With much ballyhoo on Wednesday, the man formerly known as Anonymous came out of the shadows to reveal himself as former Department of Homeland Security official Miles Taylor. The revelation, met with a funny mixture of eye-rolling and scathing criticism, was something of an anti-climax after two years of rampant speculation. Then again, this guy – hidden as he was behind his pseudonym up until now – has been a target of fierce criticism from both the left and the right since his infamous op-ed first dropped.
”President Trump is focused on leading the great American comeback and keeping his promises to the American people,” the Trump administration said in a statement. “This low-level, disgruntled former staffer is a liar and a coward who chose anonymity over action and leaking over leading.
“He was ineffective and incompetent during his time as DHS Chief of Staff which is why he was promptly fired after only serving in this role for a matter of weeks,” the statement continued. “It is appalling a low-ranking official would be granted anonymity and it is clear the New York Times is doing the bidding of Never-Trumpers and Democrats. The American people elected President Trump to carry out his vision for the country, not an arrogant deep state operative trying to put their agenda ahead of the President’s America First policies.”
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows also weighed in on the revelation, saying it lands as another black mark on the anti-Trump media.
“Laughable as the ‘Miles Taylor Anonymous’ episode is, it’s every bit as damaging to the media. The New York Times amplified a no-name agency deputy with no access to President Trump and misled Americans into thinking he was an influential senior official. Absolutely ridiculous,” Meadows tweeted.
The criticism, as we said, did not just come from the Trump administration.
“It’s an embarrassment,” noted Axios reporter Jonathan Swan, speaking specifically about the Times’s decision to label Taylor a “senior administration official.”
Few media personalities hate Trump more than Vox’s Matthew Yglesias, but he wrote: “The anonymity in the original op-ed combined with these paragraphs is used to create the false impression that we are reading the thoughts of a cabinet officer with direct knowledge of these conversations, not a Schedule C rehashing press reports.”
All in all, the dude should have stayed anonymous for good.
And The New York Times has some explaining to do.