NYT Op-Ed “Resister” Is a Criminal Facing 20 Years in Jail

4

Update: 9/9/18: Former U.S. Attorney contradicts the assertions in this article.

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.

Chris Farrell wrote that the person who authored the scathing op-ed anonymously in the New York Times is a criminal.

“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.

4 COMMENTS

  1. I guess the NYT were concerned of the backlash from their own that it decided to answer a number of questions. All of which were to soothe the concerns of the leftists.

    They actually see no ramifications or repercussions with not only the publication, but more problematic that a single person and their intermediary are thwarting the operation of the Executive. These are mere disagreements but border on possible sedition. Can the Times be so confident to exclude any action perpetrated, intentional or not, which may result in disastrous results. On the one hand the person, or persons, could cause an action just to incriminate the President. Or, if they have the ability to give the wrong information which would cause the President to take unwarranted action.

    Could this have already been executed. In the so-called second chemical attack in Syria, by coincidence, an American reporter was on the scene at the time and spoke to the people seen in the video. There was No Chemical Attack. Were those of the “steady state” responsible for the reports of a chemical attack. The reference of “chemical” is still parroted by major media outlets.

    This person accuses Trump of being “anti-democratic” while boasting of membership in an unelected cabal that covertly imposes their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency” as Glen Greenwald points out. There are no specifics therefore a reasonable person can conclude it is based upon “policy differences”. For example, the outcry of how the President was handling the North Korea situation. Nearly everyone condemned his methods, and I suspect these cowards were part of that ‘group-think’.

    In the end it matters not one iota what this person, and his intermediary, think or believe what is best for the country. This country is “bound” by a Constitution that establishes a system to work accordingly. If the administration is committing illegal acts they would be duty-bound to expose such crimes. Otherwise it is They who are guilty of subversion against the Office of President. They have no moral authority on the basis of saving democracy when they are antagonists to that very democracy. At best, make your case why yours is the right choice in a matter, or, leave and speak out, rather than behave as a Russian agent.

  2. As as a reminder: In 2016, Trump’s legitimate popular vote was 63 million. Because numerous MzBill tallies in backalley urban precincts were almost double census counts, some 5 – 7.5+ million ballots nationwide –8 – 12% of the Rat total– were demonstrably frauds.

    Reducing Bobbletwot, Wunderschlumpf –MzBill’s– nominal total by a conservative 6 million obtains a legitimate count of (say) 57 million ballots, meaning that 2016’s popular was 63 : 57 million, a landslide 10.5% majority for Trump commensurate with his Electoral College proportion of 304 : 227 = 33.9%.

    Going on two years now, communo-fascist ideologues, media’s seditious libel, Rats’ clandestinely financed brownshirt/red-armband demagogues, have violated every syllable of U.S. Statutory strictures with impunity. Meantime, burgeoning Trump Prosperity built on self-confident U.S. rejection of subversive Globulism (sic) continues accelerating growth-and-change.

    Still rolling gutterballs, from Nadir Shah on down Rats’ vile anti-Semitic, Black Supremacist, Marxisant-taqiyya Muslump quota babies continue drooling asininities on every front. Make no mistake: Midterms 2018 will follow the 2016 pattern, when as late as 3:05 PM on Tuesday, November 8th, dreckmeisters such as LAT gave MzBill odds of 49 : 1 (98% probable).

Leave a Reply