Update: 9/9/18: Former U.S. Attorney contradicts the assertions in this article.
I happen to be one of handful of people in US who has prosecuted a seditious conspiracy case (to conviction). Claims that the anonymous op-ed is treasonous or seditious are lunacy, with an icky cult vibe. Please stop. Thank you.
— Andrew C. McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) September 9, 2018
Contributor Jon Thompson
The writer has broken the law by blatantly violating his or her oath of office with a level of arrogance and criminality that is outrageous and should face decades in prison for his or her despicable actions.
Chris Farrell covered 18 U.S. Code, Chapter 115, Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities in a Fox News op-ed Saturday and it is clear based on his reading of the law that the White House coward belongs in jail for a long time.
“The writer has broken the law by blatantly violating his or her oath of office with a level of arrogance and criminality that is outrageous and should face decades in prison for his or her despicable actions.”
Farrell said with certainty that the President was justified in calling for Jeff Sessions to open an investigation. And he must do so immediately.
The anonymous White House “resister” does not have the right to decide arrogantly and sanctimoniously what is right for the country.
Farrell says this person is facing serious time:
The resister explicitly brags about deliberately undermining and defying the president on foreign policy decisions concerning hostile foreign powers (“giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere” – 18 USC §2381 – “Treason”) and attempts to reframe Deep State subversion against the president as the work of virtuous officials from the “steady state.”
The resister did not, apparently, take the time to learn there are the duties and responsibilities inherent in the oath he or she violated. Before deciding to “save the country,” the resister should have examined 18 USC § 2384 – “Seditious Conspiracy,”containing specific language about people who “conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States,” and “prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”
The resister arguably faces 20 years imprisonment for each count of his or her malicious campaign against the Constitution and the Chief Executive, as defined under Article II.
Unfortunately, the threat is worse than this one person. There are dozens and dozens of resisters according to the White House rat.
The author of the Fox News article is a former Military Intelligence officer and Special Agent of US Army Counterintelligence. Farrell is also an Adjunct Professor in the Journalism Program of the Department of Communications at George Mason University. Read more on this link.
THE SENIOR OFFICIAL COULD BE A NOBODY IF ANYBODY AT ALL
We don’t have a clue as to who this “resister” is. It could someone very low on the totem pole. It is the New York Times after all and they have lied before.
The New York Times has exaggerated the importance of White House sources in the past. In one case, in an anti-fracking article, the industry was presented as a Ponzi scheme. Three senior analysts for the federal government were quoted. As it turned out it was one intern. Senate investigators were able to trace the emails. The NYT wasn’t the least bit embarrassed and the writer of the article was promoted.
THE NYT COULD BE MAKING IT UP FOR ALL WE KNOW
For all we know, the Times could have made it up. The article is a mass of gossip, ad hominem attacks, and unsubstantiated claims that have already appeared in the media. None of it was new.
Looking for the guilty party is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Linguists can sometimes find these people and have an important role in these types of investigations.
The linguist who helped identify the Unabomber was interviewed about this piece on Fox News.