Well, Editorial People at the NYT Know Who Gave Them the Op Ed.

[MineralMan]

They're not saying. However, if that person were not a high-level WH official, they wouldn't have published it. It's too explosive to come from an underling.

Is it Pence? Maybe. He's the only one who can't be summarily fired by Trump. However, just he occurrence of the word "lodestar" doesn't really prove it to be Pence's creation. That word, which Pence is fond of using, could easily have been used in it to throw people off the track.

I'm also interested in the use of the word "amoral" in the content. That's not an uncommon word, of course, but it's not one that is used by everyone. Pence might use it, but probably would be more likely to use the word "immoral," I think.

It might even be a cooperative work, created by a small group. If so, style analysis might fail to determine the author.

So, I don't know. But the NYT knows. The author or authors know. It will not remain a mystery forever. We'll all know before too long, I predict. Will we be surprised? Probably not. Personally, I think the most likely Trump Administration people to have written it are:

Mike Pence - He has immunity from consequences of this. "Mother" also wants him to be President.
John Kelly - He's certainly literate enough, and his skepticism of Trump is palpable.
Jim Mattis - He's not much for public statements, really, but often displays a face of dismay around Trump.
Jeff Sessions - I think he's the least likely possibility. This doesn't seem to be his style. Still...

[bitterross]

1. The great thing is, no crime committed. They cannot be compelled to tell.

Despite 45's ignorance to the contrary, talking about your boss is not treason. Nothing in that Op-Ed was even close to divulging any classified information. There is no way 45 can even attempt to compel them to divulge their source.

It merely confirmed, again, what a lot of us already knew.

[MineralMan]

2. Yes. It was very carefully written that way.

No crime is committed by anything revealed in that piece of writing. However, it would immediately end the career of anyone, except for Mike Pence. Trump would fire anyone else immediately.

That is the reason that Pence is the most likely candidate. Not only would he not be fired, but would take the office of President if Trump were forced to resign in shame. I know he'd like that job. I know Mrs. Pence would dearly, dearly love to be First Lady.

Pence skates. Everyone else who might have written it gets fired.

[Pachamama]

3. Amoral or immoral? That is an interesting differentiation....

Did the author of the OpEd deliberately and knowingly choose this word and do they believe this?



If you are amoral, you don't know that what you're doing is wrong.

Immoral is having no morality, being wicked or evil. If you are immoral, you know what society considers right and wrong, yet you do wrong anyway.

If you call someone immoral, you are saying that person knows better. If you call him amoral, you are saying that person does wrong but doesn't understand that it is wrong.


Interesting question....does Trump know that what he is doing is wrong? Or does the author(s) believe this or says that they believe this in order to excuse that they are enabling this person?

[MineralMan]

5. Well, not exactly.

Amoral means having no morals. It means "without morals." There really isn't any implication of not knowing. A sociopath can be amoral, while knowing the moral standards of society.

Immoral means flouting morality and acting as one chooses, regardless. Sociopaths are often immoral in their behavior, and it is deliberate.

However, both words are widely misused by even highly educated, literate people. I'm more thinking about words that might pop into someone's mind while writing. Pence is, apparently, very concerned about some moral rules. Trump consciously violates the very ones he considers important. Adultery, for example. So, Pence probably considers Trump to be "immoral," more than "amoral." Pence is pretty careful with his word choices.

[tblue37]

4. I think John Kelly is a likely candidate. He and Trump hate each other, and Kelly is enough

of a jerk to think this way.

[MineralMan]

6. Good point.

Kelly's facial expressions often indicate that he is making judgments about Trump on occasions where Trump says something profoundly stupid in Kelly's presence. He can't help himself from showing his contempt for Trump at times.

[steve2470]

7. Lawrence O'Donnell thinks it's Dan Coats

He made a pretty good case for it. I can't remember all the details of what he said.

[MineralMan]

8. That's possible, too. Coats is sort of an unknown quantity, really.

We don't see a lot of him.

[steve2470]

9. here's his segment on Coats

[MineralMan]

10. That's pretty well-argued.

He leaves out Pence, though, and doesn't include Kelly on his short list.

It could be Coats, but I doubt it.