Kirsters Baish| An opinion piece chalked full of negative comments about President Donald Trump was published by the New York Times this Wednesday. The op-ed piece titled, “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” was written anonymously, but was reportedly written by a “senior official” in the Trump White House.
The piece claimed that multiple other “senior officials” within the administration are working together to form a right-leaning “resistance.” It also claimed that they are working to “thwart” Trump’s “misguided impulses” in order to “save” America.
The author/”senior official” claimed that numerous policies of the President “have already made America safer and more prosperous,” but he or she went on to insist that this was in spite of Trump, not because of him.
It wasn’t surprising how the piece stirred up controversy among liberals and conservatives alike. Then we were all left wondering who this “senior official” was.
Conservative Tribune writes:
Using clues such as linguistic mannerisms and specific words contained within the article, guesses have ranged from Vice President Mike Pence to a number of different cabinet-level officials to other truly “senior” officials in the top tier of the administration’s several agencies and departments.
But if Trump’s White House has engaged in a “witch hunt” of its own to identify the anonymous author of The Times’ hit piece, an op-ed in Townhall suggested the hunters avert their gaze from the cabinet and top tier of the administration and search a little bit lower on the totem pole to find the potentially seditious insider.
That Townhall piece noted that The Times has a history of inflating and over-exaggerating the stature or seniority of its anonymous sources from within the government, and pointed to a rather glaring example of the practice that occurred in 2011.
During this time, natural gas energy production was booming, partly due to progress in technology of drilling, which is called hydraulic fracturing, nicknamed “fracking.” Liberals were not on board, this included the Obama White House and their cronies at the New York Times.
A New York Times writer published numerous articles with anti-fracking content. One article had anonymous citations from emails from three different “senior” insiders, who they claimed to be an industry analyst, a federal analyst, in addition to a senior administration official.
It was determined after a Senate investigation that the emails had all come from the Energy Information Agency of the Federal government. On top of that, all of the emails were from ONE person, not three “different” sources.
Then there’s the fact that the EIA employee wasn’t anywhere near a “senior” official. When he wrote the first email that the Times cited, he was an intern at the EIA.
A 2011 article that was published by Energy In Depth shows that the New York Times’ ombudsman had judged the product of the newspaper.
Conservative Tribune explains:
There’s no way of knowing who The Times’ source is in this case, but history suggests the possibility that The Times has similarly exaggerated or inflated the seniority of this anti-Trump “senior official” who is part of a resistance movement inside Trump’s own administration.
The Times editors — who stated in an introduction to the op-ed that they know who the author is — have refused to reveal that individual’s identity, ostensibly to protect the writer from potential blowback or career-ending punishment.
Perhaps just as likely is that they are protecting that person’s identity because it will be quite embarrassing for them if it is revealed that the “senior” official is in actuality some Trump-hating mid-level bureaucrat or low-level intern.
That’s if the op-ed was even written by a member of the administration at all, and wasn’t just some piece of fiction cooked up by The Times itself to smear Trump. (Hard as that might be to believe, it can’t be completely ruled out, given how fake some of the media’s “fake news” stories have been proven to be.)
And just like that, the New York Times’ credibility is shot.