Daggers for Trump: Who wrote the op-ed piece and who else is about to betray him and will it lead to anything?

It's not the Ambassador to Russia. That's a position where the person would not be involved in Oval Office activities, nor would they have the ability to access papers on the desk and remove them, nor would they be involved in or even privy to 25th Amendment discussions among cabinet members. 

I'm a language expert, trust me, it reads like Pence wrote it, which is my number 1 theory that I am sticking to. The optimistic tone reeks of Pence. Not only language, but it has to be someone Trumple Dumpskin can't actually fire. He can't fire his VP. I think if it was anyone else, another viper in the snake put would have ratted them out already, but I think they would want to stay on Pence's good side in case he ascends.

My back-up theory is that it's a "Murder on the Orient Express" situation - i.e., they ALL [cabinet members] did it.

I can imagine the depths of Trump's paranoia over this. What I think is troubling though is that there is more coverage of the 'who dunnit' aspect in some news reports rather than the 'why have they felt the need to do this?'. It should be deeply troubling if any of what the person said is true. I think the focus on who wrote it might detract from it having any positive effect.

I find it disturbing that Trump is trying to make this 'treason' (which is naturally how he sees it). If you have a madman at the helm I think it's more in the way of heroic to try and limit their action than treasonous. You can't just let Nero fiddle whilst Rome burns!

There are a few tarot readings online where the reader has felt that it was a group of people behind the op-ed rather than a lone person. It's an interesting possibility.

Hi - my name is Tama and this is my first post here, so apologies for any mistakes. I've been reading tarot for (ack!) more than 30 years now,  and like most of you here, am deeply concerned about the state of the US. 

I've done multiple tarot readings on the subject of who wrote the op-ed piece, and (as is mentioned above) also could not narrow it down - it does look like a group effort of some kind. I did detect the involvement of a feminine hand somehow. Not Ivanka, Sarah Sanders or Nikki Haley, though. 

There was more clarity on the subject of *why* the piece was written. Logic tells me the piece was only meant as a distraction from the SCOTUS hearings, but the cards were clear that there was a great deal of shame behind it all. The cards indicated there had been a recent death (10 of swords and the death card) and this hit the writer/s like a ton of bricks (the tower). From this I imagine that John McCain's death and all the talk of him being "honorable" unlike Trump had caused shame and embarrassment to the writers, so they felt the need to defend themselves.

According to this reading, they hope to convince people that they really are honorable despite all appearances and hope to benefit from that once they regain their own power. 

I hate to say it, but the cards tend to be right more often than my logic is, so I'm going with this interpretation. The piece was not written for altruistic reasons, but also not quite the pure cold-blooded manipulation that I imagined it to be.

Tama, a hearty welcome to our community!!

Thank  you for your post.  Your  reading feels spot on to me—that it was shame (and trying to cover their asses) that motivated the op-ed piece and that there is enough shame and fear among the high ranking staff, that they wanted to tell the world their story.  

Still the  wording of the piece seems linguistically to be written by one person who drafted and submitted it.  

The New York  Times has strict journalism standards and would not report that it came from one person unless it did.   They could have just have easily reported that it was  from ten anonymous people if that were the case.  That’s just my opinion and I welcome all opinions here.

You’ve got me intrigued now so I decided to throw cards using the Ryder Waite deck.  I rarely use this deck but here goes.

 I asked if it was John Huntsman and got the ace of cups.  Aces mean yes. The fact that it’s cups indicates he is an idealistic man who believes in his cause.

I asked how the others feel about the piece and get that there is a tight knit group of perhaps three who are glad and even exchanging high fives.  

But they did not know it was coming.  Huntsman needed to act alone in order to protect his anonymity.

I asked if Pence was involved, and got queen of cups.  She is looking away from everyone, staring at a religious icon in her hands as if she is trying to stay separate from the fray and let god take the reins.  Pence is  trying to stay passive and inert.  The words coming from his body language are, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Then  I ask how the writer (and I am now assuming it’s Huntsman) feels about having done the deed.

 I get the Fool and a few other Page cards that indicate that the man is immature and foolishly impetuous (to quote one of his own favorite words used in the piece and in his usual vernacular).  He is not upset yet but he had no idea it would set off the storm of criticism from all sides that it did— criticism of the writer and the resistance in the White House. 

Is he glad he did it? I get two cards and a mixed response.  At first he thought he had done good and was protecting Camelot.  The man seems to be an ideologue.  

The second and later response is the death card.  He feels he will be caught and his career ended. Nobody at this point, save John McCain, goes against Trump without facing the gallows.  

I can’t tell at this time whether someone will be definitely identified and outed, however.  

PS I just now saw Laura F’s post that it can’t be Huntsman and is probably Pence.  Interesting.   Thanks Laura, for the insights.  I think Paul also suggested Pence because of the word "lodestar."  But McCain used that word a lot and Huntsman, according to Slate, adored McCain. 

I have mixed reaction to this op-ed.  At first I thought "oh boy, the rumors of rebellion in the White House are true."  Second thought is this was a deversion tactic by Trump and his gang to take the focus off of the hearings and rev up his base.  The fact that it came out right after the Woodward book is very telling to me.  Trump wants  his minions to think he is  being persecuted so they up the reteric and the violence Trump has promised if he is not elected.  The other thought I had was someone close to  Trump wants to get rid of someone else in the Cabinet.  Thinking Kushners vs Kelly?  

Just my thoughts from my gut.  I wouldn't put anything past the Trrump administration.

PS. Please excuse my spelling, I know it sucks!

If it is  Pence, then he would have had to deliberately used Huntsman's vernacular and grammar in order to throw people off. If not deliberate then it's a mighty coincidence of verbiage. The Ryder-Waite Queen of Cups card that I got for Pence would be interesting if it's Pence -- as if he is pretending not to be involved and instead focusing on his religion.  I don't feel Pence is bright enough to realize he has to change the grammar and word choice to escape scrutiny.  However if someone else helped him, like a lawyer or political consultant, then perhaps yes.  And, as Laura pointed out, he can't be fired and has much to gain from getting rid of Trump. 

It is simply not possible that Trump himself would have done it.  His ego is too fragile to put something so damaging and ridiculing to himself out to the world. 

ok, so now they are talking about using Lie Detector machines on the staff to find out who wrote the op-ed (!)   Not sure if those work on pathological liars. Since they are so fond of torture, maybe waterboarding would be a better choice for them//

Staff should all refuse. No crime was committed. Trump does not own their souls.  Only in the military is insubordination a crime.  None of these folks are soldiers.