Who wrote it? Anon op-ed in NYT sparks debate


By Alyse Kaminski | Staff Columnist

It has been almost a week since The New York Times released the anonymous op-ed, breaking the news that a number of President Trump’s senior officials are allegedly working against him. In the last few days, I have had many thoughts about who it could have been and what it could mean for the rest of Trump’s term.

The same night the op-ed was released, CNN quickly published a list of 13 possible suspects — or writers. A few of those mentioned struck a chord with me, making me wonder if it really could be some of these figures. For example, Don McGahn, the White House counsel, might be on the top of my list as the culprit. After announcing his departure from the position, I would think he doesn’t have much to lose at this point. Sure, he would be outing some of his colleagues, but why not? I am all for a grand exit.

My other top pick would have to be Chief of Staff John Kelly. Originally, I thought this could not be the case, but a tweet from Karen Tumulty, a columnist for the Washington Post, changed my mind.

She wrote, “My 2 cents: It is hard to imagine the NYT would have given anonymity on something like this to someone who was not at least as high as a cabinet secretary or assistant to the president.”

This makes perfect sense. The New York Times has power right now as subscription numbers are up. They did not need to keep this person anonymous if he or she was not essential to the presidency. Also, another article from CNN reports that Kelly has been urging Trump to just let it go. There’s no better way to clear your name than telling the president to not worry about it.

CNN’s final pick was the first lady herself, Melania Trump. Now, this is way out of the realm of possibility and Chris Cizzilla, the author, knows that. However, how dramatic would that be? I would never need to watch any of the Bachelor shows again; my thirst for seeing relationship drama unfold would be quenched.

Not only does the mystery of the writer exist, but I wonder what this would mean for the presidency. Now, it has been about a week since the release of the op-ed, and I feel like it has already fallen out of the news. This leads me to believe that absolutely nothing about this presidency will change. On the other hand, we are not seeing what is happening behind the closed doors of the White House. I do not doubt at all that Trump has people interrogating his aides. I mean, this is the man who tweeted, “TREASON?”

While I cannot know with certainty how this will all play out, I know wholeheartedly that I believe a resistance within the White House is a positive step. On Twitter, I’ve seen users accuse those within this scheme of not doing enough or only doing it to save the image of the GOP as a whole. I don’t have a problem with that. The writer even expressed in the article that they are not part of the resistance of the Democrats, that they have seen good things come from this administration.

They also wrote, “Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people.”

Right here, the writer is legitimately trying to save what good reputation is left of the Republican party. So, it’s pretty clear the motive of this resistance is not to be a replica of the left.

But, that’s okay. A resistance is a resistance no matter how small. It’s a way of saying something along the lines of, “We are as close as we can get to this presidency and there is a reason to be alarmed.”

I think liberals need to realize that the likelihood of an impeachment or use of the 25th Amendment diminishes everyday. I’ve said since election night that if this man could get elected after the Access Hollywood tape, absolutely nothing will take him down. I hate to be pessimistic, but that’s the reality. So, I am absolutely okay with Trump’s aides doing what they can to even stop him a little bit. I trust their judgement way more than I would ever trust Trump’s.