The newspaper you're searching for is the Wall Street Journal. But they wouldn't have published it; it's owned by Murdoch. President Narcissist cares what's in the NYT, though.

BTW, it is in today's print edition of the paper, though it was released online yesterday.

The president reads the Times though. He talks to their reporters all the time. He talks shit about it but it’s in his lizard brain as The Important Paper.

The mole is clearly a piece of shit who is enabling toddler jails and I can’t imagine there will be any consequences besides making the president more paranoid and unhinged. If that was the goal the mole made the right choice. If he thought that an anonymous op-ed, anywhere, would bring the chuds around he’s a fucking idiot.

Correction, Trump probably doesn’t read more than the Times headlines but it is in his sphere of awareness in a way that the WSJ is not.

The Murdock family would never allow such an editorial at Fox or WSJ. Furthermore, the NYT despite being liberal remains the stalwart standard, read by Donald as @2 notes, and really was the right choice.

If it had been the Washington Post, Trump would be devising a Bezos conspiracy theory.

Not one of your more well-thought-out pieces Katie, for reasons well laid out in #1-5 above.

Most Trumpanzees consider USA Today "fake news", and even FOX part of the fake mainstream media when they are critical of Trump. Many of these people only consider wingnut websites like Inforwars or Breitbart to be reliable news sources. So in the end it doesn't really matter where it was published. The push to discredit it was instant.

Seeing as it's been all over every news site and nework and addressed directly by Trump himself and the White House, I don't see why it would have "reached" Trump supporters if it were published elsewhere. If your argument is that Trump supporters would have been more persuaded by it if it were published in a different outlet, then just lol how naive can you be.

The White House mole is at least 10 times more useful in bringing Trump down than anything you've done Katie.

“We heard about it anyway, still don’t give a shit.”

Every Voter Willing to Sell Out Democratic Principles to Spite the _ [pick all that apply: Liberals, Minorities, Immigrants, “Elites,” Feminists, “Globalists”] Who are Destroying America

USA Today? Apparently you haven't been reading USA Today lately Katie... they've not been handing Trump any favors in the last few years. They're refreshingly critical, not at all what I remember them to be like while growing up. Seems they've grown up too, unlike the president.

Trump supporters know he's an idiot. They just don't care.

@13:

You're assuming the right EVER cared...

@13 But that story about the pedo ring that every high profile Democrat and globalist Joo belongs to? Totally believable!

Pence is just trying to earn brownie points with the Never Trumpers in the GOP for when Trump goes down. No, I mean when he's impeached, not the next time he goes down on Putin.

My feelings on this have evolved. If someone with direct, daily access to the president think he's fundamentally unfit for office, they have an obligation to go public (or just fucking shoot Trump, but that'd be illegal).

@13: it ain't the left crying wolf, dave. it's the Director of National Intelligence, and he's as rightist as your gullible ass. he's fine with trump's policy; he just thinks he's incompetent.

woodward has tapes that corroborate the content in his book, BTW.

@21: Where did "rightist" come from? Just say "conservative."

@22: no.

we're beyond "conservatism". "conservatives" don't put babies in jail. "conservatives" fulfill their sworn constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on supreme court nominees.

I'd be happy to use "reactionary" if you prefer. how about "revanchist"?

rightist is easier to type, too. fewer letters.

@23:

And much easier for rightists to understand...

@14 is dead on.

As long as Trump's cutting taxes on the rich, destroying the environment, and oppressing POC, it's all gravy to them.

@13 we know you don’t care about reality. That’s a given.

This president has had highest cabinet turnover in modern history. You don’t care. This president has had his campaign manager and lawyer and national security advisor found guilty of crimes. You don’t care. He never released his tax returns like he said. You don’t care. He admitted he lied about the meeting with Russian intelligence contacts. You don’t care. He said “Mexico would pay for the wall” and of course it’s not. You don’t care. You don’t care about the laundry list of his wanton transparent corruption. He lies so casually and completely every day. You don’t care. He added another $2 Trillion dollars to the deficit. You don’t care.

Because you don’t care about this country.

We already knew that.

@23: Fascist is even shorter, and more accurate.

Katie, if you were deep inside the administration and you had something damaging you wanted to bring to the press, would you trust a conservative media outlet to protect your anonymity?

Or would you have maybe just a teensy bit of an inkling of a suspicion that they might burn you, if not directly then by going to their connections inside the white house and asking slightly-too-revealing questions in trying to confirm your story?

Seems a little half-baked to chastise this person for going to the left side of a partisan press without considering what the consequences might have been for going to the right side of a partisan press.

@23: That seems like a pretty vacuous definition of "conservative." They have always been just as—or more—cruel, vicious, and petty as Trump. I don't see how people can look back at Nixon, Reagan, and W and think Trump is somehow distinct from them, aside from his fast-disintegrating brain, but then he shares that with Reagan too!