NYT Lied About Anonymous Source in 2011

On Wednesday, the New York Times published an explosive op-ed titled “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.” The article purports to be authored by a senior Trump staffer, who wants the President to succeed, but believes him to be erratic and, of course, includes talk of impeachment.

Fingers have been pointed in every direction as to who the author could be. Some initially speculated that Mike Pence could be the author for a, particularly desperate reason. The op-ed contains the word “lodestar,” and some sleuths found examples of Pence using the word in past speeches and statements. How frequently? Eight times over 17 years.

So, no smoking gun there.

Another subject of speculation was Jon Huntsman. National Review’s senior political correspondent Jim Geraghty pointed to some styling similarities between Huntsman’s writing and the Times op-ed, but as was the case with Pence, it’s flimsy evidence.

Meanwhile, Wikileaks narrowed it down to an “older conservative male,” which means a female didn’t pen the op-ed, but it hardly narrows the list of potential candidates down.

While the Times claims that a senior official authored the 0p-ed, how are we to know? After all, it’s an anonymous op-ed. They can claim whoever they want wrote it, and if they are lying about the person’s role in the administration, it wouldn’t be the first.

As the American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson noted, in a lengthy anti-fracking article back in 2011, the NYT claimed that senior industry experts and insiders believed the industry to be little more than a “Ponzi scheme” … “set up for failure.” According to the New York Times, one “energy analyst” wrote, “Am I just totally crazy, or does it seem like everyone and their mothers are endorsing shale gas without getting a really good understanding of the economics at the business level?”  Another “federal analyst” said in an industry email, “It seems that science is pointing in one direction and industry PR is pointing in another.”

However, “It turns out the federal analyst, the energy analyst and the officer turned out to be the same person who was actually an intern when he wrote the first email and in an entry-level position when he wrote the other comments. Yes, that’s right, the “Paper of Record” misrepresented an intern/junior employee as a senior official to push an agenda.”

So, it wouldn’t be a stretch if the Times were overstating the supposed role of their anonymous author.

Trump, meanwhile, had reportedly narrowed down the potential author to a list of 12 people. Their names are not yet known.