The New York Times “resistance” op-ed is the talk of the town. It is potentially one of the biggest acts of betrayal in modern politics. It also represents a complete breakdown of law and order, and it could mean very bad things for our country.
The New York Times is proud of that. They’re also still refusing to tell the world who wrote the article, and that tells more than you might think. Someone attacked Trump in an extremely public and cowardly way. Today you can view the most likely candidates of that attack based on what we know so far.
Our ambassador to Russia is definitely near the top of the list of likely candidates. He’s pretty much as close to a never-Trumper as anyone can be and still work for the President. He’s an old-school, establishment Republican. Because of that, he fancies himself as a presidential hopeful in the near future.
If he turned out to be the writer, it would be a mixed bag for him. He would lose Trump loyalists, but he could reveal himself to try and win votes from the left. That would mean he is assuming the impending blue wave is real, and it would make him a high-level traitor to his own party. So, he’s on the list, but he’s not number one.
Ok. For this to be Robert Mueller himself would mean this is one of the very dumbest moves made by any politician or law-enforcement member in U.S. history. More realistically, this could be someone on Mueller’s team, and oh wouldn’t that be par for the course.
Mueller’s juniors have already outed themselves as biased to a point of compromise on multiple occasions, and it would almost be shocking if this op-ed was anything other than another glaring welt on the face of our disgraced FBI.
If this was the case, it would also make the Times a liar (big surprise there), since Mueller’s cronies are anything but high-ranking officials on Trump’s staff.
It’s a little bit painful to even mention this name. Sessions’ biggest sin so far has been recusing himself from the Russia probe. Even the most loyal Trump supporters can acknowledge that, at the time, it seemed a reasonable choice.
It hasn’t necessarily panned out that way, and that’s why Sessions has received more public criticism from Trump than anyone. It’s not beyond the realm of reason for Sessions to capitulate under that pressure and lash out at Trump. That said, he’s the least likely of the five we’re looking at today.
This is the second most likely scenario. And, you can see why it’s so likely. How far-fetched would it be for the Times to be faking this whole thing? It’s not like it would be the first time they faked major news. More importantly, they hold all the keys. Supposedly, they’re the only ones who know who actually wrote the piece. Since no one in Trump’s staff is likely to take credit, they can play the mystery card to generate buzz and make money.
Regardless of who wrote the piece, it’s important to remember that this is a marketing stunt. It’s for the sake of making money. If they can hurt Republicans in the process, then that’s just a bonus for them. If we don’t have a hard name within two weeks of the op-ed being published, you can rest assured that the whole thing is fake.
Fake news comes in at number two. Partially fake news comes in at number one. More than anyone else you could hope to name, the writer of the piece is most likely someone you can’t name. It’s the undersecretary of White House lunches. It’s a person who has no clout but technically works at the White House. They’ve had “resistance” discussions with a janitor and some visiting school teachers, and that’s about the extent of how they’re “fighting” Trump.
The simple truth is that Trump’s inner circle has risked a lot to support him. Shooting that effort in the foot makes no sense. So, the NYT published this op-ed by a nobody because that’s the best they can get. They did their fake news thing to overhype it all and get more attention.
As painful as it is to admit, it’s a clever stunt for a failing newspaper to try and stay relevant. Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for the country) the Times is going to eat big losses when the truth inevitably emerges.
Remember one thing in all of this. If the op-ed really was written by someone working for Trump, there’s only one traitor. The Times’ aim was ultimately to sow discord among Republicans. They see the fissure threatening their own party and they want to level the playing field.
The most important thing here is to not level baseless accusations and instead wait for hard facts. We’re conservatives, after all. We enjoy the privilege of being able to follow rational thinking. Most importantly, one thing we know with absolute certainty is that at least four of the people on this list are not the traitor. Save that anger for the real enemy.
~ Freedom News Report