New York Times Presumes to Know Better Than Electoral College [OPINION]
On Wednesday afternoon, the New York Times released an opinion editorial essay allegedly written by someone who is a senior official currently working in the White House.
The New York Times will not say which official it is, and without approaching the White House to get their side of the story, published the blockbuster, unprecedented attack on President Trump for the entire world to see. The writer depicts an impulsive, reckless, indecisive president who, without the writer and others in the White House, would have committed horrible acts around the country and the world.
The writer tells the world that Donald J. Trump must not be the President of the United States. The New York Times decided to give the writer the platform of its international reach to make the declaration.
Frankly, I'm left to wonder, who the %$!@ is the New York Times to presume to harbor and endorse this person's perspective? Especially to the point where the paper has decided for America that, whoever this person is, his or her wisdom, his or her decision making process and his or her knowledge is to be preferred over the elected Donald Trump.
Basically the premise is that any one should be in the Oval Office over Donald J. Trump. How else should America take this shot fired from this person and the newspaper?
I can respect the paper's duty to protect the identity once that condition was promised, but to grant the platform without first speaking to anyone representing the subject, Donald Trump, is yellow journalism. It's a sucker punch thrown from the dark. Kind of Antifa's style.
The New York Times is presuming to have the right to undermine the will of the American Electoral College. We the people collectively installed Donald J. Trump to be the 45th President of the United States. And now the NY Times, and of course now the Democratic Party and mainstream media, is parroting the thought that this person, anonymous or not, whoever it is, is to be entrusted to be the arbitrator of what is right and wrong in the Executive Branch of our Republic.
This is heresy. It is madness. I am presuming that this is not being coordinated between the Democratic Party and the New York Times. I am assuming the paper's statement is truthful that only Jim Dao, the paper's opinion/editorial editor, knows the identity of the author.
Let me ask the reader these questions: How do we know the mental health of the wannabe "Brutus?" How does Dao know the mental health status of this person? How do we know this official is not alerting us to a serious concern, but is being coerced to do this to divide the nation and topple the presidency as someone compromised by a foreign state--or even a domestic enemy--of Donald Trump?
How does Dao know this is not the case? Who exactly is Jim Dao? Should the NSA get involved here to see if he, too, has been compromised in any way?
This is uncharted territory, folks.
The fact that elected Democrats, serious people in serious positions in government, are willing to cede this kind of power to a newspaper and an anonymous author is extremely disturbing.
If the situation is to be believed, the threat of the president's mental condition called for a proverbial dagger in the back by this "patriot." Yet, it's not so desperate to the point that this person feels strongly enough to make it more credible by forfeiting their salary and position in the White House by putting their name to it. The Times said it was withholding the author’s identity because the writer’s “job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.” Some gave all, and some gave it "that old college try."
Forgive me for being uninspired by the sense of duty and priorities of the writer. This information is amplified and given far more credibility with a confirmed identity.
I have come to expect this kind of opportunistic childish, vindictive support for something like this by some in the media. Clearly, none of them are supposed to know who the author is, and journalists are supposed to proceed with caution with anonymous sources. Not in this case. Democrat supporters were all in, both feet in the water, ready to believe before the ink dried in New York.
People like conservative contrarian Rachel Maddow on MSNBC or the predictable Trump antagonists Jim Acosta or Don Lemon on CNN, the Washington Post and others can be expected to stoke the fires. But actual U.S. Senators and House members like Senator Elizabeth Warren are so impulsively, so recklessly ill equipped to utter it.
Yet they are openly ready to support this unknown individual and begin the 25th Amendment process based on this input from the shadows, that it has become a serious threat to the foundation of the nation. Question their judgement!
If this information by the author in the New York Times is all true, then the entire White House Staff needs to collectively step forward as patriots and agree to it. If this is anything else, Elizabeth Warren and the New York Times are finished as serious thinkers in politics.
If it is anything else besides a true concern coming from someone with the perspective of a White House senior official desperate to expose a nutjob president, you'd better pick a side, because it could get as ugly as the 1850's in Washington.
And we all know what happened in the 1860's.
Ken Pittman is the host of The Ken Pittman Show on 1420 WBSM New Bedford. He can be heard Saturdays from 9 a.m. to noon. Contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org and follow him on Twitter @RadioKenPittman. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.