Charlie Kirk offers $50,000 reward for NYT op-ed author’s identity
Conservative activist and founder of Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk is offering a $50,000 reward for information on the anonymous White House official whopublished a blistering anti-Trump New York Times op-ed.
Mr. Kirk also declared war on “the deep state,” which some have said is behind the chaotic portrayal of President Trump’s administration.
Just got off the phone with a prominent Republican donorHe is offering $50,000 cash to information that will lead to the identification and termination of the New York Times “anonymous” author Time to declare war on the deep stateAnyone have info contact me directly Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) September 6, 2018
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders released a statement telling the public and reporters to call the New York Times for the name. She said the “gutless” piece is “recklessly tarnishing” members of the administration.
For those of you asking for the identity of the anonymous coward: pic.twitter.com/RpWYPHa6To Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) September 6, 2018
“They are the only ones complicit in this deceitful act,” she said. “We stand united together and fully support our President Donald J. Trump.”
So far, many of Trump’s top officials have denied outright having any involvement with writing the op-ed, including Vice President Mike Pence, Director of National Security Dan Coats, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristjen Nielsen.
The president himself demanded that the New York Times reveal the author’s name, citing national security concerns.
Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once! Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2018
The source is only described as a “senior official in the White House” by the New York Times, which refused to print the name because the official’s job would be at risk.