Indeed. If the editor of the NYT says he knows who it is and that it is a senior official, then you can take that to the bank. THAT is how solid that paper’s reputation is. And this IS a senior official, because as has been pointed out elsewhere, if a mid-level official wanted to write something like this, he/she would be told to take a hike. You can bet good money that this a very senior official.
I think the NYT editor ought to hire a bodyguard or two for the near term.
The credibility of the New York Times would take a huge hit if it turns out that Lodestar is an assistant to an Under Secretary of Agriculture. They know this, and wouldn’t take that risk for someone who has no public notability. Lodestar is someone we will recognize.
There are people higher up than an Under Secretary that aren’t household names. There’s members of the NSC that aren’t household names. I think someone at that level is a senior official–i don’t know what else you’d call them.
I should clarify this. I reviewed the op-ed again and it refers to “a senior official in the Trump administration,” not specifically White House staff. So it could someone anywhere in the executive branch.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the New York Times have taken up the issue of how many people can be considered “senior administration officials”, and come up with the rather wishy-washy “at least probably hundreds at a minimum”.
That’s written by a reporter who has no knowledge of who the senior official is. On the other hand, the more people they put in the pool, the safer the guy is.
The contents of the Op-ed certainly makes it sound like the person had access to the White House and the President though.
That’s beautiful.
The standard for libel is very difficult to meet in the U.S. for a public figure. Trump would never win such a lawsuit. That said I’m still surprised he hasn’t threatened one, though apparently he asked a couple senators to change the law so he could sue.
Here’s a fairly convincing article naming a lower-profile but plausible subject:
Guys, it’s clearly Sessions. He’s the only one with enough animosity with the WH to go public. The president insults him, threatens to fire him, and impugns his reputation. He’s a senior official. He’s interested in conservative principles, unlike, say, DeVos, who wouldn’t really care about passing “historic tax reform” or deregulation or having “a robust military.” Those are things a 20-year Republican Senator would care about.
Finally, I leave you with this:
“No greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our republic than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law." - Jeff Sessions, 9/5/17
“The president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.” - LodeStar, 9/5/18.
When was the last time you heard someone else say “health of our republic”?
It’s hard to search for that phrase now because the results are dominated by the text of the editorial. I’m not saying the Slate link I posted above is THE answer, but it’s based on a fistful of rhetorical tropes rather than the one you identify. Then again, a clever writer might have stolen phraseology from another person, but is Jeff Sessions that person?
Also, the author didn’t mention immigration at all and I think that’s one of Sessions’ big things. Would Sessions be clever enough to leave that out as a proud accomplishment? Although, arguably “make our nation safer” at the very top of the editorial could refer to immigration policy–Trump has done little else (publicly at least) that putatively “makes us safer.”
I have mixed feelings about the NYT, but I don’t think the editorial board is above puffing the writer up a bit. I’m guessing that the author has actual access to the White House and, if not a secretary, easy access to secretary-level appointees–if we take his/her account at face value. But my guess (like some of those above) is that the writer is a comparatively minor official whose motives are venal, rather a la Mark Felt.
Justice, Defense, Treasury, State, and Intelligence are the ubiquitous agencies who know everybody and are in and out of the White House frequently. I’m going to guess this is the work of, say, an undersecretary of State. People at that level are the folks who both rub shoulders with the top level and actually execute policy rather than setting priorities. The kind of person who could, for example, kick out a bunch of Russian spies as part of normal duties without recourse to approval from higher authority–simply acting within the parameters of existing law and policy.
If this person really is a “senior official,” whether a big name or not, the op-ed indicates there are a group of people engaged in “resistance.” This could well be the case and is certainly not an instance of “deep state” resistance, as we’re talking about political employees (or that’s the implication of the way the Times identified the writer) and not career government employees. It’s very easy to imagine Trump approving, or not even caring enough to approve, the appointment of Republican factotums at the undersecretary level who loathe him.
It would explain why he insists on hanging on in the face of so much ridicule.
Did he ask them to change the 1st amendment and the ex-post facto clause of the Constitution, too? (That was a rhetorical question, btw. 
)
If Trump tries to climb in your window in the middle of the night, hold up a copy of the Constitution and he’ll be repelled.
Anyone tried touching him with one? Maybe he’ll be burned, like a vampire when touched by a cross.
If the author deliberately tried to hide her/his own writing style - the use of “lodestar” strongly suggests they did - AND the NYT edited it, which they are famous for doing, it will be extremely difficult to find a linguistic fingerprint match.
Sessions going out of his way to invoke McCain and warn against tribalism?
It’s more likely that Ivanka wrote it than Sessions.
My theory is that Pence is the author of the op-ed. He’s the one that most stands to benefit from it.
If Trump emerges unscathed, he can continue to claim that he has no idea who wrote it, but that whomever wrote it needs to be ferreted out for the good of the nation. His brow has never been more furrowed.
If Trump is impeached or 25thed, he can come out and say, “I wrote that. I knew that Trump was bad for the nation, and so I was secretly working to help you, the American people, remove him from office.”
It’s win-win for him.