Emma Burkey- White House aides narrow search for anonymous op-ed writer to a few people, source says

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/07/politics/white-house-oped-writer-search/index.html


This CNN published article, by Jim Acosta and Sophie Tatum, discusses the news that the White house believes they have narrowed down the possible people who could have written the op-ed that was published in the New York Times last week. President Trump believes it to be someone from the national security area of the U.S. government, but it was not released to CNN who the suspects were. This investigation is crucial to the president and he wants Jeff Sessions to find out the author, although his advisers have tried to keep him from going into the subject. Trump is also trying to go after the New York Times calling the publication of the op-ed "treason". Many Trump staff members have already come out denying having anything to do with the piece of opinion writing, but as the writing said, "many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office." This shows that no one is above suspicion.

This is important news that only happened last week making it something that Americans should be focused on. The fact that someone that close to the president would essentially reveal a resistance to the administration is shocking. Of course the audience, (the American public and specifically readers of the New York Times and CNN), want to know who wrote this opinion piece because they wouldn't be reading the article if they weren't fascinated by the event. But we as Americans should be careful. As intriguing as the piece may be, it is important to consider other news we are missing from the White House. This is similar to Trump's tweets and how they have the power to make the majority of the public angry in an instant, but distracting to possibly even more disturbing news all the same. I am stating this as a possibility and not as a fact, but I believe the readers and followers of this story should indeed consider what else they are missing. That being said, the purpose of this article was to follow up on the story of the writing and it did just that. The article provided new information and the thoughts of the president in all of this mess. I think the historical significance of the letter is huge because all presidents in the past have relied on their advisers as people who agree and support them, but in the administration where close confidants, "steal documents off his desk in order to keep him from signing them," Trump has no one he can trust. This compares to inside sources during Watergate that gave information from Nixon's administration.