I might pick up a copy. Though I will not swim thru the unwashed RESISTANCE to get a copy. When Bush was Pres I purchased books that were critical of him.

Like most things a la "resist!" I do not accept their premise. It is the boy that cried wolf, and all those times we were gonna die, finally there was a wolf and DILLIDGAF.

So because I chose not to VIVA LA RESISTANCE I am therefor ever a Nazi.

Tom Nichols (IMO a good guy & Never Trumper) says the people on the right should vote all Dem so we can get rid of Trump. I then look at the Democrats and Progressives and say NFW am I going to give up my rights and be over legislated by Dems by voting for these people. I will still vote for a moderate Dem but I can't find any right now worth voting for.

I haven't bought any anti-Trump books but this one could be interesting. The best thing right now to save the GOP is to vote dem if you ask me. The Republican party needs a reset.

Nebe - Not believable because A it is from The New York Times and B it is from an anonymous source. If he loved his country he would resign and state all that publicly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For me, not happening. I will vote conservative/moderate Dems if there are any, and they are not reaching further and further left.

Add the Od Ed peace to the puzzle and Donald will need many buckets of chicken to calm him down.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unless it is Kelly... or maybe Ivanka.... I don’t think the NYT would hang this on anyone below an assist deputy, who interacts closely with potus....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hmmmmm
Someday when the truth is told we may find interesting things
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How low can this administration go?

A government photographer edited official pictures of Donald Trump’s inauguration to make the crowd appear bigger following a personal intervention from the president, according to newly released documents.

The photographer cropped out empty space “where the crowd ended” for a new set of pictures requested by Trump on the first morning of his presidency, after he was angered by images showing his audience was smaller than Barack Obama’s in 2009.

Loading...


The detail was revealed in investigative reports released to the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act by the inspector general of the US interior department. They shed new light on the first self-inflicted crisis of Trump’s presidency, when his White House falsely claimed he had attracted the biggest ever inauguration audience.

The records detail a scramble within the National Park Service (NPS) on 21 January 2017 after an early-morning phone call between Trump and the acting NPS director, Michael Reynolds. They also state that Sean Spicer, then White House press secretary, called NPS officials repeatedly that day in pursuit of the more flattering photographs.

Related: Trump's inauguration crowd: Sean Spicer's claims versus the evidence

It was not clear from the records which photographs were edited and whether they were released publicly.

The newly disclosed details were not included in the inspector general’s office’s final report on its inquiry into the saga, which was published in June last year and gave a different account of the NPS photographer’s actions.

By the time Trump spoke on the telephone with Reynolds on the morning after the inauguration, then-and-now pictures of the national mall were circulating online showing that Trump’s crowd fell short of Obama’s. A reporter’s tweet containing one such pair of images was retweeted by the official NPS Twitter account.

An NPS communications official, whose name was redacted in the released files, told investigators that Reynolds called her after speaking with the president and said Trump wanted pictures from the inauguration. She said “she got the impression that President Trump wanted to see pictures that appeared to depict more spectators in the crowd”, and that the images released so far showed “a lot of empty areas”.


a man standing in front of a building: Sean Spicer delivers a statement on 21 January 2017 while a television screen shows a picture of Trump’s inauguration.© Provided by Guardian News Sean Spicer delivers a statement on 21 January 2017 while a television screen shows a picture of Trump’s inauguration.
The communications official said she “assumed” the photographs Trump was requesting “needed to be cropped”, but that Reynolds did not ask for this specifically. She then contacted the NPS photographer who had covered the event the day before.

A second official, from the NPS public affairs department, told investigators that Spicer called her office on the morning of 21 January and asked for pictures that “accurately represented the inauguration crowd size”.

In this official’s view, Spicer’s request amounted to “a request for NPS to provide photographs in which it appeared the inauguration crowd filled the majority of the space in the photograph”. She told investigators that she, too, contacted the NPS photographer to ask for additional shots.

The NPS photographer, whose name was also redacted, told investigators he was contacted by an unidentified official who asked for “any photographs that showed the inauguration crowd sizes”. Having filed 25 photographs on inauguration day, he was asked to go back to his office and “edit a few more” for a second submission.

“He said he edited the inauguration photographs to make them look more symmetrical by cropping out the sky and cropping out the bottom where the crowd ended,” the investigators reported, adding: “He said he did so to show that there had been more of a crowd.”

The investigators said the photographer believed the cropping was what the official “had wanted him to do”, but that the official “had not specifically asked him to crop the photographs to show more of a crowd”.

A summary in the inspector general’s final report said the photographer told investigators “he selected a number of photos, based on his professional judgment, that concentrated on the area of the national mall where most of the crowd was standing”.

Asked to account for the discrepancy, Nancy DiPaolo, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, said the cropping was not mentioned in the final report because the photographer told investigators this was his “standard artistic practice”. But investigators did not note this in the write-up of their interview.
Trump press secretary Sean Spicer slams ‘dishonest’ media for inaugural coverage
The newly released files said Spicer was closely involved in the effort to obtain more favourable photographs. He called Reynolds immediately after the acting director spoke with Trump and then again at 3pm shortly before the new set of photographs was sent to the White House, investigators heard. Another official reported being called by Spicer.

At about 5.40pm that day, Spicer began a now notorious press briefing at the White House in which he falsely stated: “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period.” A spokeswoman for Spicer did not respond to a request for comment.

The inspector general’s inquiry was prompted by a February 2017 complaint through the office’s website, alleging NPS officials tried to undermine Trump and leaked details of Trump’s call with Reynolds to the Washington Post, where it was first reported. The inspector general found no evidence to substantiate the allegations.

The Guardian asked in its June 2017 freedom of information request for the identity of the complainant who sparked the inspector general’s inquiry. But this, and the entire complaint, was redacted in the released documents.

the oped could be a False flag operation from Trumps people to motivate his base prior to the mid terms

It fits his narrative like a glove he has been selling since day 1 (their the dems and all but his base are out to get the Dear leader )

You don't? Because the NYT is just brimming with credibility?

No sane person denies that Trump is...I don't even know how to say it...a morally bankrupt, vindictive, thin skinned, philandering, egomaniacal jerk? Does that cover it?

That said, listening to the NYT is like listening to Sean Hannity.

Liberal=good, conservative=bad, no exceptions, not ever.

There was a NYT columnist on MSNBC 2 weeks ago, who confidently claimed that Trump wanted to round up large numbers of people, and slaughter them. She said that on TV, and the NYT pays her to say what she thinks.

False Flag?

I can't write a letter to the editor of the NYT, without identifying myself. There is a valid reason for that.

There was a politician that was elected by the Republican Party that said on TV and we pay him

"Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?"
“When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water."
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible."
"I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me... I would bomb the sh**t out of them."
"You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard. I would have hit them. No, no. I was going to hit them, I was all set and then I got a call from a highly respected governor... I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy. I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn’t know what the hell happened... I was going to hit a number of those speakers so hard their heads would spin, they’d never recover. And that’s what I did with a lot – that’s why I still don’t have certain people endorsing me: they still haven’t recovered."
"I love the old days, you know? You know what I hate? There's a guy totally disruptive, throwing punches, we're not allowed punch back anymore. ... I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell ya."
"There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees."
"I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe."

Here is the difference, and I will try to go very slowly...
'
Most people, even many on the right, speak out against Trump when he says these things, and when he acts this way. I didn't see anyone here, criticize the NYT for their historical willingness to abandon journalistic principles for political expediency.

I'm not saying Trump is better than the NYT. I'm saying unlike you, I can readily criticize Trump, or anyone on my side, when they deserve it.

That's the difference. Am I going too fast for you?

You need to not believe everything Faux says
You have been conned and you will find out later how bad, just keep believing Trumps gaslighting.
One unnamed reporter does not lead a newspaper.
While you claim that you are capable of criticizing Baby Donnie Bonespurs, you are willing to sacrifice your principles for what you think are gains.
I think if he actually shot Michael Cohen on Fifth Avenue you would accept it, thats just trump, you know what he's like, he said he was going to do it and now he's fulfilled another campaign promise.
I didn't hear a word about his Tweet about how it's unfair that the DOJ indicted two republicans, Republicans were the rule of Law party, Trumplicans certainly are not.

Unlike some, I don't think the NYTs would fall for John Baron

"One unnamed reporter does not lead a newspaper."

True. But all the liberals here, as far as I can see, have bought the story hook line and sinker. And it may well be true. But we don't know, and the paper has no credibility, and I don't say that because of one reporter or one story. The NYT is the exact mirror image of Sean Hannity. Both are equally useless.

"You need to not believe everything Faux says"

Haven't watched much since O-Reilly and Megyn Kelly left. If Brett Baier's show is consistently incorrect, show me the data, please, otherwise it's an empty accusation.

"you are willing to sacrifice your principles for what you think are gains."

I sacrificed nothing. I would never, ever have voted for Trump in the primary. In the general, it was him or Hilary, and that was an easy choice, consistent with my principles.

"for what you think are gains."

I see. So it's just in my head that the market is up, unemployment is down, GDP is up, black unemployment is at an all-time low, and now we see that layoffs are down. It's all in my head when I say those are positives.

Pete, regardless of who is POTUS, I give credit where it's due, and criticism where it's due. I do it with Trump, I did it with Obama. Try it sometime, you might enjoy how honesty actually feels.

" think if he actually shot Michael Cohen on Fifth Avenue you would accept it, thats just trump"

Did you hit your head? When have I ever been a Trump apologist? That's funny. I'm trying to talk with you Pete, but if you can't concede that I'm harshly critical of Trump when he deserves it, then you just aren't rational.

So the op ed isn't believable? Did it really say anything different than what was reported for the last 21 months?

You make a great point, in that even I have accused Trump of most of what I assume is in the article. It's just interesting that you can't submit a simple letter to the editor if it's anonymous, but publishing this is OK. It's OK to quote anonymous sources, this is more than that.

Do you think the NYT would have done this in 2009, if an Obama advisor wrote the same thing anonymously?

Paul, much of the left, it seems (NOT you) have completely left their sanity at the door with this guy.

The difference is that the NYT knows who wrote it and an anonymous letter coming in the door isn't going to be published by any newspaper. They have said that other op eds (I think 2 or 3) have been published in a similiar fashion.

I would hope they would do the same w/Obama but we haven't had a situation like this before - maybe Nixon?

false flag is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility.

He said Attorney General Jeff Sessions "should be investigating who the author of that piece was because I really believe it's national security".

Mr Trump also said he was considering taking action against the newspaper, causing its share price to dip.



No authoritarianism like tendencies from Trump .... love using the national security catch all

I know what a False Flag is, as well as numerous examples in recent and not so recent history where it was used.

I also know it is lead-in #1 in most conspiracies, I don't think you are a conspiracy guy .

I thought a false flag is the name of the pin Trump wears on his blazer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'am not ... but this oped creates more answers then it provides .. and the biggest benefit would be to Trump and his supporters who all ready are convinced the deep state is out to get him.

Many on the left and and right running it up the flag pole as if its the 100% truth as well ... there is no skepticism in any of the reporting from either side it's crazy

That is bad, even for you.

Not as as his approval ratings.

Zing! :hidin:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device