I’m sure a lot of you have heard about the new book coming out called “A Warning” by Anonymous. A senior Trump administration official who was also the author of that famous Op-Ed in the New York Times last year. The allegations made by this official are deeply disturbing and paint a picture of a president who is profoundly mentally unfit for office. A president who won’t read briefings, can’t process complex information, and in effect needs to be babysat. What’s even more alarming is that according to Anonymous, there are less and less people around that are willing to do the job of babysitting Trump and preventing him from doing batshit crazy things. 

What’s unclear is if this official is still a current Trump administration official or if they have left the administration. But regardless, them remaining anonymous adds an extra layer of intrigue. Who is Anonymous? Why do they feel compelled to remain anonymous? These are some of the questions that naturally come to mind. 

At the same time, I also wonder if remaining anonymous makes the allegations more or less credible. I trust that they have good reason to remain anonymous, but I also wonder if it would be better if they came out and revealed who they are. If they have an important role in the administration and they reveal themselves, would that make their allegations more powerful? Or is it better that they remain anonymous? Is their more power in anonymity? I’m curious to get some thoughts on this. 

I trust that they have good reason to remain anonymous,

I think the power of the book will hinge on this right here - the number of people that are willing to extend their trust to the author.

What I'm seeing right now is a book by an anonymous person (or group of people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)) whose motives can't be verified who stand to earn big money by releasing a book that's going to get free publicity telling the public something it already knows - and that's not really a solid foundation for trust.

I know that we think the anonymous author of this book and the whistleblower who catalyzed the current impeachment investigation are different people, but they both run similar risks.

The LA Times interviewed Valerie Plame (description of her circumstance is in the article) and got her perspective regarding anonymity. I think it’s relevant to this discussion:

Outed CIA officer Valerie Plame has advice for whistleblower under fireAfter Valerie Plame was outed as a CIA agent in 2003, a White House aide was convicted, a reporter went to jail and her career in intelligence ended.www.latimes.com

Edward Snowden said he chose to burn his life to the ground to give more credibility to his leaks. Whomever Anonymous is, he or she can’t say anything publicly and continue in the administration because insta fired.

What impact did Snowden’s decision to “burn his life to the ground” actually have on our perception of legitimacy? Did Snowden’s willingness to own his actions dilute their impact?

Does the anonymity factor in the Times article, the whistleblower accusations, and the upcoming book actually amp up the impact of the accusations simply because it adds another relevant topic of discussion in which the accusations are recounted...? Does the anonymity question double our fascination?

I can't speculate as to the person's motives, but there is certainly a knock-on effect of anonymity in this case: it feeds DJT's already gargantuan paranoia and sense of persecution. Especially if Anonymous may still be in the administration, he is going to be even more uncertain who is 'against him' and even more eagerly requiring sycophantic declarations of eternal loyalty from his employees. I am not sure this book will have a significant effect on anything longterm -- except perhaps the author's reputation if they choose to reveal themselves years in the future -- but the anonymous criticism has to be increasing the pressure-cooker atmosphere in that chaotic West Wing.

Very good point. It does add more cause for concern and paranoia as you said. Perhaps that is the main reason this individual is choosing to remain silent.

I agree with Felicity that it will probably make Trump more paranoid. I wonder if it wouldn't make anyone more cautious in any organization. Imagine if you were the principal of a school and someone, maybe a teacher, was publishing anonymous critical things about you to parents.

I was talking about this last night with someone and I made the case that Anonymous is probably Rex Tillerson.

1. Tillerson found out he was fired by tweet, which is an incredibly public shaming to the former CEO of one of the largest companies in the world.

2. Planting news stories was part and parcel of his company’s culture.

Exxon continues to fund 'science' group steeped in climate denialThe oil giant has funded a group that frequently downplays health risks of climate change and other industry activities as recently as 2018.www.climateliabilitynews.org

3. When Tillerson was in the White House he despised Trump, supposedly calling Trump a “moron” in front of witnesses.

4. Tillerson viewed Trump as having no boundaries or sense of reality:

"I think part of it was obviously we are starkly different in our styles. We did not have a common value system," Tillerson told CBS News political contributor Bob Schieffer on Thursday. "When the president would say, 'Here's what I want to do and here's how I want to do it,' I'd have to say to him, 'Mr. President, I understand what you want to do, but you can't do it that way. It violates the law. It violates a treaty.' You know, he got really frustrated." (cbsnews)

6. Nikki Haley accuses Tillerson and John Kelly of actively trying to undermine the President.

'Dangerous path': Nikki Haley alleges John Kelly, Rex Tillerson disloyalty to TrumpPresident Trump's former U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, alleges in her upcoming memoir that two top administration officials tried to enlist her in opposing some of Trump's policies.t.co

Seems logical. Let's assume you are correct - does it change your reaction to the book 'knowing' it's author is Tillerson compared to 'thinking' it might be a besieged White House aide who might lose their job? What does Tillerson gain from anonymity?

What does Tillerson gain from anonymity?

It’s playing head games with the President. The paranoia increases on a daily basis as long as Trump doesn’t know if Anonymous is still in the White House. Considering the public shaming Trump inflicted on Tillerson, I see revenge as his primary reason to remain anonymous. It’s also been shown that Trump says or does things that are self-injurious when he’s off-balance.

Revenge

6 Of The Most Brutal Acts Of Revenge In HistoryServed cold.www.scoopwhoop.com

Have you ever patiently waited for the time to be right and then. took your revenge on some person who did you dirty? Was it satisfying o...Answer (1 of 9): Um yes, I am definitely guilty of this and yes, it was very satisfying. I have never experienced any backlash and instead found the person or observers were impressed with my ability to quietly make my point. It also helps that I was not being unreasonable and didn't do anything ...www.quora.com

Thought you’d find this interesting.

Score 1 for Anonymous

That is very frightening and also very telling!