Drudge labels official in anonymous NYT op-ed a White House ‘saboteur’
Granting anonymity to a source is one thing. Granting anonymity to an op-ed contributor is a whole different ball of wax. https://t.co/CUMvu2T1wl
— Jon Ostrower (@jonostrower) September 5, 2018
Also what better way for the NYT to give him his “Deep State” talking point. Great work team.
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) September 5, 2018
Yeah, publishing anonymous op-eds won’t embolden the “fake news” complaint crowd AT ALL
— Kevin Madden (@KevinMaddenDC) September 5, 2018
RE: the NYT anonymous editorial. The federal government always has been honeycombed with officials resistant to this and all GOP administrations. They are government workers and nearly all Democrats. And don’t be misled by the words “senior officials.” There are loads of them.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) September 5, 2018
If this is true, is the goal of this op-ed to trigger a massive purge of those restraining Trump? Because that’s what will happen. Idiocy. https://t.co/v109YQanKW
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) September 5, 2018
So basically: Times reporters now must try to unearth the identity of an author that our colleagues in Opinion have sworn to protect with anonymity? https://t.co/wj2nKmDHz9
— jodikantor (@jodikantor) September 5, 2018
Or is the entire newspaper bound by the promise of anonymity? I don’t think so, but this is fascinating. Not sure if there’s precedent.
— jodikantor (@jodikantor) September 5, 2018
“NYT tweet suggests the anonymous senior admin official is a man — ‘he,'” she tweeted.
NYT tweet suggests the anonymous senior admin official is a man — “he.”
The official complains Trump “engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions.” https://t.co/HsNLRTCK5d pic.twitter.com/6GRD4Lbdbn
— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) September 5, 2018
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Regular the hill posts