President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Lot of folks throwing shade Wolff's way:

 

I'm not crazy about it. But I love using it against conservative posters on Facebook when I don't feel like offering a nuanced fact-based response. They get quite annoyed, then I tell them now they know how us liberals feel every time Trump uses it.

 

So you believe the Washington Post now? Damn, it is hard to keep things straight these days.

 

I just find the criticism -- basically defending the WH -- interesting and unusual.

But, then Wolff hasn't always played nice either.

 

Interesting that, after all these years, "follow the money" is still the way this thing likely plays out yet again. (And yes if YF is going to share Wash Post stories, I'll share one from The Blaze.)

Commentary: Steve Bannon understands the truth about the Mueller probe, and the media still don’t – TheBlaze

 

On The believability scale you have Abe Lincoln on one end and Donald Trump on the other. I put the NYTimes and Wash Post much closer to Honest Abe than DT. And between Wolf and Kelly Anne , I’ll take Wolf all week

 

If you're going to take him, maybe you can learn to spell his name.

 

I'm willing to believe they may find financial improprieties. (And, it looks like they have in regards to Manafort.)

But, that's not what the investigation was launched to find.

We have a politicized investigation, based on flimsy evidence, that has yielded nothing in regard to it's original scope.

This is a dangerous precedent, and I'll be sure to point this out when it's a Democratic candidate or president facing something similar.

 

Really stupid move for Trump to betray Bannon again after letting him into the Oval Office, then kicking him out. Bannon wants to blow up the government, and now that he's getting raked again, all the more fun to blow Trump apart, too.

 

For me, it's not so much as Wolff making shit up. I don't think he did that. But I also think he likely took what a group of liars boasted about and wrote it as if it were the Trump gospels.

I think the Boehner anecdote is a good example. We have Murdoch telling Trump that he should hire Boehner as his COS and Trump supposedly says "Who's that?"

Now, Trump is a fucking moron, but he played golf with Boehner once, and the guy was the Speaker for most of Obama's time in office. I find it hard to believe Trump would not have heard of him, which is why there is some potential nuance missing that Wolff purposely left out. Possible Trump could have been saying "Who's that? He's such a washed up clown, I'm not hiring someone who is a nobody now."

Or maybe Trump really is that clueless. But I suspect Bannon told him his version of events and Wolff, instead of trying to cross-check lots of shit and arrive at some version of the truth, just went with the juiciest anecdote.

I mean, we have 500 words of recreated dialog between Bannon and a dead guy (Ailes) who can't dispute any if it. I'm not sure the standard for accuracy was particularly strict here.

 

O rly? How did a bad land deal in Arkansas end up being about blow jobs?

Was there some sort of weird precedent set here? Hmmmmm...

 

I don't care for recreated dialogue in any context, and it is becoming more prominent.