Donald Trump

Trump: DOJ Should Investigate NYT Op-Ed Writer for 'National Security' Purposes

Trump thinks that by publishing the piece, the Times is "virtually" guilty of "treason."


Ron Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom

President Donald Trump says the Department of Justice should investigate the identity of the "senior official" who criticized him this week in an anonymous New York Times op-ed.

The op-ed represents a "national security" issue, Trump claimed to reporters aboard Air Force One today, according to the Associated Press. "We're going to take a look at what he had, what he gave, what he's talking about, also where he is right now."

Whoever wrote the op-ed shouldn't be able to attend meetings that require an upper-level security clearance, Trump added.

It's not clear what crimes the anonymous official is supposed to have committed, though Trump has previously called him/her "gutless" and a "coward." In a statement to CNN, Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores said the department does "not confirm or deny investigations."

Trump has spoken out strongly against the op-ed ever since its publication on Wednesday. That evening, he questioned on Twitter whether the senior official even exists or if the Times was using "another phony source." In that same tweet, Trump said that if the official does exist, the Times "must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"

Trump continued attacking the op-ed yesterday, suggesting to Fox & Friends that by publishing the piece, the Times is "virtually" guilty of "treason." Aboard Air Force One today, Trump told reporters he wasn't sure if he'll be taking action against the paper. "We're going to see, I'm looking at that right now," he said.

According to the Times, the White House has a list of 12 people it suspects of authoring the article.

NEXT: Ted Cruz and Beto O'Rourke's Sprint for the Senate Heats Up

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If the anonymous columnist is telling the truth, it seems likely that Jeff Sessions will say, “I’m on it” and then do nothing. Let’s hope so.

    1. I know you didn’t mean to, but I think you got it right calling the author a “columnist”. I reckon this is NYT fiction.

      1. I reckon this is NYT fiction.

        That’s The New York Times’ record and reputation against Tom Bombadil’s disaffected gullibility.

        1. Exactly right. Record and reputation is in the shitter.

          1. Different strokes.

            I will continue to respect The New York Times and The Washington Post; you can stick with FreeRepublic, Breitbart, Instapundit, and Stormfront.

            Good luck.

        2. “That’s The New York Times’ record and reputation against [random internet poster’s credibility]”

          Random internet poster’s credibility wins.
          Hands down

  2. There’s only one way to address this and i’m Sure someone with as great a mind like Trump’s will figure it out. From the article it says the writer is a WH insider, right? That means he is probably inside the WH. Once Trump figures that out he needs to get with General “Mad Dog” Mattis and order the entire payload of the US nuclear strike force be aimed at the WH to stamp out this treason. That’ll teach Mike Pence Anonymous Resister Guy!

    1. I believe “Senior Administration Official”.. That covers gazillions, including lots who don’t work in the WH.

      1. Details, details. Our President is a big picture guy and that is what makes him great. He doesn’t sit around like a bunch of Democratic pussies and try to understand shit. He just relies on the two most important places on his body to tell him what is right: out his ass and through his cock. That’s what matters.

        1. Sorry… I meant through his cock and out his ass, of course.

        2. You really suck at this parody thing. You should either just get a straight handle like “I Fucking Hate Trump” or you should study up on how to convey commitment to your character a bit better. If you had more confidence that Trump supporters are idiots, you would be able to sit in the voice more comfortably, the way OBL does.

          1. What makes you think he is going for a classic parody routine?

          2. Parody? Come on! I’m just trying to keep up with my brethren at Breitbart and John. They are very astute! People here are so cynical, man. I’m playing it straight up and simply commenting on how Trump is the greatest political leader since A. Lincoln. How do I know this? Because he said it and that’s good enough for me since he doesn’t do anything except not not not not tell the truth.

      2. Purge them all, and let Allah sort them out! It stands to reason the LP has nothing to lose in all this.

      3. Tom Bombadil: Does that include the Uber Eats individual that delivers his Big Macs each night?

    2. Can’t they identify the mole through writing style analysis? That’s how the NSA IDed Satoshi Nakamoto.

      1. Couple of articles out today from people in the field. Doubtful they could do that. To have any chance they would need many more words and similar samples. Also the writer can edit in such a way that the piece throws off the analysis. The “lodestar” thing for example they said they would throw that out as a red herring. They use words like “if, and, but, also” punctuation and regional phrases.

        People write differently depending on what they are doing so you can’t compare a tweet to an op ed for example.

      2. Even if they could identify it by style analysis, the writer and NYT could have anticipated that and had the article ghost written to defeat that. Or they could have copied the style of someone in the White House who had nothing to do with it.

    3. I don’t think its Pence. But these days who knows? I mean we had Spartacus in the senate yesterday. There are actual Vegas odds on who it is and Pence is the favorite though. I would like odds on it not being Pence and I would bet on that.

      1. Well, one thing’s for certain. If it is Pence the penalty for besmirching Trump should be that he has to fuck Stormy Daniels up the ass without his wife present. Followed by being drawn and quartered on a Lodestar, of course.

      2. Didn’t whoever wrote that say they were afraid of losing their job? Pence can’t be fired.

      3. Odds have nothing to do with probability of being accurate.
        They have everything to do with the gullibility of bettors.

  3. Isnt that what Obama did?

    I wonder if the media will mention that and compare Trump’s talk to Obama actual suppression of the press?

    1. Ah yes… but what about __________?

      1. The whataboutism you speak of is of, Trump talking vs Obama actually doing.

        1. But, that’s exactly the sort of thing complaints about “whataboutism” were invented to deflect.

    2. They won’t.

    3. To the author’s credit, this wasn’t as breathless and histrionic as I expected it to be. But the prevailing consensus seems to be forming that this is somehow a threat to the first amendment and more evidence that Trump is a deranged Lunatic for suggesting treason.

      Of course, we don’t know who it is, so how do we know it’s not Jim Mattis? Would it NOT be a security threat, or possible treason if he was disobeying orders and trying to undermine actions in war efforts that Trump is the commander in chief of?

      Once the true identity is known, we may be a long way off from that, but at this point, I don’t think suggesting that there could be a very serious problem here is beyond the pale. Hell, assuming this is real, we definitely have an un-elected and unaccountable bureaucrat who has decided that his oath, the constitution and the chain of command don’t apply to him, and that he is free to subvert the expressed will of the voters because of his feelings. That’s a big fucking problem, and its pretty amazing that after Trump has been called crazy for two years for insisting that there’s a deep state working secretly against him from within his own administration, one of them admits it in the NYT but it’s no big deal and Trump is still the crazy one because he actually needs adult supervision.

      Those goals posts sure move fast!

  4. The op-ed is as fake as the dossier and he should treat it as such.

    1. Stay on point here: RUSSIA!!!!

      1. Yes of course.

      2. What ever happened to Russia running Trump? I hardly hear about Mueller every second of every day.

        I guess the Lefties have shifted gears and this is the signal flare to move to plan B?

        1. My favorite thing about Mueller is how he keeps quiet and does his job. Go ahead and forget about him.

          1. Blaming the wrong person for the Atlanta olympics was him doing his job…NOT.

            Mueller has not gotten a single conviction for anyone tampering with the 2016 elections. That was his job.

    2. Would be awesome if it was the same author and paid for by the same person.

  5. “National security” is the Republican equivalent of the Democrats’ “for the children.” It’s basically a blank check to authoritarianism.

    1. ^ This. And, really, “National Security” is just “For the Children” wrapped in a flag.

      1. The question is, is national security for the children, or are children the biggest threat to national security?

    2. Which is more important? The Bill of Rights or the NSDAP Plank 23 about the “deliberate political lie”?

  6. 12 people, one traitor will betray Trump to Mueller—> exactly like Jesus. It’s all so obvious now.

    1. exactly like Jesus

      More like Pertinax.

      1. Sounds like a laxative.

    2. 3 days until the crucifixion?

  7. I wonder what would happen if Twitter banned Trump.

    1. Nothing.

      1. You don’t think the resulting shitstorm would take out several resorts along the eastern seaboard?

  8. Of course they should investigate. The op-ed states they (plural) sabotaged President Trump and the WH agenda.

    So depending on what was sabotaged and its severity it could be treason. Or possibly a lesser crime. But in any event where is the DOJ?

    Oh wait too busy searching endlessly for something anything Trump or anyone whoever had any dealings with Trump has done in their lifetime.

    1. It’s not treason jesus get a grip. What crime was confessed to in the op-ed? If Trump finds the person he’s free to fire them for it, but that’s it.

      1. “TREASON. This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.”

        So its not possible that thwarting the lawful actions of the executive branch could not be used to giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

        It seems more plausible than anything in the Russia Russia Russia Trump hunt. And here is actual evidence of malfeasance. The op-ed admits as much.

        Lets just have an investigation.

        But the DOJ works for Trump. He doesn’t have to “ask” for an investigation.

        1. You are fucking insane if you think that op-ed constitutes treason. People who spied for the USSR in the Cold War weren’t even guilty of treason because the term “enemies” requires an active state of war not merely being an adversary (which is also why colluding with Russia wouldn’t be treason). To suggest that they didn’t meet that bar but this person did is nuts. And investigations are constrained by the law, this is not grounds for a criminal investigation because there is no evidence of a crime.

          1. No, he’s not saying that the op-ed could be treason. He’s saying that the activities DESCRIBED in the op-ed could be treason.

            Which strikes me as unlikely, but is not outright impossible.

            1. Nothing in the op-ed is even remotely close. There aren’t even any real details given.

              1. The op-ed links to a separate article with details of the conspiracy.

                I do think the op-ed is mostly just a combination of political theater and marketing for Woodward’s new book, though.

              2. Its called treason against the Constitution.

                Not actually a crime unless you commit it as described in the Constitution. Does not change the underlying behavior of trying to betray Constitutional principles.

                A coup against a duly elected President is EXACTLY that. Any conspiracy arising from that attempt to coup would also be included.

                The correct Constitutional method for removing a duly elected President is impeachment or not voting for them at reelection time. If you are doing other shit to undermine the Constitution and not just talking about it, you are committing treason against the Constitution. Luckily for those people doing it, its not illegal when there is no state of war with another country.

                1. “Its called treason against the Constitution.”

                  Constitutionally, there’s no such thing as “treason against the Constitution.”

                  Betrayal, sure. But treason is the one word that’s actually defined in the Constitution, and this doesn’t fit the definition unless they did it to wage war against the US or aid an enemy of the US.

              3. “”There aren’t even any real details given.”‘

                It says there is an active effort to usurp the President. That’s collusion against the office of the president. Don’t you know collusion is a crime? At least I keep hearing that from the anti-Trump crowd.

          2. So explain Mueller’s current job.

            Also treason is probably a bit strong but it does convey the message that the intentional sabotage of the executive in undertaking lawful actions possibly includes the commission of crimes

      2. See, you INVESTIGATE so you can determine if there are crimes worth prosecuting. No one gave the order to throw the switch on the gallows just yet, but we should probably look to see what’s going on here.

  9. “According to the Times, the White House has a list of 12 people it suspects of authoring the article.”

    Pretty humorous. The Times knows exactly who he/she/they are.

    1. The people on the reporting side of the NYT don’t necessarily know just because the op-ed people obviously know.

      1. So you know this how? The NYT is pretty much one gigantic editorial.

        1. Notice the use of the word “necessarily.” It’s possible people on the reporting side know, I’m not claiming to have knowledge of it. I’m saying that the op-ed and reporting people have different jobs and so the former knowing something doesn’t require that the latter know it. There’s also a lot of incentive here to minimize the number of people aware of the writer’s identity. Maybe they all know. But you don’t know that they do the way you claimed to.

          1. What? Just to be clear the “Times”, meaning at least one person at the Times does know who the author is.

            1. That’s true, but in the sentence “according to the Times” it’s presumably the reporting branch of the NYT that is relaying this information. My point is that the people actually reporting this don’t necessarily know who the writer is just because people in a different part of the company do.

  10. Something that did not seem possible until recently:

    1) That the DNC/DOJ/FBI would collude to get FISA warrants to surveil a presidential campaign.

    1. Wrong, that seemed possible, actually probably, at the creation of FISA. It was just a matter of time until “secret” courts are used for political gain. How did we NOT see that coming?

      1. My only complaint would be that the FISA courts didn’t mark the beginning of such spying. They just formalized it in a futile effort to limit it.

        I’ve always assumed the NSA was spying on politicians. They have the technical capacity, and it would explain why there’s been so little political push-back against the growth of the surveillance state.

  11. “Whoever wrote the op-ed shouldn’t be able to attend meetings that require an upper-level security clearance, Trump added.”

    This much at least seems a no-brainer. They claim to be part of a conspiracy to prevent the President from carrying out his policy preferences. Being part of a conspiracy which isn’t legally sanctioned would kind of suggest you didn’t deserve to have a security clearance.

  12. What a shit show!

    Thank God for Trump, or we’d be being preached at by Hillary, with her laughing stock husband as first fool and be in just enough conflicts around the world to keep our eyes off the ball, the corrupt corporate /government /media syndicate.

    Trump is enough of a megalomaniac to set the fires fiddle (tweet) while Rome burns.

    Thanks to social media stored for all time, nobody is going to put these fires out.

  13. I’m not a Trump supporter, I am #NeverFuckingHillaryTheFuckingBitch.

    However, Trump is handling it wrong.

    Just say:

    The New York Times lied when it reported that Iraq had WMDs.

    Since then, sane people know the Times has no credibility and this so called ‘anonymous source,’ for all we know could be Hillary Clinton.

    1. Never. Hillary has minions to do the dirty work.

    2. You haven’t thought this ‘one falsehood and you’re out’ rule through, you bigoted rube.

  14. If there is an investigation, I wonder what the “they didn’t spy on Trump’s campaign, just someone in Trump’s campaign” crowd will say.

    I bet they will cry that the media is being investigated.

  15. It’s not clear what crimes the anonymous official is supposed to have committed,

    I’m still betting on disgruntled former employee or simple fabrication by the NYT.

  16. The op-ed represents a “national security” issue, Trump claimed to reporters aboard Air Force One today, according to the Associated Press. “We’re going to take a look at what he had, what he gave, what he’s talking about, also where he is right now.”

    I’ll tell you where he is, he is on Air Force One as we speak!

  17. For some time now the New York Times has been guilty of serious malpractice of the formerly honorable calling of journalism (I say this having once been very proud of having sold them an op-ed column that ran Nov. 1, 1989.)

    This decline first became clear to me when they turned on investigative journalist Peter Schweizer after his book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich”

    Turned out, the NYT wanted that story to stay untold. They chose to echo the familiar Clinton defense when the appearance of impropriety sets dogs to barking–the accusers should shut up if they can’t prove quid pro quo, things only look stinky.

    Which is exactly why Hillary had to co-mingle her public and private business on a throwaway server and exactly why, at the critical moment, the acid wash and the hammers had to come out. Hillary leaves a lot less evidentiary trail than Bill of blue dress infamy.

    So I sit here sick at heart knowing I live in a country where Obama’s DOJ absolutely worked hand-in-hand with Clinton supporters to fabricate evidence to initiate the Russia Probe. The sole purpose of that was to overturn the result of an election and the New York Times has been all-out cheering and covering for this seditious Deep State plot. The rest of the intellectually corrupt and clueless media wolf pack follow the Old Gray Lady like she is a lead female in estrus, but Lord knows what they think they are smelling.

  18. New York Times… AKA DNC Newsletter

    1. Exactly right, goatonaboat, What I really, deeply, profoundly, hope and pray that Trump will do is fire Sessions ASAP, replace him with an A.G. who will fire Rosenstein and Mueller and the current 16 or 17 lawyers on the Russia Probe staff, then immediately appoint two (2) new Special Counsels and launch two new separate but equal investigations.

      The first would focus on the Clinton Foundation and the handling of the funds it solicited as well as how access at State may have been afforded to particular donors to the CF. An intense survey of existing internal records at State must be made because of the possibility that many directives and orders were done informally by email and these records no longer (apparently) exist. An intense audit will have to forensically reconstruct a great many of the actions and decisions that were made in many departments during the Obama Administration.

      The second special prosecutor, indeed, should be focused on the DOJ itself and be a complete and thorough review of everything about how the first “Russia Probe” was initiated, authorized, and conducted from its birth in 2016 to date. Where criminal charges need to be filed and prosecutions conducted, that process needs to be underway, and sooner the better.

      1. +1

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.