President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

NBC saying Nunberg will now cooperate. Until he changes his mind at 11 p.m.

 

meanwhile, as the circus distraction continues as usual, important info keeps coming.


Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier
According to people familiar with the matter, as Steele began to assemble the first of seventeen memos, which became the dossier, Burrows expressed reservations about including the golden-showers allegation. He had a cautious temperament, and worried about the impact that the sensational item might have. But Steele argued that it would be dishonest and distorting to cherry-pick details, and that the possibility of a potential American President being subject to blackmail was too important to hide. “That’s classic Steele,” his longtime friend told me. “He’s so straight.”
For all the Republicans’ talk of a top-down Democratic plot, Steele and Simpson appear never to have told their ultimate client—the Clinton campaign’s law firm—that Steele had gone to the F.B.I. Clinton’s campaign spent much of the summer of 2016 fending off stories about the Bureau’s investigation into her e-mails, without knowing that the F.B.I. had launched a counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump team’s ties to Russia—one fuelled, in part, by the Clinton campaign’s own opposition research. As a top Clinton-campaign official told me, “If I’d known the F.B.I. was investigating Trump, I would have been shouting it from the rooftops!”

 

What she said.

 

Uh huh.

 

If you were producing a news program, you wouldn’t have him on?

 

As I said earlier, if there was a realization he was not a "reliable witness," I think I would find a way to discuss options as to the best way to handle it. I don't think, "Fuck it, let's have some fun!" is the most professional approach.

But I don't work in TV, so maybe ratings and the chance to light someone up trumps anything else. Including the potential credibility of the interviewer/station/network if things really went sideways.

 

So is this the strategy? Deflect attention towards big bad liberal media?

 

No, Smallerpotatoes, that's not it.

I don't care what this guy's politics are and I'm saying that shouldn't come into play if you believe a guy you're interviewing is drunk. That's not to say you can't ask a question, but at some point, I would err on the side of caution.

 

He was on set or more of these? To me, this boils down to whether the interviewer or producers knew or suspected or had to reason to suspect the guy was drunk before he went on the set. If they did have this question, they shouldn't have let him. Then it is exploitation.

If, however, they didn't have such reason, then asking him about it is the right thing to do because it ultimately gives him an excuse/explanation for his words.

 

Drunk on the air?

 

That's a fair take.