monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@layman,

Quote:

In a 2004 article for the New Republic, journalist Michelle Cottle took stock of Wolff’s work. After describing his “quick wit, dizzying writing style, and willingness to say absolutely anything about anybody” in “a catty, caustic way,” and his fixation “on culture, style, buzz, and money, money, money,” Cottle essentially argues that Wolff is more of a gossip compiler than a rigorous reporter:

Michelle Cottle wrote:
Much to the annoyance of Wolff's critics, the scenes in his columns aren't recreated so much as created — springing from Wolff's imagination rather than from actual knowledge of events. Even Wolff acknowledges that conventional reporting isn't his bag.

Hmmm, that was 14 years ago, eh? This aint nuthin new for Wolffe, it seems, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Hmm, this kinda sounds like a reckless disregard for the truth, which will make your ass guilty of libel even if you're talking about a public figure and even if you claim to be a "reporter" with First Amendment rights, eh? Did Wolffe do anything to find out if his Boehner claim was true, or did he just recklessly disregard the question of truth?

Vox wrote:

The suggestion that Trump didn’t know who John Boehner was in 2016 appears highly dubious. Trump has tweeted about Boehner 26 times (once even mocking his occasional habit of crying) and played golf with him.

Some of the things Wolff describes in the excerpts sound so outlandish — and also happen to be so hazily sourced — that there’s already a vigorous discussion in the political world about how, exactly, this book should be interpreted. As fact? As “trashy tabloid fiction,” as the White House argues? Or as something in between?

From what I’ve read so far, my view is that we should interpret the book as a compendium of gossip Wolff heard. But of course gossip is often wrong or inaccurate. Sources can misstate the facts accidentally, or deliberately. We don’t really know how much effort Wolff put into trying to nail down whether the juicy stuff we heard was actually true, and Wolff is often deliberately vague about his sourcing.

In other words, the book does seem to be a collection of stuff Wolff heard. How much of that stuff is actually true is a different question — one that’s much tougher to answer.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/4/16845640/michael-wolff-trump-book

Vox aint exactly some right wing rag, eh? One of it's reporters advised readers to "start a riot" if Trump came to their town, a call which San Jose readers promptly heeded on that very same day. Trump wasn't there, but some of his supporters were, holding a rally for him.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

The New York Times wrote:

Obstruction Inquiry Shows Trump’s Struggle to Keep Grip on Russia Investigation

What obstruction inquiry? It is hardly obstruction for the president to decide that a certain investigation should not be pursued, or to fire an underling who is disobeying lawful orders.

Not that it would matter if Trump did commit obstruction, since the Democrats said that it was OK for Bill Clinton to commit obstruction.

If Mueller is wasting his time pursuing imaginary charges, then, well, he's wasting his time. Few Republicans if any will go along with lynching their president over imaginary charges. Few Republicans if any will go along with lynching their president over charges that the Democrats said it was OK for Bill Clinton to commit.

Probably Coward McCain would. He likes betraying his fellow Republicans and the empty praise that liberals give him when he does so. But a successful impeachment effort would require more than a single cowardly betrayer to join with the Democrats.

2 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

Let Sessions knock himself out, in the end, probably end up with nothing to show for it like the dozens of other inquiries.

The thing about having a government fishing expedition dig through the private business of all the Democrats is, there is always the chance that someone is hiding something and we can send some Democrats to prison.

We really need to go through the lives of the entire Obama Administration with a fine tooth comb just to see if we can send any of them to prison for something.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Firing Comey wouldn't have the least bit of effect on the FBI's russian/flynn/collusion investigation anyway, as McCabe made clear at a congressional hearing. And it's clear that, by God, he meant it. There's simply no connection to be made between firing Comey and ending any investigation. The whole notion is preposterous, even if you disregard the fact that no attempt was made to order Comey to do anything to begin with.

On the other hand, it's evident that Comey feloniously leaked classified information to his homey because he was so butthurt about being fired that he wanted a special counsel to be appointed to persecute Trump.

And, no, that wasn't a typo. I meant persecute, not prosecute.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Not that it would matter if Trump did commit obstruction, since the Democrats said that it was OK for Bill Clinton to commit obstruction.

I'm curious what the statute of limitations on this particular point of yours is.

How many democrats in office today were in office during the 1999 impeachment trial?

No one currently under 40 years old was able to vote for Clinton in 1996. How many more years is Clinton going to be used against them?

What about people who hated Clinton but have since changed their views to be progressive?

Many of the people who voted Clinton into office are now grandparents or dead, how long do you propose to attempt to invalidate the wishes and desires of their children and grandchildren?

2 Replies

Well, I just plucked down $15 dollars for the book simply out of protest of any sitting President trying to stop a book from published.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Many of the people who voted Clinton into office are now grandparents or dead, how long do you propose to attempt to invalidate the wishes and desires of their children and grandchildren?

Looky here, Honky--it don't matter if it was your great-great-great grandpappy enslaving my great-great-great grandpappy. YOU owe ME, money, boy. Lot's of it. Best get out your checkbook unless you wanna see some real drama, eh?

0 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

Well, I just plucked down $15 dollars for the book simply out of protest of any sitting President trying to stop a book from published.

Yeah, right, eh? You would pay $500 for it, gladly, because, like your cheese-eating homeys, you have an insatiable appetite for any gossip which disparages Trump.

Ya done been played, and Wolffe knew just how to play you.

2 Replies

@layman,

Worthy of a full hour, with 5 or 6 expert guest panelists, on CNN:

Trump guzzles a 12-pack of coke every day!

He eats cheese-burgers delivered by Christie in bed every night!

[Extensive discussion and denouncement]

Hmm, what now? Oh, I know..Trump is INSANE! Yeah, that's the ticket.

This breaking news then supplants all scheduled programming for the next 6 hours.

0 Replies

layman wrote:

Response moderated: Hate speech and/or trolling.
See more info

My deepest gratitude!
I really should know by now that its the pronunciation, not the spelling ...

So when writing to a Kraut, you don't use a upper case letter for the "e" in English because such makes you pity?

2 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

Let Sessions knock himself out, in the end, probably end up with nothing to show for it like the dozens of other inquiries. I hope it bogs them down so they won't have time to be going after vulnerable people in the justice system like there are. Drug offenses mostly just affect the poor who can't afford good attorney's while doing nothing whatsoever on the so called "war on drugs."

and, those efforts are unequally directed at non whites, especially in a Republican Administration!

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So when writing to a Kraut, you don't use a upper case letter for the "e" in English because such makes you pity?

Candyass english don't deserve no cap. I don't speak english. I speak American, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Candyass english don't deserve no cap. I don't speak english. I speak American, eh?

Your language is really more literary and poetic than English.
Multas gratias for speaking American!

0 Replies

@hightor,

Yes. This is not simple.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

Quote:

"Many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue."

Well, gag me with a spoon.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter, you can always choose to pronounce the word "one" as "own" and then you would be perfectly correct.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Only 17 percent of South Koreans have confidence in Donald Trump—less than half the number that trust China’s Xi Jinping.

Great work, Donnie.

0 Replies

@hightor,

good thing there are tapes and videos and oh other dinner party guests confirming

___

too bad #45 and his squad can't leave it alone

the book could have disappeared so very easily if they'd all just ignored it

3 Replies

What’s Different About Latest Tell-All White House Book

Quote:

WASHINGTON — In President George W. Bush’s last year in office, his former press secretary, Scott McClellan, wrote a tell-all book concluding that the Iraq war was a “serious strategic blunder” based on the “ambition, certitude and self-deceit” of a White House that was not fully honest with the American people.

The president’s remaining advisers were livid at what they considered the betrayal of an aide who had been with Mr. Bush since his Texas days. But when Dana Perino, who then held the same spokesman’s job, expressed her indignation, Mr. Bush sighed and told her to find a way to forgive Mr. McClellan or risk being consumed by anger.

Forgiveness is not exactly President Trump’s first instinct, as he made clear this week when a new book quoted his former chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, offering his own harsh judgments about the White House where he once worked. Every president, it seems, goes through the spin cycle of former aides and revelatory books — some they write themselves, others they are quoted in — and every president has to find a way to grapple with the questions of loyalty and candor that invariably arise. Mr. Trump chose blunt force.

NYT

I really enjoy seeing the contortions Trump's supporters are putting themselves through trying to downplay, denigrate, and defuse Wolff's book.
The accounts are all lies according to the WH — but if the reports are fictitious why attack poor Mr. Bannon? Those weren't his words, they were the creation of some tabloid journalist, right?

3 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know