Lichtgeschwindigkeit 8491
am Sonntag, 9. September 2018
.
.
dpa informierte am 7. September 2018 über digitale Manipulation.
.
„…Die Bilder der Zuschauermengen bei Donald Trumps Amtseinführung wurden offenbar manipuliert. Dies gab ein damals vom Weißen Haus beauftragter Fotograf nun zu. Auf Anweisung aus dem Weißen Haus habe er die Mengen dichter wirken lassen.
.
Ein vom Weißen Haus beauftragter Fotograf hat zugegeben, die offiziellen Bilder von der Zuschauermenge bei der Amtseinführung von US-Präsident Donald Trump bearbeitet zu haben. Das berichtete der Sender CNN am Samstag. Über die Größe der Menge hatte es nach der Vereidigungszeremonie im Januar 2017 erhebliche Auseinandersetzungen gegeben. Trumps damaliger Sprecher Sean Spicer hatte erklärt, die Zahl der Zuschauer sei die größte gewesen, die jemals der Vereidigung eines US-Präsidenten beigewohnt habe.
.
Luftbilder zeigten jedoch erhebliche Lücken im Zuschauerbereich auf der Washingtoner Mall. Die offiziellen Bilder des Weißen Hauses waren dagegen so bearbeitet worden, dass die Menge geschlossener aussieht als in der Realität, berichteten mehrere US-Medien, darunter die US-Ausgabe des „Guardian“. Sie berufen sich auf öffentlich gemachte Dokumente des US-Innenministeriums.
.
.
Diese Bilder wurden bereits im Januar 2017 publiziert
.
Die abgebildete Menschenmenge auf der Washingtoner Mall, vor dem Capitol, sollte größer wirken. Trump hatte den Unterlagen zufolge am Morgen nach seiner Amtseinführung, den für die Mall zuständigen National Park Service angerufen. Eine Mitarbeiterin der Kommunikationsabteilung habe dann vom Behördenleiter den Auftrag bekommen, Bilder zu besorgen. Sie habe nicht den Auftrag erhalten, die Menge größer wirken zu lassen. Aber es sei ihr Eindruck gewesen, dass Trump eine möglichst große Menge sehen wollen. Ähnlich äußerte sich der Fotograf, der letztlich Hand anlegte.
.
Der Zwist um die Größe der Zuschauermenge war der erste große öffentliche Disput um die Wahrheitstreue des Weißen Hauses – am ersten Arbeitstag der Regierung von Präsident Trump. „
.
.
Dietmar Moews meint: Zum ABC der politischen Geschichte gehören die Bildmanipulationen aus der frühen Photographiezeit.
.
Klassisches Lehrbeispiel war der Beruf des künstlerischen Retoucheurs, der mit Pinsel und feinster schwarzer Tusche und Deckweiß, bzw. auch mit Kratzwerkzeugen, Kopfhalter (Stangen mit Kinnstütze, auf die ein stehendes oder sitzendes Photomodell das Kinn aufstützen und ruhigstellen konnte – damit die Aufnahme, bei hoher Belichtungsdauer, nicht verwackeln musste) praktisch „ausradiert bzw. übermalt wurden.
.
Aus der Propaganda-Soziologie sind Dokumentations-Photographien bekannt, wo z. B. der sowjetische Despot Josef Stalin inmitten anderer Prominenter abgebildet war, die – nachdem sie von Stalin umgebracht worden waren – auch aus allen Photographien beseitigt wurden. Sie wurden entweder ganz beseitigt oder, wie bei bestimmten Stalin-Photographien eine neben Stalin im Bild platzierte Person auf einem noch vorhandenen Erstabzug erscheint, auf einem retouchierten dann diese Figur ganz fehlt. Stattdessen sieht man an der freigewordenen Stelle im Bild den nachträglich komplettierten Hintergrund, neben Stalin.
.
Diese Geschichtsfälschung in Photodokumenten war in der ganzen Welt gebräuchlich. Nicht nur Bundeskanzler Helmut Kohl ist auf einer Photographie in einer demonstrierenden Menge abgelichtet, sondern ein „Anti-Kohl-Schild“, das ein Demonstrant, hinter Kohl, neben dessen Kopf, hochhielt, fehlte später oder – auch möglich – wurde zusätzlich hineingemalt.
.
Dies ist die banale Manipulation, die die DONALD TRUMP-Inauguration in Washington, Januar 2017, zum 45. US-Präsident am Eingangsbeispiel beweist. Die Mall war nicht überfüllt, wie es bei Barack Obama gewesen war, sondern weil im Osten der USA, speziell auch in Washington, viele Farbige und viele Demokraten-Wähler leben, hatte Obama den riesigen Zulauf, Trump dagegen wurde von Unterklassenleuten im mittleren Westen der USA gewählt, die nicht mal eben zur öffentlichen Vereidigung an die Ostküste nach Washington reisen, um da Spalier zu stehen.
.
Die digitale Technik hat die digitale Bildaufnahme ermöglicht, die eben keine analoge Belichtung einer Photoplatte mehr abbildet. Sondern die Digitalbilder werden aus Tausenden von elektronisch dokumentierten Datenpunkten so fein gespeichert zusammengesetzt, dass daraus für das menschliche Auge eine „Abbildung“ der Dingwelt erscheint. Jedoch wirklich nur die zusammengesetzten Digitalsignale, die zwischen Schwarz und Weiß und allen aufgelösten Farben, in winzigen kleinen Punkten auf dem Bildträger (Papier oder elektronischer Bildschirm) vorhanden sind, vom menschlichen Betrachter als ganzes Bild identifiziert werden kann.
.
Damit ist verständlich, dass jedes Digitalbild eben kein Fußabdruck am Strand im Sand ist, sondern – um im Bild zu bleiben – aus massenhaft wohlverteilten farbigen Sandkörnern zusammengesetzt werden kann. Und was ein analoger Fußabdruck ist, wird gar nicht bildtechnisch aufgenommen, sondern als digital zerlegtes Punktewerk zu einem nur anscheinend analogen Bild zusammen gepixelt.
.
Wenn das analoge Bild also ein physikalisches Abbild der Dingwelt durch Licht ist, so ist ein digitales Bild ein pointilistisches Pixelwerk, das beliebig zusätzlich elektrisch bepixelt – also gefälscht – werden kann, ohne dass man das erkennen könnte (es sei denn ein Augenzeuge, der neben dem Keyboarder gesessen hatte, als dieser pixelte, tritt als Zeuge hinzu).
.
Das bemerkenswerte an digitalen Bildern und auch an sonstigen digitalen Signalen, in Video und Audio oder sonstigen elektrischen Signalübermittlungen, ist, dass das der Mensch. ,z. B das menschliche Auge, eine gemeinte Dingwelt erkennt. Jedoch sind digitale Werke sinnlich arm. Enthalten sie doch die begrenzte Anzahl der zusammengesetzten Datenmenge. Während eine analoge Reproduktion die vollkommene Dingwelt wiedergibt, nur begrenzt durch die Aufnahme- und Wiedergabe Technik sowie durch gute und schlechte Augen und Ohren:
.
Ein lebendig individuell erlebtes Streichquartett hat einen „analogen“ Klangreichtum – eben die menschliche Wirklichkeit – während schon eine analoge Vinylschallplatte klangärmer ist, dagegen eine CD (Compact Discette) meist gar nicht versucht analoge Geräusche wiederzugeben, sondern eine „neue“ synthetische Soundästhetik zu bieten.
.
Im Falle der TRUMP-Manipulation sehen wir aber den banalen FAKE, die Menschheit vor der Geschichte zu täuschen: Trump behauptete, unmittelbar nach seinem Aufritt vor dem Capitol, es seien mehr Menschen da gewesen als bei Obama – die Fernseh-Echtzeitbilder zeigten aber eine lichte Menschenmenge. Jedoch Trump legte in den darauffolgenden Tagen zu diesem Streitpunkt weiter nach – und siehe da – es erschienen digital gepixelte Mall-Abbildungen, brechend voll mit Menschenmassen vor Trump.
.
FAZIT: Jeder hat hiermit den Beweis, dass so ein Digitalbild-Manipulator selbst auch lügen kann – nämlich dass die angeblich gefälschten Bilder die reale analoge Wirklichkeit bei er Inauguration zeigen. Und dagegen die gestern rausgekommenen Trump-digital-Manipulations-Darstellungen die historische Wahrheit dokumentieren könnten.
.
Man weiß das nicht, weil man es nicht beweisen kann.
.
Der Fall beweist keineswegs, „dass es keine Wahrheit gibt“. Er beweist, dass die Menschen betrügen und betrügen können. Besonders, wenn es um digitale Bild – und Tonwerke handelt, genau wie um gefälschte Simulation von angeblichen Aktionen im Internetz, die man nämlich digital verfolgen und beweisen kann – und dieses man ebenfalls digital manipulieren kann.
.
Mein FAZIT zielt also darauf:
.
US-Präsident Trump ist schlauer als seine Opponenten, was die wirkliche Neuigkeit der IT und der KI betrifft. Trump weiß, dass man Alles und Jedes zu FAKE erklären kann, weil man Alles und Jedes nachträglich unwiderlegbar zu FAKE hinmanipulieren kann.
.
Physikalische, also sinnliche KONTROLLE und BEWEISE gibt es nicht.
.
Dagegen sind also jetzt Richter und Staatsanwälte und deren Gutachter völlig im historischen Abseits gelandet, auf deren Expertise bislang Verifikation und Falsifikation forensisch abgestellt werden konnten. Heute können Gutachter lediglich sachlich bezeugen, ob man es mit einem analogen oder einem digitalen Beweisstück oder Zeugnis vor Gericht zu tun hat – ob beim analogen Beweismittel analog etwa manipuliert worden ist (gefälschte Stempel, Fotokopie u. a.) oder ob es sich um ein digitales Beweisstück handelt, das keine Beweiskraft hinsichtlich der gefragten analogen Vorgänge haben kann. Niemand sieht mehr als digitale Punkte (Pixel) – die alle spurlos ausgetauscht oder beseitigt oder geändert werden können.
.
TRUMP hat die FAKE-ZEIT als erster in der obersten Macht- und Vertrauenswelt etabliert: AMERICA FIRST.
.
Ich füge noch weitere Zitate an, die hierzu Aufschluss geben können:
.
New York Times über die Subversionen in und aus dem WEISSEN HAUS, vom 7. September 2018:
.
letters
‘
Anonymous’ vs. Trump: Resistance From Within
.
An Op-Ed by a senior administration official prompted a flood of letters about the writer’s anonymous harsh critique of the president.
,
To the Editor:
.
Re “The Quiet Resistance Inside the Trump Administration” (Op-Ed, Sept. 6):
The New York Times’s publication of an anonymous Op-Ed by a senior official in the Trump administration in this hour of crisis for the nation is of the highest public service. The piece essentially confirmed what many Americans had already feared, that this president is unfit to serve. It is a validation of the work of scores of journalists who, through meticulous reporting, have been raising alarm bells since the early days of Donald Trump’s presidency. It gives credence to the just-released excerpts from Bob Woodward’s book describing revolt inside the Oval Office.
.
But make no mistake. What the writer is describing as a “quiet resistance” is nothing short of a coup in progress. It is a subversion of authority at the top of our government. It is stunning. And it cannot continue.
.
If the instability of this president prompted “early whispers” within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office, one can imagine that those whispers, at this point in time, are reaching the level of screams. Either move forward on that front, or take your concerns to Congress. Make the case for the other available remedy in this calamitous situation: impeachment. It is time.
Felicia Massarsky
Atlantic City
.
To the Editor:
I disagree with essentially all of President Trump’s policies and initiatives, and find his statements on race, immigrants and women (to name a few) abhorrent. However, The New York Times’s publication of an article written by an unnamed White House official is disgraceful. The author of the article remains anonymous, proclaims himself or herself as one of the good guys, and accuses President Trump of being “anti-trade and anti-democratic.”
.
It is not acceptable to engage in personal attacks in an international newspaper while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity. If there is that much concern regarding President Trump and his actions, sign your name to the article and step into the spotlight.
.
Furthermore, The Times should not have published an anonymous hit piece. Its publication plays directly into President Trump’s attacks on the media.
Jonathan Popler
Alpharetta, Ga.
.
To the Editor:
I admire and applaud the writer of this piece. Many political pundits are calling the writer a coward for not revealing himself or herself. I disagree. In the 1970s, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were able to affect American history by using their anonymous source, Deep Throat. The writer of this piece is our Deep Throat. Keep ’em coming.
Rhonda Eisenberg
Baldwin, N.Y.
.
To the Editor:
This Op-Ed is astonishing and reflects a serious and deep transformation of the American political system. It changes the United States from an open democratic dialogue to a conflict of hidden factions, court politics and cabals.
The Op-Ed is both essential and deplorable. The failures of Trumpism must be combated, but an “administrative coup d’état,” Bob Woodward’s phrase, is not how democracies succeed. We succeed through open debate, taking responsibility for our own political fate, free elections and majority rule.
The author of the Op-Ed and his or her colleagues should resign their comfortable positions, hold a national news conference and launch a sustained effort to remove President Trump from office by constitutional means and electoral defeat. That, not hiding in the dark, is how free men and women redeem themselves — and save their country.
Gerald Pomper
Highland Park, N.J.
The writer is a professor of political science at Rutgers University.
.
To the Editor:
President Trump is right: The senior administration official who wrote the anonymous Op-Ed attack on him is indeed “gutless.” If the official and his or her fellow Republicans had any guts at all, the president they purport to resist would be long gone.
Noah Lang
Irvington, N.Y.
.
To the Editor:
In the author’s view, President Trump is so unstable that fundamental aspects of his agenda must be actively subverted by his staff. Nonetheless, the staff is unwilling to invoke the 25th Amendment. He or she cannot have it both ways. If the president is mentally unfit to serve, he needs to be removed. If, on the other hand, the president is capable of performing his duties, the actions taken by the author and his or her accomplices would appear to rise dangerously close to the level of treason.
Greg Chiarella
Albany, Calif.
.
To the Editor:
The anonymous Op-Ed demonstrates exactly why so many Americans voted for Donald Trump: to get rid of the know-it-all, arrogant Washington insiders who are so certain that they have all the answers.
Brad Tupi
Pittsburgh
.
To the Editor:
The anonymous Op-Ed is flabbergasting. In an age of exhausted hyperbolic vernacular, it’s hard to emphasize the genuinely unprecedented moment our Republic finds itself in. When administration officials are trying to limit the damage their boss is doing to the Republic, the message is profoundly disturbing and must be listened to by Trump supporters who care about this country: Donald J. Trump is not only a danger to America but also to the world. Supporting Mr. Trump from this point forward is to be knowingly complicit in the dismantling of our Republic and its place as a beacon of hope for the world. And that’s no hyperbole.
Joe Flanigan
Malibu, Calif.
.
To the Editor:
I am among those who think it was appropriate to publish the anonymous Op-Ed. Any serious attempt to shed light on this dangerous situation should be welcomed, and I hope it will encourage others to speak out, loudly and openly.
Nevertheless, I think the fact that the writer felt the need to act in this way is in itself an argument for the 25th Amendment. If a leader is as erratic as the writer has described, if his staff sees the need to work around him, isn’t that evidence enough that he is impaired and unable to do his job?
Cecilia Martin Ford
East Hampton, N.Y.
.
To the Editor:
I have a problem with the anonymous opinion piece. Mr. or Ms. “Anonymous” and his or her friends in the administration have decided that invoking the 25th Amendment would create a “constitutional crisis,” so instead they have opted to do what they can to “steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.”
What this article implies, if not openly states, is that the country is being run by unelected and unnamed officials — cabinet members and other appointees — who have taken it upon themselves to secretly perform policy interventions against a president they consider to be morally unfit and dangerous to the country, instead of pursuing the legal option of the 25th Amendment. This isn’t “resistance.” This is cowardice. If their actions aren’t illegal, perhaps they should be. They have created the very constitutional crisis that they claim to have averted.
Laura Shapiro
Saugerties, N.Y.
.
To the Editor:
While I agree with many of the sentiments expressed in the anonymous Op-Ed regarding President Trump, that The New York Times would choose to publish it sets a very bad precedent journalistically, regardless of whatever editorial justifications the paper settled upon before giving it the go-ahead.
Given the extraordinarily high-profile nature of The Times’s decision to run such a scathing piece, aren’t the floodgates now open to such unsigned attacks becoming the norm, where anyone lacking the courage of his or her convictions, and with an ax to grind, legitimate or not, can do so with the full imprimatur of national media outlets, including The Times? And, if the answer is no, won’t the president’s supporters reasonably conclude that this was nothing more than an attention-grabbing, below-the-belt stunt to undermine him during a time of particular vulnerability?
Mark Godes
Chelsea, Mass.
.
To the Editor:
Anonymous, I don’t know who you are, and I’m not curious. I read your Op-Ed and it gave me small comfort. On the one hand you pat yourself on the back for being part of a nebulous resistance; with the other you state that you “want the administration to succeed.” You cannot have it both ways.
This nation is at a crisis point. Our leadership is tainted by corruption from the top down. Its citizens need more than “unsung heroes” in the White House. Don’t tell me how to be an American, advising me about “rising above politics, reaching across the aisle.” Those words should be directed at Congress, at a hearing. Whoever you are, I’m glad you got this off your chest. But it’s not nearly enough to rectify things.
Anne Martin
McLean, Va.
.
To the Editor:
Beyond assuring the members of the resistance outside of the White House that they are not alone, perhaps the author wrote this piece in an attempt to address the alienation felt inside an absolute amoral presidency — what a terribly lonely, desperate place to be.
C. Emma Burrous
Burlington, Vt.
.
To the Editor:
I abhor Donald Trump’s politics, his amorality, his thuggish leadership and his weak intellect. However, he is our legitimately elected president. The “senior administration official” who wrote the anonymous Op-Ed was not elected to the presidency.
The “resistance” described in the Op-Ed piece is the wrong approach. I agree that the president cannot be trusted. This official should have the courage to invoke the 25th Amendment, which would be the constitutional solution to his or her concerns.
I want the chaos of the Trump presidency to end, but I want it to happen according to our Constitution, not through the unseen hand of unelected White House officials with no oversight on their actions.
This is dangerous and risky behavior. Let the true incompetence of this sad excuse for a man come through, so that we can deal with it as a nation, not through self-appointed saviors.
Bob McKillop
Portland, Me.
.
To the Editor:
I say thank you, thank you, thank you to The New York Times for the gutsy move on publishing Anonymous. These polarized times still have me in worry, fear and trepidation regarding the America I knew that is so rapidly vanishing. Where is the America I was born in, and my relatives immigrated to, served and died for?
This modern-day Deep Throat and The New York Times have given me hope.
Susan Lynne Martin
Bethesda, Md.
.
To the Editor:
Conspiring to keep an unfit president in office in order to promote the political agenda of his advisers has not avoided a constitutional crisis, but created one. President Trump’s attacks on Congress, the judiciary and a free press are the threat to our democracy, not his removal. The proper title for the author is not resister, but collaborator.
.
This Op-Ed is a misguided and self-serving attempt to justify an unjustifiable position, keeping a president in office who is a danger to the country and its institutions. Before calling upon others to give up their “tribalism,” the author would do well to shed his or her own.
Mary McCune
New York
.
To the Editor:
Given the confluence of Senator John McCain’s funeral and the anonymous Op-Ed, when are the Republican leaders in the Senate and the House going to act in tandem with the cabinet to address the obvious constitutional crisis facing our country? Their silence is deafening. I say this as a loyal Republican for over 40 years.
Nancy A. Lieberman
New York
.
.
White House Memo
.
Trump Lashes Out After Reports of ‘Quiet Resistance’ by Staff and Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman
.
WASHINGTON — President Trump sought to assert command of his administration on Wednesday amid reports of a “quiet resistance” among some of his own advisers who have secretly and deliberately tried to thwart from the inside what one official called his “reckless decisions.”
.
The surreal struggle between Mr. Trump and at least some members of his own team has characterized his tenure from the beginning, but it spilled into public view this week in a way that raised questions about the president’s capacity to govern and the responsibilities and duties of the people who work for him.
.
An Op-Ed article by an unnamed Trump administration official published by The New York Times on Wednesday claimed that “unsung heroes” on his team were “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” It came a day after reports about a new book, “Fear,” by Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, revealed efforts by aides to surreptitiously block the president when they believe he may be acting dangerously.
.
The collective portrayal suggested that Mr. Trump may not be fully in charge of his own White House, surrounded by advisers who consider him so volatile and temperamental that they swipe documents from his desk in hopes of stopping him from issuing rash orders. While his rivals called such efforts heroic and patriotic, his supporters complained of a virtual coup at odds with the Constitution and the will of the people.
.
Mr. Trump erupted in anger after reading the Op-Ed article and John F. Kelly, the chief of staff, and other aides scurried in and out of the press office trying to figure out how to respond. Advisers told Mr. Trump that this was the same as leakers who talk with the news media every day, but a hunt for the author of the offending article was quickly initiated and scrutiny focused on a half-dozen names. Aides said they assumed it was written by someone who worked in the administration but not the White House itself, although they could not be sure.
.
Mr. Trump angrily lashed out during public events and on Twitter. He assailed what he called the “gutless editorial” by the unnamed official and he dismissed Mr. Woodward’s book as “a total piece of fiction” and “totally discredited.” He attributed the accounts to a news media that has sought to destroy his presidency.
.
“They don’t like Donald Trump and I don’t like them because they’re very dishonest people,” the president said during a meeting with sheriffs. Mr. Trump later posted a message on Twitter that said simply, “TREASON?” and then another saying that “If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!”
.
The unnamed official, whose identity is known to the Times editorial page department but not to the reporters who cover the White House, described the president’s leadership as “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective” and cited “adults in the room” who strive to prevent disaster. At one point, the official wrote, there was talk of the cabinet invoking the 25th Amendment to declare Mr. Trump unable to discharge his duties, but no one wanted a constitutional crisis.
.
“We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous,” the official wrote. “But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.”
.
“That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office,” the official added.
.
[Read about the 25th Amendment, the difficult process to remove the president.]
.
.
In the hours after the Op-Ed published, Washington has been scrambling to pin down the identity of this anonymous official.
.
“It is not mine,” Mike Pompeo, the secretary of State, said of the piece during brief remarks in India on Thursday.
.
“I come from a place where if you’re not in the position to execute the commander’s intent, you have a singular option, and it’s to leave,” Mr. Pompeo said. “And this person instead, according to The New York Times, chose not only to stay, but to undermine what President Trump and this administration are trying to do.”
.
Mr. Pompeo added, “I have to tell you, I find the media’s efforts in this regard to undermine this administration incredibly disturbing.”
.
There is a long history of people in the White House taking it upon themselves to curb what they saw as a president’s dangerous instincts or to compensate for his incapacity. When Woodrow Wilson fell ill late in his presidency, his wife, Edith, effectively made many decisions in his name. When Ronald Reagan seemed increasingly foggy toward the end of his tenure, some aides discussed invoking the 25th Amendment.
.
During the final days of Richard M. Nixon’s presidency, when he was depressed, drinking and railing against his fate as the Watergate scandal closed in on him, Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger instructed the military not to carry out any nuclear launch order from the president without checking with him or Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger.
.
This has been a recurring theme in Mr. Trump’s presidency as well. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has ignored Mr. Trump’s public entreaties to investigate the president’s political enemies and shut down the Russia inquiry. Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, has rebuffed the president’s efforts to fire Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel.
.
When Mr. Trump declared on Twitter that he would bar transgender soldiers from the military, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis slow-walked the issue, insisting he would study it first. Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and a critic of Mr. Trump, said last year that the president’s advisers regularly sought to prevent him from making ill-considered decisions.
.
“I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it’s a situation of trying to contain him,” Mr. Corker said in an interview with The Times. When Mr. Trump attacked Mr. Corker on Twitter, the senator responded with a cutting tweet of his own: “It’s a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.”
.
Just last month, in a new book, Omarosa Manigault Newman, an aide fired by Mr. Kelly, wrote that “an army of people” was “working silently” to keep the president from harming the nation. “Many in this silent army are in his party, his administration, and even in his own family,” she wrote.
.
Some loyalists to Mr. Trump said this amounted to an unconstitutional seizure of power by unelected staff members.
.
“The issue is there are people who took jobs in this administration not to serve the country but to serve themselves and, in their mind, protect the country from the president and that’s not their role,” said Corey Lewandowski, a former Trump campaign manager who remains close to the president. “The American people vote for Donald Trump to be the president and to implement his policies.”
.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, issued a statement criticizing the anonymous official.
.
“The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected president of the United States,” she said. “He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign.”
.
Ms. Sanders said the newspaper acted irresponsibly. “We are disappointed, but not surprised, that the paper chose to publish this pathetic, reckless and selfish Op-Ed,” she said. “This is a new low for the so-called paper of record, and it should issue an apology.”
.
Eileen Murphy, a Times spokeswoman, responded, “We are incredibly proud to have published this piece, which adds significant value to the public’s understanding of what is going on in the Trump administration from someone who is in a position to know.”
.
The description of Mr. Trump’s management by the anonymous official who wrote the Op-Ed article mirrored Mr. Woodward’s account as well as reporting by many news organizations and other authors over the past 20 months. “Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back,” the official wrote.
.
The Op-Ed pages of The Times are managed separately from the news department. The Op-Ed editors wrote that they took the rare step of publishing a piece without naming the author because of the significance of the subject. “We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers,” they wrote.
.
Mr. Trump’s mood vacillated from fury to calm throughout Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday. Some of his top aides worked the phones to figure out who was leaking or who might have spoken, and his daughter Ivanka Trump and other advisers tried to quell his distress.
.
He seemed satisfied that Mr. Kelly and Mr. Mattis had denied remarks attributed to them in Mr. Woodward’s book — Mr. Kelly was quoted calling the president an “idiot” and Mr. Mattis said he had the understanding of a “fifth or sixth grader.” But his ire was trained particularly on two former aides, the former director of the National Economic Council, Gary D. Cohn, and the former staff secretary, Rob Porter, according to people close to the White House.
Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting.
Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman
.
.
I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
.
I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
.
The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.
.
President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
.
It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
.
The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
.
I would know. I am one of them.
.
To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
.
That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
.
The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.
.
Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
.
In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.
.
Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.
.
But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.
.
From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.
.
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
.
“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.
.
The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.
.
It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.
.
The result is a two-track presidency.
.
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
.
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
.
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.
.
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
.
Reactions to this op-ed …
.
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
.
There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.
.
The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.…“.
.
LICHTGESCHWINDIGKEIT nutzt selten eigene Originalquellen, sondern bringt eigene Wertungen, Interpretationen und Meinungen zur vorhandenen Medienwelt. Die Autorenleistung besteht in der Reflektion und möglicherweise fehlender Bedenken – kurz, Dietmar Moews meint.
.
Die New York Times – wie vor – kämpft gegen US-Präsident No. 45. Folglich die New York Times und nytimes.com keine sicheren Quellen sind, wenn es gegen Trump geht.
.
Ich vertrete auch keineswegs die oben abgebildeten Statements und Leserbriefe-Meinungen, halte aber doch für phänomenal beachtlich, dass wir es hier mit der freien Auseinandersetzung um die Macht in den USA zu tun haben – einschließlich Fake und Betray, Bullshit und Lies.
.
Eine solche Kampfkampagne, die ja bereits im Januar 2017 nur die Fortsetzung des Kampfes gegen Trump im vorangegangenen Präsidentschaftswahlkampf war, ist in Russland oder in China nicht möglich.
.
So müssen wir eine neue sozio-politische Zeit des „Machiavellismus“ mit Trumps Nachhilfe-Unterricht entwickeln. Wir erleben zur Zeit, wie sich die deutsche LÜGENPRESSE dagegen wehrt, den eigenen FAKE nunmehr zu kritisieren.
.
Die Zunge war blau
.
FINE E COMPATTO
.
WARNUNG: recommended posts (Zusätze, die als Empfehlungen oder Beziehungen von WordPress hier eingestellt werden)
auf dem Dietmar Moews‘ Blog eingeblendete „Recommended Posts“ oder sonstige „Pseudoempfehlungen“ werden von WordPress
.
gegen das Einverständnis des Eigentümers Dr. Dietmar Moews
.
hier gezeigt und sind keine Empfehlungen von Dr. Dietmar Moews. Nichts davon wird i.S.d.P. von Dr. Dietmar Moews verantwortet. Dietmar Moews klickt diese „recommendends“ nicht an und liest nichts davon.
.
Ab jetzt werden alle Dietmar Moews‘ Blog-Beiträge mit dem SLOGAN
FINE E COMPATTO deutlich beendet.
.
WARNUNG: recommended posts
.
und BESTELLEN
subscription to Dietmar Moews Abonnement von Dietmar Moews un abonnement à Dietmar Moews
Blätter für Kunst und Kultur erscheinen in loser Folge im Verlag Pandora-Kunst-Projekt Köln
Blätter Neue Sinnlichkeit
.
.
Indem ich Ihnen ein langes Leben wünsche, sparen Sie auf diese Weise ganz erheblich.
Abonnement auf Lebenszeit für EURO 500,- (oder entsprechender Landeswährung)
Einzelpreis oder Abonnement inkl. Versand EURO 12.-, Schüler bei Selbstabholung EURO 4.-
Abonnieren Sie mit Namen, Postanschrift, Ort, Datum, Unterschrift sowie EURO 500 zur Verrechnung bei:
PANDORA KUNST PROJEKT
zu Händen Dr. Dietmar Moews
Mainzer Straße 28
D-50678 Köln am Rhein
.
Dietmar Moews's Blog 