Quantcast
Connect with us

‘Trump will hear from me’: Anonymous White House insider vows to reveal identity before 2020 election

Published

on

“Trump will hear from me, in my own name, before the 2020 election,” proclaimed an author who claimed to be the anonymous insider who penned an infamous 2018 New York Times op-ed, as well as the new anti-Trump book, A Warning.

The “senior Trump administration official,” who made the statement as part of a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” session on Tuesday, also gave a passionate defense of the right to remain anonymous.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Anonymity has a long tradition in American politics, as far back as the birth of our Republic,” the anonymous author wrote. “I will not keep my identity shrouded in secrecy forever. I am not afraid to use my own name to express concern about the current occupant of the Oval Office. Donald Trump has not heard the last of me. There is more to come.”

Two weeks ago, leaked excerpts from the author’s new book, A Warning, included some jaw-dropping revelations.

“All I can tell you is that normal people who spend any time with Donald Trump are uncomfortable by what they witness. He stumbles, slurs, gets confused, is easily irritated, and has trouble synthesizing information, not occasionally but with regularity. Those who would claim otherwise are lying to themselves or to the country.”

“Senior Trump administration officials considered resigning en masse last year in a “midnight self-massacre” to sound a public alarm about President Trump’s conduct, but rejected the idea because they believed it would further destabilize an already teetering government…”

You can read the entire Reddit AMA here.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Catholic leaders promised transparency about child abuse — but they haven’t delivered

Published

on

It took 40 years and three bouts of cancer for Larry Giacalone to report his claim of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a Boston priest named Richard Donahue.

Giacalone sued Donahue in 2017, alleging the priest molested him in 1976, when Giacalone was 12 and Donahue was serving at Sacred Heart Parish. The lawsuit never went to trial, but a compensation program set up by the archdiocese concluded that Giacalone “suffered physical injuries and emotional injuries as a result of physical abuse” and directed the archdiocese to pay him $73,000.

Even after the claim was settled and the compensation paid in February 2019, however, the archdiocese didn’t publish Donahue’s name on its list of accused priests. Nor did it three months later when Giacalone’s lawyer, Mitchell Garabedian, criticized the church publicly for not adding Donahue’s name to the list.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Mike Pompeo’s behavior is straight out of Nixon VP’s playbook: historians

Published

on

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s expletive-laden dust-up with NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly is on message for the Trump-led Republican Party. Complaining that Kelly’s question about Ukraine was “another example of how unhinged the media has become in its quest to hurt President Trump and this Administration,” Pompeo has rallied the Republican base by slamming a journalist doing her job.

Whether he knows it or not, Pompeo is drawing from a playbook written a half century ago and perfected by a politician once voted the worst vice president in American history. Secretary Mike Pompeo, meet Vice President Spiro Agnew.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

‘Our chances of ever exiting the nightmare are shrinking’: Paul Krugman explains how the GOP is getting worse

Published

on

It is a great detriment to civil discourse that the divide between left and right in the United States is often depicted as being purely cultural — as if one’s politics were solely mediated by aesthetics, such as whether one prefers shooting guns or drinking lattes. This fabulist understanding of politics is harmful inasmuch as it masks the real social effects of the policy agendas pushed by left versus right. Seeing politics as aesthetic transforms what should be a quantitative debate — with statistics and numbers about taxation and public policy, questions of who benefits more or less from policy changes — and devolves it into a rhetorical debate over values.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image