Isn't the textual evidence just evidence of a lawyer's writing?

If I were to engage in a critique of this theory, this would be my main argument:

Two of the main textual characteristics, the heavy use of hyphens and em dashes, are common in legal writing. So, by pointing out that the op-ed is written like that, and that Rosen's writing is like that, you've accomplished nothing. All you've shown is that the NYT op-ed author writes like a lawyer and so does Rosen.

I completely agree with this critique! Rosen is an extremely experienced and polished legal writer. His writing is clear and organized and effective. It follows the norms and conventions of legal writing, as it should for a senior partner at a major law firm.

The hyphens and em dashes are a major clue to authorship. They certainly don't prove it is Rosen, but Rosen's writings are definitely consistent with the op-ed. Rosen also has the history of writing op-eds, he is connected closely with a cabinet officer (25th amendment discussions), and his political beliefs line up perfectly with those expressed in the op-ed.

Today or tomorrow I will make a post about how the tone and attitude of the op-ed lines up with several sharp letters Rosen has written in the past and leaked to the press. This op-ed follows a pattern of using the press to indirectly push his viewpoint.