Conundrum for the NY Times.

So the NY Times popped a hit piece on Trump recently.

The gist of the op ed was that someone in DC anonymously admitted to subverting the will of the president.

So here is the big problem.

Scenario 1:

The anonymous person is a person in DC.

Therefore: The deep state exists.

Scenario :

The anonymous person is not a person in DC.

Therefore: The fake news exists.

Either of the 2 possible scenarios is a win for Trump's base.

How so?

Except we all know that Trump will claim victory on both fronts at the same time.

Pretty much anything Trump does is spun by his base to be a win.

Because, as Stronn pointed out, in one scenario Trump runs the Deep State narrative, and the Other Scenario he runs the fake media narrative.

These scenarios are mutually exclusive, meaning one HAS to be true and one HAS to be false, there are no other options.

which is far different than any other previous administration has ever done, right?

Third scenario.  Trump puts this out himself....making it appear as if one or the other is true.  Yet all three scenarios make him look weak. 

Doubtful, but it is a scenario.

There is no third scenario. Either the article is from an insider from DC, or it is not.

Trump supporters will lean to one of the 2 possible scenarios. You're making the same analogy as flipping a coin, and have it land on the thin edge. That's not even remotely probable.

Good analogy.  Just playing devil's advocate... That is what I do.  I agree with you 99.9999 percent (probably the percentage of the coin flip), although I don't think the uneducated, which is a lot of his support base, will use the kind of critical thinking required to come to that conclusion.