SR White House official claims to be part of trump resistance.

Nice trolling there. Did you try really hard or after all these years does it come easy.

Still avoiding. Everyone sees through your ad hominem attacks.........

@Jacanuk: yes it is an issues if it's a lie or not. People like you question if the proof is valid and then ask to find the leaked.

You clearly do not get it. Here's the thing trump said the book and the op-ed is a lie. People like you says that there is no proof the book or op-ed are true and want proof shown. But are also asking for this so called "resistance " member to be named so they can be outed because that are a security risk.

And that makes no sense, why how can they be a security risk if according to you all info given is a lie and there is no proof they exist?

What you do not get is that the op-ed supports what stated in the book. The book says the white house is run like a mess the op-ed say it's run like a mess.

Now lets say the book is a lie....yet some how the op-ed that supports the claims in the book is not a lie?

Let's say the op-ed is a lie. If it's a lie then there is no security risk. The op-ed is a made up defection of what the white house is , no one is taking things from trump's desk to sign not are they are anyone working against the president.

Why? Because accruing to you no proof is given.

How can there be a security risk if the op-ed is a lie and no one is leaking info about the state of the white house and taking things from trump's desk to sign?

So if the op-ed is a lie how is there a security risk?

If the book is a lie and need proof to support it why does the op-ed reflect thw same mess on the white house?

OK, now I get what you are having a hard time understanding. For you, it does not make sense how someone can be a security risk if the op-ed is nothing but fiction.

Well, the answer is pretty obvious. First of all the op-ed showcases a disloyal employee who cannot be trusted because someone at the level of government, does not write anonymous op-eds. or leak internal topics no matter if they are true or not. Also, the employee has caused a massive disruption to the workplace which is the equivalence of a fireman who runs around and lights more fires in a house while the rest of his team, is putting out the fires.

So again it does not matter how true the op-ed is if we assume that the op-ed is actually written by someone high up at the Whitehouse.

If you still do not get it after this, well.....

@Jacanuk: saying bad things about your boss or work place is not a leak or security risk.

Lying about it is not a security risk ether.

A security risk would be a leak of information and /or disruption of the the internal process of the work place. If not true then the best option would to ignore it because bring focus on it would do more damage then ignoring it being it takes away focus from other thing of importants.

False info on the working of the white house is not going to effect how the office does it's job. They best way to deal with false info on the working of the office is to prove it wrong with action aka making sure the white house is in orderly fashion.

Looking for the person that wrote this so called lie would bring more attention to this And suspension. It would also take away important work that be used on something else.

The only reason for trump or the white house to put there focus on this is if this is true.

Even then, if they want to look into this regardless it would be better to do so in secret then public so that the person who did this would not have their guard up.

Hence why trump action is more proof that this op ed is true.

It's ether that or he is very dumb.

@dreman999: What a compilation of utter ramblings.

First, a security risk does not mean they have to do anything illegal or "whistleblowing", Not being able to Trust someone is a serious issue and I gotta ask, how old are you? and have you ever had a job? even at McD, they have to show a clean criminal record. Btw you know why they ask for that?

This person has shown they cannot be trusted which means its a clear security risk and he needs to be found and dismissed if he is not man enough to come forward himself.

@Jacanuk: 1. No utter rambling.

2. Trust does not matter in this case.

Security only means making sure no one takes any thing, enters, or disrupts what ever the mechanical working of what is protected.

If this person is not taking things or info, or doing thing that would mess with the mechanics of the working of the white house then it's not a security risk.

The only thing the op ed did was make people more distrust full of trump and swing there vote away from politicians who are pro trump. That though does not effect with any security of the white house.

If it's so bad that they much need to ensure trust, any smart leader would look for this person in secret so people would not just to conclusions and see the statement as real.

The only counter for a lie is to show that reality does not hint to it being real.

by a strick legal definition of what 'security risk' means that might be true (I actually dont know for sure)

but its not unreasonable for one to say it could be a security risk worth looking into

understand I am not defending Trump, Trumpists or the Trump position on this, I am just saying I do see the argument of 'its could be a security risk' which by extension could be stated as 'its a security risk worth looking into'

You clearly have no clue what Security risk means, Also you have no clue how a workplace like the white house or any government branch operates or even private companies.

It´s astounding that someone (and here I assume you are American) from America can be this lost in basic principals. Did you know that the security clearance of any government branch, both federal and state is also referred to a "Public Trust Security Clearance"

And no the op-ed did not just affect Trump, it affected everyone working there and especially the person who "leaked" it, it does not matter one bit if it´s true or Trump is a peanut from mars, This person have broken the trust you need to have in any employee.

Do you guys think they have a fancy name for this resistance? Like Dumbledore's Army in Harry Potter. :P

I am surprised The Right hasnt said out right 'here is your Deep State right here'

@Jacanuk: b.s.

Security is only based around stopping assassinations , spy work and sabotage.

If you don't explain how this person lying about the going on of the white house is one of those 3 then you can use "security risk" as an excuse.

They are trying to discredit the source and think everyone is stupid enough to believe that.......it started with the idiot in chief.

honestly guys I would instead focus on

'The Trump administration is so inept and disorganized they cant even find an entire group of people who are resisting their orders within their own top administration'

Trump even asking for the name because he cant find it himself is embarrassing in of itself

Nonsense, you clearly have no idea what lies in getting a security clearance. It´s getting pretty ridiculous with how far your ideas are from reality.

"3. What is the purpose of a security clearance?

The purpose of a security clearance is to determine that a person is able and willing to safeguard classified national security information, based on his or her loyalty, character, trustworthiness, and reliability."

And again this is not about if this op-ed is a fabrication or not, it´s about trust and this persons character. How much more clear do you want it.

Again with the nonsense trolling LJS.

Don´t you ever get tired of trolling?

@Jacanuk: dude..if no real information was spread ...what for of trust was broken?

If the op-ed is all lies then no leak of trusted info was done.

Where is the security issue?

Do you not get that someone who writes an anonymous op-ed about their workplace no matter if that op-ed is true or not, in a public media outlet is not someone who has shown to be A: Trustworthy, B: loyal to their job and their duties. And that are two key elements, in what is used to determine if someone is a security risk.

I am puzzled by your lack of understanding here, you keep focus on Trump and clearly have huge blindspots as to what the key issue is here.

do you get that its pathetic that Trump administration can not find this person or group on their own without asking the NYT?

What on earth does that have to do with the comment I made?

nothing, but something for you to think about.

because each time to bring up this subject it just highlights that question in peoples mind without you even intentionally doing so.

just trying to help you out with tactics actually

I'm not trolling. You and your president are though.

@Jacanuk: again that has nothing to do with security. If they are not giving out secure info and /or sabotaging the working of the white house you can not say it a security issue.

Any issue on trust on this is only on a personal level. And that is it.

Yes..........someone gets it.........

So let´s repeat this

"3. What is the purpose of a security clearance?

The purpose of a security clearance is to determine that a person is able and willing to safeguard classified national security information, based on his or her loyalty, character, trustworthiness, and reliability."

Again you have absolutely zero knowledge and are clearly just talking out of your behind, try and read the above and if you have trouble understanding the words, go to your parents and ask them to help you.

Yes, someone gets your bad trolling.

Don´t you ever get tired of just being a troll?

@Jacanuk: what do you not get about this being a different type of trust?

Looking for this guy because "based on the so called president's statement" this person lie in a op-ed, is no different then a scene from mean girls.

This is a "this person will talk shot about me behind my back" lack of trust. Not a "this person is spy and sabotaging my work" lack of trust.

If want to say it a security issue point to when this person spacifily violated security in that op-ed .

It can only be a security issue if it's true.

Different kind of trust? you get further and further away from reality.

Also, you seem hellbent on making this about Trump and his character when the case is about an employee and their trust and that they pose a security risk.

And again the op-ed´s content is irrelevant, again this is about how the person acted. And again no, read the quote again what is being key elements in obtaining a security clearance, and if you disagree take it up with the US government.

Although not a recipient in his own right, Woodward made crucial contributions to two Pulitzer Prizes won by The Washington Post. First, he and Bernstein were the lead reporters on Watergate and the Post won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 1973.^[35] He was also the main reporter for the Post's coverage of the September 11 attacks in 2001. The Post won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for 10 of its stories on the subject.^[36]

Woodward at the National Press Club in 2002

Woodward himself has been a recipient of nearly every major American journalism award, including the Heywood Broun award (1972), Worth Bingham Prize for Investigative Reporting (1972 and 1986), Sigma Delta Chi Award(1973), George Polk Award (1972), William Allen White Medal (2000), and the Gerald R. Ford Prize for Reporting on the Presidency (2002). In 2012, Colby College presented Woodward with the Elijah Parish Lovejoy Award for courageous journalism as well as an honorary doctorate.^[37]

Woodward has authored or co-authored 18 nonfiction books in the past 35 years. All 18 have been national bestsellers and 12 of them have been No. 1 national nonfiction bestsellers—more No. 1 national nonfiction bestsellers than any contemporary author.

"Yes. And most specifically, I tape recorded these interviews with nearly everyone," Woodward said during an interview with CNN when asked about his reporting methodology.

"I have thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of hours with people who were participants, and the agreement with the sources was, I'm not going to name you, but I'm going to use this information if I can verify it," Woodward said Sunday.

@zaryia: So do you somehow think that his "records" makes it ok to make claims without evidence?

Because if that is the case, then you need to call your school and ask for a refund.

@Jacanuk: I've long stopped taking about character. Now I'm just asking for proof.

Awnser these 3 questions.

We're is the security breach?

How is this op-ed a security breach?

How would talking crap about you boss be a security breach?

You keep saying that lack of trust would mean it automatically a security breach ...which is not true.

We had mulitple of former white house official later state they reordered them selves talk to trump with out his knowledge and the event of the going ons of the white house..... And that is with full security up.

If these people could get a recorder in the white house with ease and get secure records...then this op-ed writer clearly would of.

Heck, his own staff is secretly try to get him out using the 25 Amendment which out him knowing.

It's clear this is not a security risk type of lack of trust If the op-ed is a lie. If it were them this person would have given away much more vital info.....unless thia is true.

Which part of the quote do you not understand? Do you not understand that the reason behind a security clearance is not to catch people after they have done something but to catch people who could pose a risk and before they have done the harm. What you are having major problems with here seems to be the concept of damage prevention and that trust plays a very important key element in any Employer/employee relationship.

Also what people do after they have left is not the same, this employee is still employed and depending on his position can have access to highly classified material or classified internal workings of the government, and an untrustworthy person could take this and leak it or use it for his own gain.

I was just showing you Woodward is reliable and worth his salt. Randomly calling his books (Which are always top sellers) shitty due to your political affiliation is rather childish. The guy is a journalistic titan. One of the GOATs. To suggest he's lying that he has several dozen sources with 100s of hour of recording is honestly a stretch.

I'm not discussing your opinion that 100's of hours of testimonies with countless people is not evidence.

Again let me ask you, Are you claiming that his record means he does not have to showcase the evidence that backs up his claim?

And if there are 100´s of hours then he should have no problem in releasing the key elements that have been disputed and the key items that back up his books. Until then his book is nothing but fiction.

Also when/IF you finally go to college and write a report, i hope you get better at handling sources because simply putting up a CV does not mean a claim is true.

Yes. That is what I'm saying. His proven track record that spans a half century, which is absolutely astonishing, shows that he is credible and reliable. His meticulous use of anonymous sources is historically amazing and trustworthy. I trust Bob Woodward over Jacanuk of Gamespot. I'll post it again if you didn't catch it the first time,

Although not a recipient in his own right, Woodward made crucial contributions to two Pulitzer Prizes won by The Washington Post. First, he and Bernstein were the lead reporters on Watergate and the Post won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 1973.[35] He was also the main reporter for the Post's coverage of the September 11 attacks in 2001. The Post won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for 10 of its stories on the subject.[36]

Woodward at the National Press Club in 2002

Woodward himself has been a recipient of nearly every major American journalism award, including the Heywood Broun award (1972), Worth Bingham Prize for Investigative Reporting (1972 and 1986), Sigma Delta Chi Award(1973), George Polk Award (1972), William Allen White Medal (2000), and the Gerald R. Ford Prize for Reporting on the Presidency (2002). In 2012, Colby College presented Woodward with the Elijah Parish Lovejoy Award for courageous journalism as well as an honorary doctorate.[37]

Your statements that his books are "shitty", however, have no merit. What are you basing this off of? He is one of the most seasoned and award winning journalists of our time, and all of his books are best sellers.

Woodward has authored or co-authored 18 nonfiction books in the past 35 years. All 18 have been national bestsellers and 12 of them have been No. 1 national nonfiction bestsellers—more No. 1 national nonfiction bestsellers than any contemporary author.

That isn't how it works. The people he interviewed want to remain anonymous. He would lose his sources if he did this. Going by his record, his sources are reliable. As is he. Are you new to investigative journalism?

His book is not fiction. It is objectively classified as a nonfiction book. Your opinions are not reality. Just like how Trump has a low approval, your opinions on that do not change the reality of the situation:

http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Fear/Bob-Woodward/9781501175510

https://www.amazon.com/Fear-Trump-White-Bob-Woodward/dp/1501175513

"nonfiction"

1. Woodward's book isn't a college report. Are you being stupid on purpose? I would compare it to a major bombshell news report that have real life implications, which do use anonymous source (ie: Deep Throat). Not a college report. Jesus man.

2. I did go to college. Are you thinking I'm a red voter and that my education status is potentially lower? Well I'm not.

No, you are correct Woodward's book is not a college report, but it´s still subject to the same standard and even a much higher burden of proof if you claim something, you back it up with evidence. Otherwise, you do not make the claim in the first place.

2. And let me guess you attended a liberal arts college because you keep trying to pass of a CV as something that can back up his claims, again a CV does not meet the burden you have to meet when you make claims.

1. Thank you for acknowledging I was correct and that you made a foolish comparison. It's better to compare this with the same standards of high end investigative journalism. Several bombshell reports use anonymous sources, see Deep Throat. One of many this half century that turned Woodward into a legend. Anonymous sources are a legitimate thing in some of the biggest news stories in history.

Woodward has an incredible track record, and meticulously uses 100's of sources with 100s' of hours of tape recordings. He has the evidence otherwise he wouldn't write something in a book unless he also had the testimony. He's incredibly detail and fact oriented. The sources choose to remain anonymous, but Woodward's track record speaks for itself. He's merely recounting all of the data he has heard from multiple sources all stating the same thing about specific events.

The man is the gold standard of investigative journalism. Your opinion doesn't change these items.

2. I didn't attend a liberal arts college. Although your posts in this section suggest you might not even have a GED.

3. I'm glad you dropped the narrative about the "shitty book" after I showed you Woodward's history. I would too. Smart move.

And there we have it "You" trust his book with no evidence which clearly shows your hyper-partisan thinking. Normal thinking people are waiting for his groundbreaking "evidence" before they care about this book. Even though who is even talking about the book today, now it´s the stormy daniels book and Kavanaugh and next week it´s something else.

Also, it´s funny that a guy who has never done any groundbreaking investigations in his life but was handed "Watergate" on a silver platter is on the far-left considered to be "Gold Standard" No wonder journalists today are losing the readers/viewers to youtubers and bloggers/facebook with no ounce of formal education or knowledge about the field.

2. Well, you clearly didn´t attend any decent university since you still fail in what is a fact and also what is subjective/objective, that is pretty basic things to get so fundamentally wrong.

1. I trust his book because of his legendary track record and,

2. Are you new to Woodward? He does have evidence, in the form of dozens of interviews, 1000's of documents, and 100s' of hours of tape. Several of these excerpts appear in his book. The sources choose to remain anonymous. Woodward doesn't include this information unless he got it from a reliable source, or multiple reliable sources stating the same thing. He doesn't make things up. It's all something someone said.

3. Trusting Bob Woodward's reporting isn't hyper-partisan. If you don't trust him, you don't trust anything that comes out of the news, period. This is how several major stories function, reliable reporters who have reliable anonymous sources.

It's still NYTs best seller https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/

Just like all of his other incredible books.

Cool opinions, lets get into facts though:

Although not a recipient in his own right, Woodward made crucial contributions to two Pulitzer Prizes won by The Washington Post. First, he and Bernstein were the lead reporters on Watergate and the Post won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 1973.[35] He was also the main reporter for the Post's coverage of the September 11 attacks in 2001. The Post won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for 10 of its stories on the subject.[36]

Woodward at the National Press Club in 2002

Woodward himself has been a recipient of nearly every major American journalism award, including the Heywood Broun award (1972), Worth Bingham Prize for Investigative Reporting (1972 and 1986), Sigma Delta Chi Award(1973), George Polk Award (1972), William Allen White Medal (2000), and the Gerald R. Ford Prize for Reporting on the Presidency (2002). In 2012, Colby College presented Woodward with the Elijah Parish Lovejoy Award for courageous journalism as well as an honorary doctorate.[37]

His record is objectively not as you describe it, by any means.

The far left doesn't consider him the gold standard, the industry has, for decades.

David Gergen, who had worked in the White House during the Richard Nixon and three subsequent administrations, said in his 2000 memoir, Eyewitness to Power, of Woodward's reporting, "I don't accept everything he writes as gospel—he can get details wrong—but generally, his accounts in both his books and in the Post are remarkably reliable and demand serious attention. I am convinced he writes only what he believes to be true or has been reliably told to be true. And he is certainly a force for keeping the government honest."^[39]

In 2001, Woodward won the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism.^[40]

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard called Woodward "the best pure reporter of his generation, perhaps ever."^[41] In 2003, Albert Hunt of The Wall Street Journal called Woodward "the most celebrated journalist of our age." In 2004, Bob Schieffer of CBS News said, "Woodward has established himself as the best reporter of our time. He may be the best reporter of all time."^[42]

In 2014, Robert Gates former director of the CIA and Secretary of Defense, said that he wished he'd recruited Woodward into the CIA, saying, "He has an extraordinary ability to get otherwise responsible adults to spill [their] guts to him...his ability to get people to talk about stuff they shouldn't be talking about is just extraordinary and may be unique."^[43]

You clearly don't have a GED. You thought Russia didn't meddle. You defend Trump's Ggoogle conspiracy. You thought Trump's approval wasn't low. You thought DACA Recipients hurt the country. You think BREXIT is still good (lol). I believe you defended Roy Moore tooth and nail.

You get eaten alive by every poster here and make the dumbest posts, I have to assume you dropped out at 5th grade.

Wrong again. If the person posed a risk they would NOT have a security clearance. If they do......they are NOT a security risk. Talking about trump is NOT a security risk. Period.

And frankly the only security risk I've heard reports of is trump thus far using his phone and talking in the dining room of Mar a Lago or what it's called.

Let me see if you can answer this

When this person got the job and the security clearance was that before or after the op-ed?

Jacanuk is thinking his opinion is a fact again.

It's been established that whatever was written in the op-ed is neither illegal or a security risk. Same goes for John Brennan's security clearance removal. There was no established rule he actually broke, it was Trump being Trump.

The op ed is NOT a security risk so that is immaterial.

Just answer the question.

Was he hired before or after the op-ed?

I'm going to type this slowly so it sinks in...........the...........op ed..............is................NOT..........a........security...........risk.

I really have no confidence in the intelligence of conservatives any more.........

So you refuse to answer the question.

Stop lying and try to stick to facts Zaryia.

So far all there is known is that the person is not able to be found without help from the NYT.

I'm not veering into your little games. I know what security risks are much more than YOU do. The op ed..........is not. Period. End of story. Stop deflecting.

@Jacanuk: dude if it's about damage protection it's way too late. We already have many former white house aids and people in the justice department state they were planning to or were recording trump and the goings on of the white house.

Security for damage control is way gone at this point.

Issue now is if this op-ed writer is a security risk. If they are not releasing vital info now, like many other aids have already done, he is not going to do it later......unless this op-ed is true.

Hell, the fact that trump tried to declassify. The docs on the Russian investigation mean trump is a bigger security risk then this op-ed writer.

LOL. So what do you think will happen to this person when he is found?

And again if you disagree with the US governments classification on security, then go to them and tell them that you some random coalminer from Pennsylvania knows more than them.