person is usurping an elected POTUS and effectively implementing a Coup, Hell, even Bob Woodward called it an "administrative coup" That is treason and said source should be forced to be revealed.

Treason? Who is the enemy that is being aided and comforted by this op-ed piece?

perhaps I'm wrong, but wouldn't the group of senior officials inside the white house who are subverting en elected President be considered domestic enemies based on that silly rag our nation was built on? I mean, I get that you folks don't think it's an important document, or it means anything, but if we are to go though the games of voting and pretending to be somewhat organized, I'd think those in control could pretend to care about it.

a reply to: CriticalStinker


So now according to you definitions of words that don't suit your agenda or beliefs don't matter? Got it.