I think the Op Ed writer was Pence.

[CTyankee]

Why?

Cui bono. Who benefits?

He may just want to be president and here's his chance. Or he may be genuinely feel it is his duty.

It does make sense...

[mainstreetonce]

1. I think the NY Times would not take it from him

They would be complicit.

[CTyankee]

2. Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way.

[Hortensis]

4. Good point. Pence would far have too much to lose.

And let's give credit to his really impressive self discipline. Over 2 years playing Trump's foremost acolyte impeccably, if nauseatingly.

I'm actually reminded of the lies so many bought that Hillary dangerously tried to steal the Democratic nomination when she was always far more ahead than most realized and it was hers to cruise to. Nooo.

Unless he's involved in Trump-Russia, or stupid to the point of self destruction (never to be ruled out in this group), Pence has the presidency in the bag. But he could lose everything by subverting Trump's presidency. Pence can be impeached also. Not only does he have to scrupulously avoid being caught breaking the law, but there are millions of trumpsters out there who'll turn on him if he's caught betraying Trump instead of playing the regretful inheritor of Trump's torch.

My take anyway.

[bpositive]

3. I think it was

Trump

[The King of Prussia]

5. The BBC seem to share your suspicions

[link:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45435813|

[fescuerescue]

6. I think it was definitely written to make it appear to be Pence

Which doesn't preclude Pence writing himself and intentionally planting seeds so that he has plausible deniability.

The other possibility is that it was written by someone else, and crafted to appear as written by Pence.

This was probably written over the course of days or weeks and is extremely well crafted. It's in the New York Times after all. A word like "lodestar" doesn't get left in by accident.