I can't be the only one who believes that the leak ...

[11 Bravo]

of Rod Rosenstein's alleged comments could conceivably been engineered by a Trump supporter, in an attempt to provide cover for the firing of the deputy AG; all with the express intent of precipitating the eventual torpedoing of the Mueller investigation.

This absolutely reeks of slimy Republican rat-fuckery.

[samnsara]

1. squirrel!

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. It will be used to fire him, for sure

[scheming daemons]

3. There are literally a half-dozen threads on here that agree with you.

[elleng]

4. Of course, but why PUBLISH it?

[kairos12]

24. They are the Paper of Record that bought Cheney's lies about the Iraq war

and wouldn't let go of Hillary's emails.

[dalton99a]

48. +1. They had no problem peddling Hillary's server story after their bullshit apology on Iraq

[Chemisse]

25. Hopefully because they don't pick stories based on a political end game.

Rather on scooping others, selling lots of papers, and being known for edgy content.

I'm probably intentionally naive about it, but I hate the idea of journalists and editors seeking to fulfill political agendas.

[elleng]

30. A journalist friend answered my question by saying they did their job,

and that may be the correct answer. I do wish they'd have not done it, for whatever reason.

[dalton99a]

49. Deja vu

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html
The Times and Iraq
MAY 26, 2004

Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper.

[Strelnikov_]

5. No, you are not.

'Fake News' outlets are also secondary targets of this OP.

[BigmanPigman]

6. Don Jr probably did it.

[sheshe2]

12. It has juniors fingerprints all over it.

[empedocles]

7. Common maneuver.

Especially with WH having such access to all sorts of information.

I also suspect some trump ally was advising on the tariff maneuvers timing, creating as someone here noted, a buying panic before the tariffs kick in, kicking up the stock markets, just before the November judgement day.

[rzemanfl]

8. Rat fuckery indeed. I was in the gym when the scroll popped up on CNN. I could barely

see it and had no headphones, but rat fucking was my first thought.

[LakeArenal]

9. Everything the GEE O PEE does reeks of Republican ratfuckery.

[Midnight Writer]

10. C'mon. Failing New York Times publishes a story with anonymous sources? Who will believe this?

President Trump has already exposed how the Fake News works.

[manor321]

11. Of course

The NYT article is 100% pure shit.

[Cha]

13. No, you're not..

Link to tweet

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11161786

[Demsrule86]

14. It is Trump.

[janx]

15. You are certainly not.

Link to tweet

[janx]

16. It is being used already.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[cornball 24]

17. You are not alone! Elementary, dear Bravo!

[lamp_shade]

18. Schmidt is getting CRUCIFIED on his twitter feed. I just read about 50

replies... not one of them supporting him.

https://twitter.com/nytmike

[shraby]

19. My first thought....and my last.

[CatMor]

20. Probably engineered by trump himself ...

remember he's always been his own PR man when it comes down to getting in the news.

[rurallib]

21. Stinks to high heaven, but you can bet his followers believe

and the media will flaunt it like a flag in battle.

I think the possibility this is true are about 0.

[Chemisse]

28. I think it's probably true.

But it is likely that he was being sarcastic, as suggested by many who know him.

[MBS]

22. Charlie Pierce:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23365935/new-york-times-rod-rosenstein-25th-amendment-donald-trump/

On the whole, The New York Times is an essential publication. On occasion, however, it gets played like a $5 fiddle. Friday was one of those days. . . If you were a mendacious, criminal president* with a lot to cover up and the walls closing in from all sides, isn't this exactly the story you'd want out there as an excuse to fire Rod Rosenstein and then appoint someone who would fire Robert Mueller? Isn't this exactly the kind of story that you would want out there in order to superheat the boilers of paranoia that drive your base, especially on the same day that you walked back your promise to feed the base declassified parchments from the Illuminati who run The Deep State? Isn't this exactly the kind of story you would want out there on the day the news breaks that your old personal lawyer is talking to Mueller's people about your campaign, and Russia, and god alone knows what else?

I mean, the only direct quote from any human being in this story is Rosenstein's denial. (Oh, and some quotes from the president* from a while back.) And "the people were briefed...on memos written by FBI officials" isn't sourcing. It's a game of telephone.

Isn't this exactly the kind of story you would want for Christmas, your birthday, or one of your several wedding anniversaries? In addition, Rod Rosenstein may be a "senior named official," but he doesn't have fck-all to do with the 25th amendment. That's only for Cabinet members and members of Congress. Why not ask the pastry chef, and, if he mentions the 25th, then attribute it to a "White House source close to the president*"? Holy hell, it isn't usually this obvious.. . .

There is some seriously wicked maneuvering going on here and it will come to a bad end.

[calimary]

50. It wouldn't be the first time Michael S. Schmidt got played like that.

He ran with a story about Hillary facing possible criminal charges in the Benghazi inquisition after getting a “tip” from a “source” (probably Trey Gowdy trying to plant dirt). And he ran straight to the front page with blaring headlines about Hillary facing possible criminal charges. Turned out to be more of the same attempted smears she’s faced for decades - yet another nothingburger. There was NOTHING to it. Beyond wishful thinking-out-loud by a republi-CON Hillary hater. And there was literally NOTHING to it.

NYTimes had to run a retraction. And Michael S. Schmidt wasn’t seen on the front page for awhile.

[Stonepounder]

55. I said "...he is a usually reliable source".

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Schmidt

Michael S. Schmidt (born September 1983) is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, correspondent for The New York Times in Washington, D.C.[1] and national security contributor for MSNBC and NBC News. He covers national security and federal law enforcement and has broken several high-profile stories.[2] Among the stories was the existence of Hillary Clinton's private email account. He won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking the news that President Trump had asked the F.B.I. director James B. Comey for a loyalty pledge, and to close the federal investigation into his former national security adviser.[3] That story led the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate President Trump.[4]

Schmidt also broke several stories about doping in baseball. With another reporter at the Times, Schmidt won a Pulitzer Prize for a story about sexual harassment allegations against Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly that led to Fox firing O'Reilly.[5]

I didn't say he was perfect, but you don't win two Pulitzers if you get played too many times.

[watoos]

23. Someone help me,

What are the logistics here for dumping a thread? What happened to the other thread that was discussing this?

Every thread that I get fired up about seems to get dumped.

I guess I have to repeat myself, screw the NY Times, boycott it. It was the NY Times with Judy Miller that got us into the Iraq war. Now, it is the same NY Times that is going to blow up the Mueller/Russia investigation.

Vote the bastards out.

[Honeycombe8]

26. That was my first thought..that it came from/thru the W.H. It was a planted story.

I'm just surprised that the NYT printed it. I think the editor of the NYT has to approve stories that involve high level govt officials, though. This is perplexing.

But I told my bro first off that it had the sound of a story that was set about in motion to provide an excuse to fire Rosenstein. It's a smart plan, so we know it didn't come from Trump. But someone on the Trump team in some way.

Plant a story (leaked from the intel documents that Trump wanted declassified...he decided not to declassify and instead do this as a "leak" ). The story is planted in a news org. that is known for anti-Trump articles, to give it cred.

He now has a basis to order Sessions to fire him. If Sessions doesn't fire him, Sessions either has to quit, or Trump has a legit reason to fire him. And so on down the line.

Trump gets rid of Rosenstein and every one in the AG office who is not a loyalist. When Rosenstein goes, the Mueller investigation goes, also. Either totally, or its cut off by Rosenstein's replacement, so that it in effect no longer exists. No report will be released to the public, either.

[watoos]

32. Don't you remember sweet Judy Miller?

Who approved her article? It was written by Dick Cheney and given to Judy whereupon she published it in the NY Times under her name. OMG, if sweet Judy believes in the mushroom cloud and the mobile missile launcher that was really an ice cream truck, we darn well better invade Iraq. Who approved her WMD article back then? I think she did get fired over that but someone in the NY Times pulled some strings to get her a job at Fox News.

Screw the NY Times.

Michael Schmidt was just on with Tweety and Tweety was so sweet to him. Put Schmidt on with Rachel tonight and then boycott them.

[Honeycombe8]

35. No, I don't remember that. But I'll look it up.

I've sort of been listening to Tweety...I must have missed Michael Schmidt on it. I can watch it on Youtube.

Thanks for the info. That explains how an article like this gets printed. Maybe the editor doesn't approve everything like this. Maybe it depends on who the reporter is.

[triron]

27. I believe.

[Volaris]

29. He can fire anyone he wants.

But I suspect that if he fires Rod without GOOD cause, it will just land him in another obstruction charge.
If he fires MUELLER (or finds some toady dumb enough to do it for him,as he must)...

The rest of the sealed indictments won't stay that way for long. He can't fire the grand jury, and i very much suspect that Mueller isn't stupid enough to stick his head on the block with this kind of case without making sure he's protected from the headmans axe.

He's got his thumb on a dead man's switch; i'd bet good money on it. He gets fired, and ALL the indictments will drop.

[underthematrix]

31. twitter believes it was someone from the Trump camp

[watoos]

33. Putin?

[underthematrix]

37. well I guess saying Trump is the same thing as saying Putin

[brush]

34. And their moles at the New York Times.

[DallasNE]

36. It Also Makes Kavanaugh Page 2

So this absolutely came out of the Whitehouse and I suspect John Kelly.

[LiberalFighter]

39. I wouldn't doubt it. Kelly is scum.

[LiberalFighter]

38. Possibly by someone who will fill Sessions or Rosenstein's position.

[INdemo]

44. Very Good guess

[leftynyc]

54. If that's the case

I think Lindsay Graham did it.

[True Blue American]

64. Lindsey Graham?

He is the suck up.

[marked50]

40. Yes, indeed

[DownriverDem]

41. Of course it does

trump has hinted about firing folks after the midterms. That means Rosenstein, Mueller & Sessons.

[INdemo]

42. Well then why of all the print news jumps on this so quickly?

It seems to me the NYT article was a little premature. The source tells NYT reporter and for me that reporter did not go to great lengths to confirm the story.
The reporter as it was stated on all-in did not give Rosenstein's denial much ink.

I think it is a set up and I think the Deputy is gone and Trump will fire the AG,then Mueller and if this Sex offender gets confirmed Trump is in the clear...the hell with this "Constitutional Crisis ..It wont happen because the SCOTUS will favor Trump Good Guess?

This is a Putin plan and Putin is now calling the shots..Has anyway checked the East Coat since the storm passed for Russian War Ships?

[louis c]

43. I believe it's obvious: It's Andrew McCabe

[Trust Buster]

45. Maybe so but who forced the NYT to publish such a shoddily sourced story ?

[Stonepounder]

46. Could everyone settle down. Turn off your TV.

It the story de'jour and is being repeated on every news show.

Facts:
1. The reporter who broke the story is normally a reliable source.

2. The NYT and the WaPo are the go-to papers of record. The occasionally get one wrong, but when the do they man up and admit it.

3. The DOJ is pushing back against the story.

Personal Opinion:
1. From everything I have seen and heard about Rod Rosenstein he is about as straight arrow as they come.

2. He has been walking a very narrow tightrope since day one of the Mueller investigation.

3. I can easily imagine a spitball meeting in the very early days of the tRump residency b to try and figure out what to do the the wackadoodle in the White House. And people occasionally tossing out totally insane ideas, either out of frustration or as an attempt at humor. (I have been in those kind of meetings where assassination, bombings, and the like; as in "What are we going to do about Customer X? Well, we could just shoot him.&quot

4. Someone very neatly set up the Times reporter over a period of time, feeding him carefully chosen but verifiable leaks so that they became a 'trusted source' and then, when the time was right, fed him this without surrounding context.

[calimary]

53. Please see post 50, farther upthread regarding Facts point 1.

Regarding Facts point 2, sometimes they do admit it when they’ve blown it. Although the correction of one front page above the fold has been known to turn up in a bottom corner of page A23.

I have seen the NYTimes do a public mea culpa in news forums and discussions, and in print, but by the time they do, the proverbial victim (like the truth for example) is long dead, buried, and decaying. And what could have been avoided has been allowed to run amok all over the countryside.

[watoos]

60. Yeah right, the NY Times was the go to paper

for the Bush/Cheney administration too. Funny how sweet Judy Miller was considered a reliable reporter too.

The NY Times was a big reason we invaded Iraq. Now the NY Times may be a big reason that the Mueller investigation gets trashed.

How can people defend an article based on second hand information? Yeah Rosenstein said what do want me to do wear a wire? Does that sound like a serious statement or a sarcastic statement. Only people in the room would know that answer.

Also the suggestion of using the 25th Amendment is stupid. Smart people, like Rosenstein are aware that use of the 25th Amendment was intended for an incapacitated president.

The go to NY Times has given Trump an argument to push that the deep state is against him, that he is righteous in firing Rosenstein and Mueller.

Fuck the NY Times and Michael Schmidt, boycott them.

[True Blue American]

65. I thought WAPO

Contradicted the Times.

[steve2470]

47. on MSNBC, a theory was floated that McCabe is behind this

Supposedly, DOJ is considering indicting him and prosecuting and McCabe wants to take everyone down with him.

I'm more inclined to believe that a Trump-friendly DOJ person went to the NYT and leaked this.

[DallasNE]

69. My Guess Is John Kelly

He has shown himself to be ruthless before and was privy to this event.

I think Kelly did this in exchange for Trump retracting his directive to declassify and release all Russia related documents, which Trump did shortly thereafter.

[Prof.Higgins]

51. NYT fornicates the country, yet again, for a slight boost in profits. Schmidt is Judy Miller dupe

who has the blood of thousands of American soldiers and countless Iraq civilians on her hands for gifting significant credibility to Veep Dick Cheney’s pretexts for the invasion.

Rod Rosenstein’s strong denial of the NYT accusation was, in effect, characterised as a lie by Michael Schmidt on MSNBC tonight. However, other MSNBC panelists are calling out the NYT for being irresponsible. I’m desperately hoping Lawrence O’Donnell will be on air tonight after Rachel Maddox. He invariably provides a reality check.

[watoos]

61. Thank you

for saying clearly what I have trying to say. It's just my opinion, but the NY Times is complicit. Amazing how quickly Michael Schmidt made the cable news shows defending his paper's terrible reporting.

[icaria]

63. News Orgs have a responsibility

Given trump's obsession there will certainly be attempts to manipulate the news and to discredit them. And NYT would be a favorite target for trump.

Hopefully they did not just take the bait, but you're right - the Judy Miller issue makes them suspect.

[moondust]

52. So easy to spread bullshit now.

Without consequences. Pity the future.

[ewagner]

56. I said it before and I'll say it again....

THIS IS TRUMP'S VERSION OF THE REISTAG FIRE!!

It's way, way way too convenient for him and the timing (Manafort, Cohen flipping) is far too coincidental ...

His minions know enough history to know how this works...(I suppose Putin does too)

too much like the chilling history of the 3rd Reich.

[kentuck]

57. You may be right?

I will be surprised if he does not fire Rosenstein as soon as possible.

This is what makes him so dangerous. He conspires and plans to do evil. It is well-thought out before he makes his move.

[ewagner]

58. I suspect...

tRump himself hasn't thought this out...

This looks more like Roger Stone "ratfucking", it's his signature move...but this one has a tint of Stephen Miller in it...it's just all too familiar.

[kentuck]

59. I think they are all kindred souls..

First cousins to Nixon and his Gang.

[watoos]

62. Here's a name that has never been mentioned

and I feel he plays a big role in all of this. Dr. Steve Pieczernik. He is a friend of Stone and Alex Jones. Go to his web site and you will find all of the talking points. One of his very first talking points was that Trump running for president was a counter-coup to Hillary's coup. Check out his site if you can stomach it, I think he is a man behind the curtain.

[Gothmog]

66. The NYT was played for fools

[randr]

68. The NYT has been complicit many times

It was not unusual to print stories covering up illegal activities during the war in Viet Nam.
The last "anonymous" letter leaked out of WH was a prime example.
This is only giving Trump cover for his outlandish rhetoric when out getting his man love from the minions.

[Texin]

67. Ghouliani has dropped from sight recently. Wonder if he had

"friends" within the Bureau (from the NY field office?) spike those allegations. After all, he's been known to do it before.

[janx]

70. Good question. n/t

[dchill]

71. The real headline should be...

New York Times Reporters Punked; Then Double Down

[mahina]

72. Obvious at first glance. No source. Who benefits?

[bitterross]

73. Who are Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt?

Those are the reporters on the byline. Now, I'm going to work to answer my question. Are they partisan hacks like Judith Miller who helped lead us into the Iraq war?

My bet is that they are.

[elias7]

74. But, leaks...

IOIYAR...