I’ve gotta say, if you were really concerned about protecting the country from an erratic Trump—rather than, say, trying to pre-salvage your post-administration reputation—you probably wouldn’t write something like this given its predictable consequences. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @normative
Seems awfully fishy, but would the NYTimes print this if they didn't have solid knowledge of the source?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sirfoodalot
Of course not; I’m not questioning that the writer really is a senior admin official. I’m suggesting that the motive for writing something like this is more likely to be reputational damage control, because it doesn’t make a ton of sense to publish this now otherwise.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
One argument I suspect the publisher of this piece would make, is that it's also internal signalling. With the backstabbyness of this WH, it's hard to know who the fellow "concerned" SAOs are. This is signalling to others that they should resist, without them knowing SAO's name.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.