On the same day the anonymous and allegedly high-placed White House official had his or her treasonous slander published by none other than the New York Times, the Washington Post published their own take on the event, entitled "‘The sleeper cells have awoken’: Trump and aides shaken by ‘resistance’ op-ed". The Post's article was not centrist and free from political agenda, it was demonstrably Left.
I will not exhaustively deconstruct every paragraph, as I did with the anonymous op-ed. Instead, I will list the specifically worded sentences that attempt to lend even more legitimacy to the NYT propaganda. The power of words should not ever be underestimated.
As usual, I will first post the original sentence in italics, and explain its motivations in regular text.
My reproduction of this copyrighted material falls under Fair Use, as my interpretation is as fair and reasonable as the original text, does not in any way impair the inherent value of the text to those for whom it was written, and generates no profits for me as my blog is free and the Washington Post article is already freely available on the Washington Post web site:
Trump and aides shaken by ‘resistance’ op-ed
This subtext of the article's title already shows signs of how the Post has decided to cast the situation, by the use of the word "shaken."
President Trump and his aides reacted with indignation...
Of course they did. This would the expected response from anyone who is falsely maligned.
...launched a frantic hunt...
The use of the word "frantic" is a characterizing adjective which deliberately plays into the claims of unrestrained histrionics asserted by the original anonymous op-ed, claims which are unsubstantiated by people who actually work with President Trump. The phrase would have been more responsibly written as "...launched a hunt...".
...feeding the president’s paranoia...
This is an arbitrary characterization of Trump that deliberately calls to mind former President Nixon, who was commonly referred to as paranoid after his resignation in the shadow of impending impeachment. It also insultingly attributes a quality to Trump that has not been substantiated in any quarter, business nor political; only in the malicious imaginations of the progressive Left.
Trump reacted to the column with “volcanic” anger and was “absolutely livid”...
Notice how the quotations are used, as though these were official descriptions of Trump's reaction when they are unidentified third party characterizations instead, and furthermore both quoted descriptions again bolster the Left's ploy to make the President appear out of control to the general public.
The official writes...
The proper, responsible way to begin this sentence should be "The alleged official writes..." The Post's subtle difference leads the reader a little bit more in the direction that the writer was indeed who the NYT claimed he or she was, that being allegedly a high-ranking official of Trump's White House, as opposed to a clever propagandist.
...sent tremors through the West Wing and launched a frantic guessing game.
According to the people who actually work for the White House, there were no "tremors," just irritation and indignation at the smearing of the President's reputation and mental acuity. In the same sentence, the Post paints concerned ruminations about who would be so treasonous as a "frantic guessing game," which would deliberately lead the reader to conclude that not only were Trump's people freaking out, but they were also not to be taken seriously, as a "guessing game" sounds more like a grade school activity than the actual serious process such an internal investigation would be. Ferreting out traitors is vital to preventing instability in any government. That's why treason is a serious offense punishable by imprisonment or death.
Startled aides canceled meetings and huddled behind closed doors...
The words "startled" and "huddled" are deliberately used to paint Trump's people as being feeble and genuinely afraid of the op-ed, which couldn't be further from the truth, judging by the official responses freely available on all standard media. At most, Trump's people are angry and very interested in either exposing the Leftist propagandist who fabricated the op-ed, or finding the mole in their organization and bringing him or her to a proper sentence for the crime of defamation that was clearly committed.
The phrase “The sleeper cells have awoken” circulated on text messages among aides and outside allies.
This is more support to the idea that even those who work for and with President Trump are prone to gossip freely that his primacy is in actual danger, as opposed to the fabricated danger imagined by the Left. No one's name is cited, therefore the reference is valuable only as a tool of propaganda, not a factual reference.
“It’s like the horror movies when everyone realizes the call is coming from inside the house,” said one former White House official in close contact with former co-workers.
Notice the source here is cleverly characterized as someone in the know, when one may more astutely observe that the source's "former" status demonstrates the value of the statement as being at best questionable.
...stark and anonymous warning...
Yes, the op-ed was stark in its audacity, but to cast it as a "warning" is an attempt to further legitimize its claims. The truth is there is nothing to warn the American people about, in terms of how the President conducts himself or executes his duties in his position. If there were, the results of a nearly three year concerted investigation would unearth something other than alleged campaign fund mismanagement.
...books like Woodward’s that rely on candid accounts of anonymous administration officials.
"Candid accounts of anonymous administration officials" is merely another way of saying "claims by conveniently unnamed persons that are assumed to be important people for the sake of publishing slander behind a wall of legal protection."
...Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters. He added, “That’s why I think all of us encourage the good people around the president to stay.”
Offering us a quote from someone who is politically unsympathetic to Trump is of no value, other than to again attempt to legitimize the original op-ed's assertions.
The president went on to brag about his popularity,...
A responsible, non-biased way to construct that sentence would have been: "The president went on to cite his popularity..." Using the word "brag" again plays to the hatred for Trump from the progressive Left, and their characterization of him as an arrogant dictator.
...although nearly all public polls show that more Americans disapprove of his job performance than approve of it.
Anyone who deals with statistics knows that you can interpret them any way you wish. There isn't a single poll in existence that shows results for every voting age person in the U.S. other than the U.S. census. There are many political polls, performed by many organizations, and of course some will be pro-Trump, and some will be anti-Trump. The Post has decided to lean toward anti-Trump sources for their poll citations, as demonstrated by their statement that leads the reader to believe that most of the country that voted Trump into office now thinks their decision was a mistake. If this were true, few people would show up at Trump's rallies; and that is clearly false.
The president later tweeted a single word alleging a possible crime: “TREASON?”
Interesting how only now does the word "alleged" find its way into the article, and for the particular purpose of minimizing Trump's statement that the original op-ed was possibly an act of treason.
...private talks with advisers and friends...
If they were private talks with advisers and friends, how did the Post conveniently acquire them? See next entry.
...according to people familiar with the president’s thinking.
Again, of course conveniently, no names cited. It's as though the Post has somehow forgotten that hearsay is worthless for anyone with journalistic integrity. We're supposed to consume these scraps of gossip as though they have any relevance to the facts of the events in question.
...reignited Trump’s frustration with last week’s remembrances of McCain...
This clearly paints Trump as someone who has very little regard for the dignity of the deceased. Other than the presumption by the progressive Left, there's no genuine evidence that Trump disrespects those who have passed away as a matter of course.
The president was already feeling especially vulnerable — and a deep “sense of paranoia,” in the words of one confidant...
Not only is Trump being ascribed an emotional state ("vulnerable") that no one who knows him has ever even come close to suggesting, but once again, the word "paranoia" is used to continue comparing him to Richard Nixon. "...in the words of one confidant..." is yet another unnamed citation that therefore amounts to no more than unsubstantiated hearsay and gossip. The Post is supposed to be a respected institution of journalistic integrity, or at least that's how they present themselves despite these transparent attempts to pass gossip as responsibly reported fact.
...and he had begun peppering staffers with questions...
"Peppering" is another characterization designed to make Trump appear Draconian and despotic. A more responsible way to write the sentence would be "...and he had begun asking staffers..."
Trump already felt that he had a dwindling circle of people whom he could trust, a senior administration official said.
Who is the "senior administration official"? Why does the Post think it's okay to publish these allegations with no names attached? Why would any rational reader simply accept these statements as true without an identifiable source?
According to one Trump friend, he fretted after Wednesday’s op-ed that he could trust only his children.
Again, where is the name to turn this gossip into enlightening fact?
...her boss’s rage...
A more responsible, less manipulative statement would be: "...her boss's anger..." The word "rage" is used, again, to further legitimize the casting of Trump as out of control.
...aides and confidants scrambled to identify the anonymous official, windmilling in all directions;...
"Scrambled" and "windmilling" again further paint Trump and his cabinet as a bunch of hysterical ding-a-lings who frenzy over every bump in the road. A balanced and less biased way of writing the sentence would be "...aides and confidants worked to identify the anonymous official, considering many options;...". The words the Post is publishing are obviously serving the politics of the Left, which dictate a demonstrably false narrative of a bumbling, out of control and incompetent leader.
One aide, for example, suggested a staffer seeking glory and secretly hoping to get caught, while another mused that the official was likely a low-level staffer in a peripheral agency. Others wondered aloud...
Additional examples of worthless hearsay, again sans cited source names. This is not serious nor responsible journalism; this is clearly propaganda.
A spokeswoman for the Times said she was unable to provide any additional clarity on how the newspaper defines a senior administration official.
Another disclaimer from the NYT, to add alongside the one they provided at the top of the original op-ed. The CYA backpedaling has already begun.
Brinkley, the historian, said the most analogous example of disloyalty and advisers disregarding the president’s wishes was in Richard Nixon’s final year as president. He explained that Nixon would “bark crazy orders” to aides that they intentionally disregarded.
And now the non-existent connection from Trump to Nixon is not merely hinted at with words like "paranoia," it is simply stated by a specifically selected historian who supports the Left's narrative perfectly by stating that "...Nixon would "bark crazy orders" to aides that they intentionally disregarded."
“You’d have to go back to Hans Christian Andersen, ‘The Emperor Has No Clothes,’ to see this syndrome where the president’s reality happens to be so different from his own senior advisers,” Brinkley said.
And Brinkley's opinion is valuable to the facts in what way? The only reason Brinkley's opinions are included in the Post's article is because they feed the progressive Left spin that the Post deliberately published.