If you missed the lead up to this, George Conway went on Twitter earlier in the day and said that he had had a wonderful phone conversation with the entity known only as “Anonymous” and said that the person would be sharing lots and lots very soon. Jake Tapper apparently spoke with the same individual […]
Cue the Pink Panther music, and turn up the midnight oil, “Anonymous” — the White House staffer who penned the scorching editorial in the New York Times and the book, “A Warning” — may have finally been outed by the Trump administration. Now the lead detective on this case will make Inspector Clouseau seem like Hercule Poirot on steroids. Would you believe Peter Navarro, Trump’s painfully inept and embarrassing economic adviser — whom he calls “My Peter?” And Navarro is just one of a team of staffers that have taken it upon themselves to rout out this snake in their grass — and bear in mind, Trump says, he’s “surrounded by snakes” which is his pet name for Never Trumpers. Nobody is safe in Trumpworld, least of all Anonymous. Read this brief back story on the atmosphere in the White House these days and then we’ll get to today’s headline of the deputy national security adviser who’s head is rolling — at least as far as the Department of Energy. Daily Beast: Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2018 That view has inspired the West Wing’s efforts this month to purge the White House of perceived subversives, such as Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified to Congress about Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president. Vindman is not suspected of being Anonymous, but was removed from his NSC post last week in retaliation for his (legally mandatory) testimony before a House panel investigating conduct that led to the president’s impeachment. It’s not clear whether Anonymous actually remains in an administration post, or has moved on. Reporting since his or her Times column has floated a variety of potential culprits. Every administration official who’s been asked has denied being Anonymous. But then that’s what Anonymous said he or she would do. “For now,” the person wrote in A Warning, “if asked, I will strenuously deny I am the author of this book, including when the president demands we each disavow it.” Ooooh, wicked. King Donald doesn’t like that attitude, I’ll warrant. This is what the rack and thumb screws are for. So today, either Anonymous was unmasked, or at least a scapegoat was found and in this political climate, that is the direction we’re going, make no mistake. Either way, deputy national security adviser Victoria Coates is set to be removed from the National Security Council and moved to the Department of Energy because word on the street is she might be Anonymous. Axios: Why it matters: Coates’ working relationship with National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien, who elevated her to the deputy role only months ago, has strained amid an effort by some people inside the administration to tag her as “Anonymous” — a charge she has vehemently denied to colleagues. […] Driving the news: As Politico first reported, Coates has been the target of a whisper campaign in recent weeks making a circumstantial case that she was the identity behind an op-ed in the New York Times and later a bestselling book describing a resistance movement against President Trump in his own White House. One of the literary agents […]
Trump’s presidency has been littered by explosive revelations, especially so of late. Not a single one of those explosive revelations definitively proved that Trump was a knowing Russian asset. However, not a single one of those explosive revelations ever once cast doubt upon the Trump-Russia connection. Not a single revelation ever demonstrated that Trump “argued” with Putin, or “angered” the Russians, or did anything other than blindly adhere to Russian orthodoxy with respect to global issues. Not one revelation. Lacking clear evidence that Trump is a Russian agent, we must continue to make inferences to establish what we know must be true. In my opinion, the clearest evidence we have that Trump is controlled by Russians relates to his derision for, or disdain of, NATO. Simply put, no American bearing even the most pedestrian familiarity with international affairs is “anti-NATO.” In fact, NATO is so central to U.S. security and interests that the only people who have a problem with NATO come from Russia, the country NATO was established to thwart. But Trump has a problem with NATO. Trump has a bigger problem with NATO than we knew even to this point. According to Newsweek, the book “A Warning” by “Anonymous,” contains an entire chapter dedicated to the terror shared by those in the diplomatic community that Trump will pull us out of NATO, or effectively destroy NATO. Per Newsweek’s story: According to Anonymous, Trump “has repeatedly astounded advisors” by suggesting he wishes to withdraw from NATO, which is underpinned by American money and military might. The president tells us we are ‘getting raped’ because other countries are spending far less to be a part of it, adding that the organization is ‘obsolete,'” Anonymous explained. The very fact that Russia detests NATO and wants it dissolved is proof positive that the organization is not “obsolete.” The only people who would view NATO as “obsolete” are the people who want to team-up with Russia in world affairs, which describes both Trump and, increasingly, the Republican party generally. Indeed, last year’s NATO summit was consumed by Trump’s attacks on fellow leaders and demands to address “burden sharing.” A minority of NATO’s members are currently fulfilling the commitment to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense—agreed at the 2014 summit in the U.K.—much to Trump’s frustration. Trump is actually not “frustrated” by the lack of “burden sharing,” indeed, the lack of “burden sharing” has actually been a net positive for the United States. It allowed the U.S. to have near exclusive control NATO’s policy and configuration. Because the United States bore the greatest percentage and overall commitment, the U.S. dictated many of the terms by which NATO operated, including operating U.S. military bases on foreign lands, something that would otherwise be impossible were it not for our disproportionate commitment. No, Trump is not bothered by “burden sharing,” it is simply something he can talk about as justification for weakening NATO. The point, of course, is that not a single sane American ever believed that destabilizing our NATO partners was in the U.S. interests. Yet Trump somehow came up with such thoughts as one of his few core “principles.” Trump has precious few core principles by which he governs, yet this is damn sure one of them. Where could this principle possibly have come […]
A little over a year ago, someone naming themselves “Anonymous” penned an op-ed to the New York Times, in which he/she related that the Trump administration was in fact every bit as ape shit and unstable on the inside as it appeared on the outside. The author went on to reassure the country at large that all was not lost, because “The Resistance” was on the clock. No, not The Resistance that was busy trying to restore a Democratic majority, but a loose group of senior Trump appointees that were quietly and under the radar doing everything in their power to short circuit Trump’s more dangerous and destructive impulses. You probably recall that missive. And you also probably recall that it set off a near hysterical grand inquisition within the White House, with His Lowness raging against both the author as well as the concept of a group of his own appointees and employees actively working to subvert his authority. In its hysteria, it almost began to appear as a parody of Mel Brooks’ History of the World Part I, with Trump stomping around in a long, hooded red silk robe, brandishing a pair of thumb screws. The search went on for weeks with no result. That was then, and this is now. A year later, and the same person has penned an entire book titled Warning by Anonymous. It is ready to hit the stands within a couple of weeks, and who else but Rachel Maddow obtained a series of lengthy excerpts from the book. The general tone of the excerpts is decidedly darker than the original op-ed, which tried to offer confidence to the American people that the matter was well in hand, and The Resistance had control. The new book implies that this may no longer be the case, and rues the departures of people like Rex Tillerson, John Kelly, and James Mattis. But it’s the actual content and graphic descriptions of real situations and events in the White House that is going to make Trump, as I put it in the title, lose his shit. The book doesn’t present the President of the United States as childish, it presents him as infantile. A long excerpt goes into the difficulty of briefing the new President, with aides being advised that 50 pages was far too long, make it no more than 10 pages. Then, to make sure that there were plenty of pictures and graphics. Then to make sure there were no more than 3 topics. Then to revert to nothing more than power point slides, since Trump won’t read. Then to limit the number of power points to a bare minimum. Finally, the consensus was reached that the solution was to take in one issue and point, then to hammer that home, regardless of the number of times his feeble mind wandered, until the point got driven home. Trump’s obsession with graphics presented its own problems. Trump would latch on to a graphic he absolutely adored, often without necessarily even comprehending the issue that the graphic represented, and then excitedly show it to visitors for hours or even days, without providing any context as to what it was supposed to be, leaving people wondering what the hell he was yammering on about. During tensions with Iran, somebody came up with […]
Liked it? Take a second to support Community last on Patreon!
Sometimes people in Washington get it plain wrong!
If conservatives support police killing citizens without justification, climate denial, fact denial, science denial, racist and misogynistic behavior, or a litany of other absurd points of view about numerous important issues, we call them out.