Anonymous’s Anti-Trump Op-Ed in the New York Times Is a Violation of the Oath of Office and Executive Order 10450

Sep 21, 2018 by Susan Rosenbluth

Criminal violations, including those impinging on national security, involved in the recent publication of the now-infamous anonymously-penned op-ed in the New York Times warrant an immediate Trump administration investigation into the author’s identity, according to an attorney whose expertise on geo-political and security affairs is sought by many publications and organizations.

“Anonymous’s op-ed would serve as a basis for a Federal criminal investigation because he or she prima facie violated the oath of office statute,” says Mark Langfan, who also serves as chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel.

Mr. Langfan’s argument dovetails that of Vice President Mike Pence who recently told reporters he and President Donald Trump were actively trying to “find out if there was criminal activity involved” in publishing the op-ed.

An Assault on Democracy

In the op-ed, the anonymous author, who identifies as a “senior official” in the Trump administration, alleges that the President’s “amorality” and other salacious traits prompted him or her to successfully thwart Mr. Trump’s specific policy actions. The author praises the work of “unsung heroes” on the President’s administration staff who secretly push back against Mr. Trump.

“The Constitution of the United States vests all executive power in the President of the United States. To have an individual who took that oath literally say that they work every day to frustrate the President advancing the agenda he was elected to advance is undemocratic. It’s not just deceitful. It’s really an assault on our democracy,” said Mr. Pence.

Mr. Langfan says the op-ed and its author may pose a national security threat that could be prosecutable.

Security Requirements

“As a senior official in the Trump administration, Anonymous assuredly took the Federal oath of office and is, therefore, subject to the Oath of Office Law, which includes numerous security requirements for Government employment, all of which Anonymous violated,” says Mr. Langfan.

For example, Executive Order 10450, under which the Oath of Office Law is promulgated, lists violations which include “any behavior [or] activities…that show that the individual is not reliable or trustworthy,” “any infamous, dishonest conduct,” “any facts which furnish reason to believe the individual may be subjected to coercion, influence, or pressure,” “commission of any act of sabotage or sedition,” “advocacy of the alteration of the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means,” and “intentional, unauthorized disclosure of information disclosure of which is prohibited by law, or willful violation or disregard of security regulations.”

“Given these clear prima facie violations of the Oath of Office law 5 U.S.C. 3331 and Executive Order 10450, a criminal investigation is not only clearly war ranted, but also legally mandated,” says Mr. Langfan.

“Trustworthy” or “Dishonest?”

He points to the preamble of the Executive Order in which the character traits of people “privileged” to be employed in the departments and agencies of the government are emphasized: they shall be “reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States.”

“Any actions which violate the legal directives of the duly elected and installed President of the United States are violating that ‘loyalty,’” says Mr. Langfan. “Anonymous claims to have been thwarting President Trump’s directives, specifically concerning ‘free markets.’ Anonymous believes Mr. Trump’s ‘impulses are generally anti-trade,’ and, therefore, Anonymous’s stated actions to secretly disrupt the duly elected President’s policies on ‘trade’ are a per-se violation of Anonymous’s oath of office and violations of numerous aspects of Executive Order 10450.”

For example, he says, Anonymous’s secretly upending Mr. Trump’s directives would fall under the categories of “infamous” and “dishonest.”

Further, he says, any “senior” official who makes such scandalous claims against a sitting President without first registering those claims officially is clearly “not reliable or trustworthy.”

Sabotage and Sedition

Mr. Langfan notes that, almost by definition, Anonymous’s publishing the op-ed constituted an act of “sabotage” against the Trump administration.

By working with the New York Times, Anonymous and the editors and publishers of the paper may have conspired “to set other unconstitutional forces in motion to un-seat a duly elected President,” says Mr. Langfan.

“Anonymous and his or her criminal co-conspirators at the Times endeavored to thwart a duly elected President’s policy objectives. That is likely sedition,” he says, adding that Anonymous is certainly guilty of “intentional, unauthorized disclosure.”

Mr. Langfan goes on to explain that, under Section 6 of Executive Order 10450, the threshold for launching an investigation is the suspicion that the offender’s actions “may not be clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”

For example, he says, national security issues raised by the anonymous op-ed include “possible foreign governments’ false conclusions of an unstable or disordered chain of command.”

National Security

Asked if fear of national security violations is too low a bar to use as a reason to begin an investigation into Anonymous’s identity, Mr. Langfan says not at all.

“This is a very low bar for the obvious reason that where there is ‘seditious’ smoke in a federal employee’s actions, there is likely ‘criminal’ fire,” he says.