Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Deception as an art form

News Neoliberal Brainwashing: Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few Recommended Links Diplomacy by deception Neoliberal war on reality or the importance of controlling the narrative Bait and Switch
 Very Serious People Leo Straus as the godfather of neocons Mayberry Machiavellians Machiavellism False flag operations as an important part of demonization of the enemy strategy Noble Lie
Pollyanna creep Machiavellians Manipulators Tricks Love bombing Groupthink Belief-coercion in high demand cults Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair
"Fight with Corruption" as a smoke screen for neoliberal penetration into host countries Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism Corruption of Regulators Cognitive Regulatory Capture Revolving Doors as Corruption
Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA Lesser evil trick of legitimizing a disastrous, corrupt neoliberal politicians in US elections Crisis of legitimacy of neoliberal elite Pluralism as a myth  Terrorism as a smokesreen for National Security State implementation Charlie Hebdo - more questions then answers
American Exceptionalism as Civil Religion Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite Anatol Leiven on American Messianism New American Militarism Humor Etc

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

1984

"Hollywood no longer depicts reporters
in ruthless pursuit of criminals, high and low.
Now they are the criminals."

Frank Rich So Much for ’The Front Page’
NYT, November 2, 2003

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
--A. J. Liebling, writer (1904 - 1963)

Truth is the most precious thing. That's why we should ration it.
Vladimir Lenin

“Gentlemen, I am ready for the questions to my answers.”

- Charles de Gaulle,
at the beginning of the press conference,
wryly alluding to the staged nature of such events.

"The truth is that the newspaper is not a place for information to be given,
 rather it is just hollow content, or more than that, a provoker of content.
If it prints lies about atrocities, real atrocities are the result."

Karl Kraus, 1914

“You can fool some of the people all of the time
and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”

George W. Bush, joking at a Gridiron Club dinner,
 Washington, D.C., March 2001

Lately I’ve been amazed at the extent to which our entire public discourse now rests on disinformation and lies. First of all the concept of "bread and circuses" is now used more widely then in Rome:

“What’s necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity,” America’s best-known political prisoner, Mumia Abu-Jamal, told me last week by phone from the prison where he is incarcerated in Frackville, Pa. “… In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is ‘Housewives of Atlanta.’ We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people. Because you have that …. there is no critical thinking in America during this period...

... ... ...

Trump, an acute embarrassment to the corporate state and the organs of internal security, may be removed from the presidency, but such a palace coup would only further consolidate the power of the deep state and intensify internal measures of repression.

When "bread and  circuses" no longer work and people start asking themselves unpleasant question like "What is the deep state?", "Why we are finding all those wars in Me?"  heavy artillery of propaganda comes into play.

It starts with setting the proper narrative. The facts don't matter once the narrative is set.  In typical large scale disinformation cases like "Russian hacking" story (aka Russiagate), half of the country will go on thinking there's no way the story is totally made up, if MSM report if: there is no smoke without fire. Chris Hedges assumes that this idea of "injective proper narrative" started during Nixon's presidency with his idea of silent majority (Trump Is the Symptom, Not the Disease), but in reality it predates JFK assassination:

It began when big money was employed by political operatives such as Roger Stone, a close Trump adviser, to create negative political advertisements and false narratives to deceive the public, turning political debate into burlesque.

Dialectics suggest that each notion develops into its opposite. It might already happened with the US MSM. they are now all fake news  distribution ("fake news" are officially sanctioned rumors) XXI century can probably be called "the age of disinformation", although the process started long ago with the first totalitarian regimes in Russia, Italy and Germany. In this sense cold war was won by the USSR, because one of the most despicable features of the regime -- totalitarian control of media -- is now almost completely replicated in western countries.  As Daniel Schorr  aptly observed in his csmonitor article A spin cycle out of control

Washington these days feels a little like Moscow in Soviet times when the government routinely dispensed information to the public and the public routinely didn't believe it. The two main newspapers were the Communist Party organ, Pravda, (Truth) and the Soviet government organ, Izvestiya (News). People used to say, "There is no Izvestiya in Pravda and no Pravda in Izvestiya." 

Only a complete idiot now can believe mainstream press. Moreover at least Communists were honest about it and accepted it as a necessary evil, a byproduct of a one-party state surrounded by hostile capitalist states, which resort to all kind of dirty tricks to undermine it.

Under neoliberalism the net result is the same, but the dealing with media is based not of Party diktat (journalists are fighters of the Party"), but more subtle bets on greed, corruption and population stupidity and passivity. And communists view of "capitalist press" was simple, straightforward and is rather attractive, while in general being false, as many other communist ideas  --  all professional journalists should be considered to be a special kind of prostitutes  aka presstitutes :-). Anyway, even if you rightly think that communist's approach is too extreme or simplistic or both,  it still make perfect sense always ask who stands to profit and try to find and compare information form the opposition be it internal opposition press of other states. 

It is extremely naive to assume that free flow of information can exist in a any advanced Western state. But if you take several states then this assumption looks a little bit more realistic. Contradictions between state facilitates the flow of information, that would be suppressed by domestic press. that's why British press is generally preferable source of information about the US events ;-) Which they follow very closely. Of course, the level of disinformation is highly dependent on the importance of the event and generally reaches maximum in the atmosphere of McCarthyism-style witch hunt of war  hysteria ("Truth is the first casualty of war").  As Stephen Gowans wrote in Media Monitors Network

Every war proceeds along this path. Those who stand to be killed, dismembered, and dispossessed, are demonized, turned into the hobgoblins the American journalist H.L. Menken accused practical politicians of using to menace the population into consenting to what would otherwise not be consented to. Few are going to consent to the killing of innocents. So you turn the innocent into the guilty. Butchers. Murderers. Genocidists. Only later are the stories revealed to be gross exaggerations, often outright fabrications. 

That's why English is so important. It is the only language that has critical mass of foreign press (most countries provide English language periodicals and Web sites)  and as such English (along with Internet) is the main bastion of democracy in a modern world. Of course pro-state bias is also more pronounced in coverage of international events as foreign correspondents, who while not always are on a direct payroll of three letter agencies are often directly or indirectly influenced by them. If you are already thinking along this path you might also enjoy a book by John Ralston Saul called "Unconscious Civilization." Another his book that is worth reading (and written along the same lines) is "Voltaire's Bastards" in which he examines the appropriation of our government/corporations by an unaccountable elite which has co-opted the real power in our society (skip the Canadian identity-related staff) http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/events/readings/ejohn.htm

While in most cases Canadian and UK newspapers give more truthful picture of events in the USA, this is not true for foreign policy US and the USA are often in the same bed as for foreign policy and British press repeats (often in a slightly more sophisticated form  then the USA counterparts ;-) the State Department talking points. The same is true for Russian press about Ukraine.

Traditionally UK press was the standard of independent thinking. This clearly now belongs to the past (with Times controlled by Murdock family and Guardian being a neoliberal mouthpiece ) by still, in my experience, there are some remnants of this honorable tradition. You can more often to fight insightful articles in Guardian then iether in NYT or WaPo. But you need to be aware of those few brave soils, dinosaurs journalists who still try to inform public, not to misinform it. Another important factor is the level of monopolization of the press. In any case in British press discussions are always worth reading and typically this is were real information can be uncovered. 

This symbiosis of press and government is nothing new. It existed in the USSR and now exists in the West. Famous economist John Kenneth Galbraith in  his latest book The Economics of Innocent Fraud noted that  politicians and the media moguls actually form shadow "Ministry of Truth" in best Orwellian traditions, propagating, for example myth about:

..a benign "market" that big business always knows best, that minimal intervention stimulates the economy, that obscene pay gaps and unrestrained self-enrichment are an inevitable by-product of the system.

The other typical Soviet phenomena is blatant twisting of the language. For example the word "democracy" now usually means "our bastards" (as in famous quote “he may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard" ;-). And what is really sad, is that in case of war,  or major terrorist events, extreme, Soviet style disinformation is not limited to channels like Fox or Rupert Murdock controlled newspapers. It can be found all over the political spectrum. For example the level of distortion of wars in Kosovo and Beslan tragedy was actually greater in left press.  BBS and NYT, Newsweek, Guardian, Independent, etc really managed to outdid Fox in the art of disinformation in those cases. After that you feel nothing but disgust reading them.

And it is so called "left press" (or more correctly soft neoliberal press) which supported and continue to mix Wahhabi fanatics with freedom fighters. Like Talleyrand used to say "It is worse than a crime, -- it is a blunder" as Wahhabism is a direct threat to the civilized world. Moreover the story of Osama Bin Laden (Osama is essentially a byproduct of the Saudi regime, in particular the hardliners in the regime, and the CIA; Soviet invasion of Afghanistan provided the necessary but not sufficient condition for the creation of this movement; two other important components were Saudis and CIA) had shown quite convincingly that due to the internal logic of the movement they always turn against  the very people who were providing them money and PR support. As MSNBC author By Michael Moran stated in his Aug. 24, 1998 article "Bin Laden comes home to roost":

At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.

In case of important events, nobody now generally expects the government to tell the truth rather than to resort to propaganda.  So in a way we all live in post-USSR world.  But there is some level in which quantity turns into quality. And "war time coverage" now is gradually extended to less and less important cases that should not involve "war time" restrictions and mobilization priorities.  So the situation is gradually sliding to the level of Orvell's dystopian novell 1984.  If powerful interests are involved, then trying to tell the truth is a direct threat to the employment of the particular journalist (and in some countries even life); in the case of the broadcasters can lead to direct or subtle forms of censorship (removal from the air) and/or economic retribution.  That means that for most journalists the loyalty to one's boss (and by extension his handlers) overwhelmingly took precedent over personal honesty and integrity. Also journalists, especially in national capitals, are regularly bribed by the establishment. Some of the are connected with the establishment by family and other ties.

For that reason, we, as citizens, have to learn to recognize propaganda and media disinformation and within our limited means fight it. The ability to withstand massive "brainwashing" now become an important dimension of non-conformism.  Those skills are especially important due to an extremely dangerous development in mass communication -- complete loss of independence (sovietization) of mass media, the phenomenon that is also connected with the creation of  military-media-industrial complex (MMIC). Here is a relevant quote from The 50, 26, 20... Corporations That Own Our Media

Of the 1,700 daily papers, 98 percent are local monopolies and fewer than 15 corporations control most of the country's daily circulation. A handful of firms have most of the magazine business, with Time, Inc. alone accounting for about 40 percent of that industry's revenues.

Actually this kind of control of media by powerful interests (connected with the state, but necessary directly manipulated by the state) is the essence of  the totalitarian state.  This is a bad thing. I think, that in such circumstances anybody who has IQ to speak about, should not blindly believe any newspaper or TV station. Any news coverage should be considered more like a question than like an answer. This is especially true for international events. Only by comparing sources from different countries (for example Australian coverage, Asian coverage, GB and Canada coverage) one can get some idea about what's really is going on.  In this sense Internet is really the last citadel of democracy. In addition to the internet there is still a couple of good things:

The history the media cowardice, prejudice and gross over-simplification needs to be studied much more completely and materials presented below are far from being such a study. And while I would like to repeat it again: Internet is last bastion of democracy, media conglomerates actually controls a large part of Internet too, so crossing the national borders is extremely important. Portals like Yahoo are just puppets in a big game. Just ask yourself who provides news  for Yahoo and similar portals. One should always ask the question, "Who and why put this here?". 

Another problem is that it's rather difficult to counter disinformation especially if the message falls within the bounds of your cultural belief systems. That's true for both light and left propaganda. The Internet offers certain advantages in conveying false information because the well known issues of conformity, persuasion and self-justification are amplified by the Net.   Here are some relevant quotes:

What the mainstream media is doing with facts is often wrong. Sometimes it's plain, undisguised lie. And they don't really care if I know it, or you know it, or if  millions know it. Again, they don't care -- they are doing their paid job of manipulation of public opinion in the interests of powerful groups.  It is definitely not anything like what it is supposed to be, which is a reliable and independent information helping us to understand this complex world. Let's face it: political commentators are often a special kind of trained crocodiles, they are just animals trained to maim the prey. The art of disinformation now reached such level that you can suspect anything including the direct transmission from the place of the event to be staged, sanitized  or outright manipulated:

If you're reading this, we trust that you're painfully aware of the stranglehold that corporations have on the flow of "news" the world over. In this self-referential hyper-aware media-saturated environment, it's hardly incendiary or revolutionary at this point to imply that most news these days is manipulative moronic crap manufactured to simultaneously subdue and incite The Masses into their ongoing cycle of complacent apathy and egomaniacal patriotism. Or is it?

We won't insult your intelligence by waxing poetic about the self-preserving, dull-witted conspiracy of fools that we conveniently categorize as The Media Elite. You know the ones we're talking about. And in case you're not familiar with exactly how influenced the information that filters down to your front door, car radio or boob tube by The Military Entertainment Complex, have a looksie at who owns what. Yeah, that's right. Show us the money.

And while Internet is the last bastion of democracy, it is extremely important to be aware of the nature of the Internet. Information exists on the Net outside of existing scholarly structures. Sometimes respectable Internet sites are using all the dirty  tricks of  of yellow press journalism. See Open Directory - Science Social Sciences Psychology Persuasion and Social Influence. Here is an relevant quote from the paper: In Seattle's Aftermath Linux, Independent Media, and the Survival of Democracy:

Why Mainstream Media Won't Tell You the Truth

You don't have to be a genius or a conspiracy theorist to figure this one out. A few global media giants dominate the market; they have huge and growing holdings in virtually every means by which information is disseminated--films, books, TV channels, radio stations, newspapers, and magazines (Herman and McChesney, 1998). And they pressure, whether overtly or not, authors and reporters to put a slant on the news--specifically, a centrist to right-wing slant that favors the interests of the media's corporate owners. That's the reason you hear, over and over, why development matters more than preserving the environment, why free trade matters more than worker's rights, and why the U.S. has the right to impose its military power wherever it pleases.

Apart from the general pressure to slant the news to the center and right, industry associations overtly pressure media outlets to censor certain types of news reporting by threatening to withdraw advertising. For example, thanks to pressure from restaurant associations, newspapers are reluctant to specify local restaurants which violate health department regulations. Even so, overt pressure isn't often needed. When you're in the media business, you know darned well you'd better not run stories that businesses won't like. You tone it down. You run it by them. And if they're not comfortable and you're not comfortable, you don't run it.

In sum, you don't hear the truth because corporations don't want you to hear it and mainstream media are too cowardly to report it. Had you known the truth about Seattle (including substantive discussion of the specific issues concerning WTO policies), you might have thought more deeply about what's at stake. But that doesn't sell beer; why ask why, after all, when doing so is virtually unmarketable? Instead of providing the tools needed to think seriously about national policies, the media would much prefer to socialize viewers into becoming "neurotic in their need to buy advertised commodities", generating "mass spending on goods such as cosmetics, cigarettes, beer, soft drinks, and patent medicines completely out of proportion to the rational use of national income..." and diverting attention from "society's central needs, including public education, health care, [and] democratic economics" (Bagdikian, 1996:10).

At the same time for a thinking person Internet provides a unique possibility to resist this brain-washing campaign by comparing several sources. With some training you can read between the lines in mainstream media reports (people from former "socialist" countries usually have high score in those skills ;-):

The Internet is "dangerous" because it is a medium for the instantaneous and uncontrolled transmission of ideas.

We think of free speech as being a given--almost an absolute--in the United States and much of the Western world. Though everyone knows that certain kinds of speech, such as pornography, are against the law, most of us don't think about the web of social, nongovernmental constraints on legal but disfavored speech.

Unpopular ideas are marginalized in our society, restricted to the fringes of public discourse even without the need for any governmental action. Broadcast television and radio, cable, newsmagazines and book publishers all are--or are owned by--large conglomerates. Many rely on advertising, or own other businesses that do, or are simply owned or controlled by people whose personal involvement in the social web of contacts and constraints guarantees moderation in ideas. No idea sees the light of day until it has been turned over, examined from every angle, and pronounced fit for human consumption. Editors approve articles and books, and are managed by publishers who sometimes intervene in content. Committees decide what news stories to cover and which to ignore.

Let's don't miss this possibility, while it's still exists !!!

"To successfully uncover the lies of someone you first must know how to lie yourself. Now, some people just don't know how to lie because they've never been around someone who was good at it. I'm going to give you some pointers — never ever exaggerate within the lie. Details are key and remembering those details is what will keep the lie alive."

"One of the ways that deal with co-workers who I think have lied to me is to ask them the most obvious question: 'Did you lie to me when…?'"

"In a group of people, ask the person the question you need answered and when they lie to you, I just say — 'You lying &*#^, you never said that in your whole life.' Everybody breaks up laughing and the person obviously is caught. We all make a joke of it and it is much harder for them to be dishonest the next time."

"When it is obvious that someone's story has little connection to reality, I say 'Oh my gosh, almost the exact same thing happened to me.' This achieves the objective of 1) pointing out to the tall tale teller that you are on to him; and 2) makes everyone else realize how ridiculous this co-worker's stories are getting, and forces everyone to evaluate the veracity of all future tall tales.

"When trying to detect a liar, I act absent-minded and pause with unfinished sentences. The liar tends to fill these spaces. I have caught liars this way."

"I give them my biggest smile and usually say something like, 'Come on Pinocchio, your nose is growing.' Then I laugh gently. If they seem embarrassed or avoid eye contact and smile and say nothing, then I have confirmation that they have lied. They know it and I know it. Reading their body language is extremely important. Once word gets around that you are not a fool who will believe anything, most people won't try it with you."

"If you must interact with this person, try to have a third party present to be a neutral witness to any conversation that takes place. Also, if possible, interact via e-mail and be professional. We all know e-mails are a nice time-stamped paper trail of the facts."

"There are different ways to deal with lies, depending on the reason and the frequency. The solutions range from ignoring the lies, to training, to confrontation, to verbal and written warnings, and perhaps, as a last resort if the damage by the lies is substantial, termination."

"Of course he is lying. Everyone is lying. It's part of the human condition. Bosses lie all the time. Workers give them lies in reply and to each other."

Recommended Reading

The Understanding Stupidity

This systematic distortion of information makes human societies characteristically self-deceptive, with people disposed to believe they are living up to their ideals, particularly when they are not. The existing schematic dissonance is usually subconscious, due to the misleading nature of words, so society stumbles smugly along while at odds with itself, its environment and its equally stupid neighbors. In fact, the only really effective control of development comes not from inside but from physical limitations (what cannot be done) and competition with other groups which are also out of touch with themselves.

In general, internal criticism is of limited value as a control mechanism for growth and development of a social system. There usually tend to be few, if any, effective critics within any organization. When not dismissed out of hand as a crank or an outsider, anyone with valid criticism is made an outsider, as ostracism is a common reward for honesty, accuracy and integrity. Thus, criticism without power is largely wasted, producing little but woe for the bewildered critic himself.

Perhaps there are so few effective critics because anyone with any brains at all quickly finds that most human organizations just are not set up for effective criticism. The basic working assumption is that everything is just fine. Outside criticism is deflected and internal feedback is supposed to be positive reinforcement from "Yes men" promoting their careers by corrupting the mighty. At best, criticism has a place on the fringe, where cranks and comics can be tolerated as amusing diversions.

Can Truth Be Told When Using Selective Information

"The trap of the permanent campaign is that you diminish statesmanship," Professor Gergen said. "Statesmen rise above the daily concern and look to the long haul."

Business marketing and politics often overlap in election campaigns. Someone vying for office is essentially trying to sell himself to voters. "When you are campaigning, you're like the businessman who has a limited responsibility, a limited set of people to whom you owe something," said Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College and author of "Moral Freedom: The Search for Virtue in a World of Choice" (W. W. Norton).

But, increasingly, because of the fund-raising involved in running for national office, "you have to be in an almost permanent campaign mode," said David Gergen, now a professor of public service at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, who was an adviser to four presidents. "In politics, you fall into the trap of short-termism. You do whatever it takes to keep the headlines up today." This short-term thinking is not dissimilar to what causes some businesses to make poor decisions in trying to bolster stock prices or earnings reports.

"The trap of the permanent campaign is that you diminish statesmanship," Professor Gergen said. "Statesmen rise above the daily concern and look to the long haul."

BUT it's difficult to affect the long haul if you find yourself voted out of office. For that reason, Dick Morris, a former adviser to Mr. Clinton and the author of "Off with Their Heads: Traitors, Crooks and Obstructionists in American Politics, Media and Business" (Regan Books, 2003), said he thinks that "using polling and all of the tools of an election to help you govern is a good thing."

"It gets the president to be very aggressive in figuring out what he can do in an active way really to help the country," he added. "The motivation is to govern well so he can get elected."

Even if President Bush has to campaign constantly and, as a result, selectively uses information to sell his message, we still expect him to tell the truth. "If they decided to lie to make the case stronger that's simply unethical," said Mr. Gilman, who was a senior official at the United States Office of Government Ethics from 1988 to 2001. Mr. Gilman said he hopes that the president "got one bad piece of intelligence and the rest was correct."

Some political analysts say President Bush crossed a line in selectively using information by pointing to British intelligence to make an argument, when American intelligence doubted the claim. "As in all marketing, when you go too far, it creates a small cloud over you about credibility," Professor Gergen said.

There's more at stake when President Bush selectively uses information than when a business executive tries to move a product. The president's role clearly distinguishes his unique moral responsibility. As an executive, you don't order young men and women to give up their lives for a cause.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

"It tends to be all accurate,
but not in an over-all context."

Donald Rumsfeld

2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001

[Feb 16, 2018] Is Donald Trump Morphing Into A Neocon Interventionist by Doug Bandow

One year later we can say with confidence, yes he morphed into a neocon in foreign policy.
What is especially bad is that Trump executed "bait and switch" maneuver as smoothly as Obama. Devastating.
Notable quotes:
"... So now it gets me thinking like this: Who are Mr. Bandow's clients today? ..."
"... Some say that the reason for Trump's total reversal of his campaign-position on Russia is the American Deep State (the U.S. aristocracy and its agents). I agree with that view. ..."
"... I believe the American people are beginning to realize the CIA has the obsession for multiple, unending wars all for the benefit of Wall Street. ..."
"... It appears "military-industrial complex" or "deep state" refuses to take step back and insists on sucking more money from taxpayers. On first glance all is great for them, bombing of Middle East will continue, and so will military expansion at cost of civilian programs. However, ramifications to rest of the world should not be dismissed. EU countries are divided on following Washington hard line against Russia or diverge with USA. Currently, EU is cracking and might fall apart. Some in USA would cheer it but in long run it will mean loss of strongest US supporter against China. Regarding Middle East, Trump punished victims of AlQaeda and did nothing against financiers of AlQaeda, which will only increase local tensions. So indeed, not a great start... ..."
"... While I basically agree that Trump is not following through on his campaign, we must keep in mind that the campaign of his opponent was for MUCH more of the same, new wars, vastly increased fighting in current wars. So more of the same is in fact a big step down from the alternative. ..."
"... Stop those wars. They don't serve us. ..."
"... Trump's a liar, and his whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. We're the victims of a "bait-and-switch" scam. ..."
"... Because he lied. Just like he lied about draining the swamp and just restocked it with new varmints from Goldman Sachs and even an ex-Soros employee. Nothing new for me. Been watching elections for about 60 years and this is same ole. America can't take much more of this before it collapses and splits apart. The world isn't going to take much more from dc either. God help us. We are in a pickle! ..."
Apr 20, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

Why Is Trump Abandoning the Foreign Policy that Brought Him Victory The National Interest Blog

Candidate Donald Trump offered a sharp break from his predecessors. He was particularly critical of neoconservatives, who seemed to back war at every turn.

Indeed, he promised not to include in his administration "those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war." And he's generally kept that commitment, for instance rejecting as deputy secretary of state Elliot Abrams, who said Trump was unfit to be president.

Substantively candidate Trump appeared to offer not so much a philosophy as an inclination. Practical if not exactly realist, he cared more for consequences than his three immediate predecessors, who had treated wars as moral crusades in Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. In contrast, Trump promised: "unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct."

Yet so far the Trump administration is shaping up as a disappointment for those who hoped for a break from the liberal interventionist/neoconservative synthesis.

The first problem is staffing. In Washington people are policy. The president can speak and tweet, but he needs others to turn ideas into reality and implement his directives. It doesn't appear that he has any foreign policy realists around him, or anyone with a restrained view of America's international responsibilities.

Rex Tillerson, James Mattis and H. R. McMaster are all serious and talented, and none are neocons. But all seem inclined toward traditional foreign policy approaches and committed to moderating their boss's unconventional thoughts. Most of the names mentioned for deputy secretary of state have been reliably hawkish, or some combination of hawk and centrist-Abrams, John Bolton, the rewired Jon Huntsman.

Trump appears to be most concerned with issues that have direct domestic impacts, and especially with economic nostrums about which he is most obviously wrong. He's long been a protectionist (his anti-immigration opinions are of more recent vintage). Yet his views have not changed even as circumstances have. The Chinese once artificially limited the value of the renminbi, but recently have taken the opposite approach. The United States is not alone in losing manufacturing jobs, which are disappearing around the world and won't be coming back. Multilateral trade agreements are rarely perfect, but they are not zero sum games. They usually offer political as well as economic benefits. Trump does not seem prepared to acknowledge this, at least rhetorically. Indeed he has brought on board virulent opponents of free trade such as Peter Navarro.

The administration's repudiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was particularly damaging. Trump's decision embarrassed Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, who had offered important economic concessions to join. More important, Trump has abandoned the economic field to the People's Republic of China, which is pushing two different accords. Australia, among other U.S. allies, has indicated that it now will deal with Beijing, which gets to set the Pacific trade agenda. In this instance, what's good for China is bad for the United States.

In contrast, on more abstract foreign policy issues President Trump seems ready to treat minor concessions as major victories and move on. For years he criticized America's Asian and European allies for taking advantage of U.S. defense generosity. In his March foreign policy speech, he complained that "our allies are not paying their fair share." During the campaign he suggested refusing to honor NATO's Article 5 commitment and leave countries failing to make sufficient financial contributions to their fate.

Yet Secretaries Mattis and Tillerson have insisted that Washington remains committed to the very same alliances incorporating dependence on America. Worse, in his speech to Congress the president took credit for the small uptick in military outlays by European NATO members which actually began in 2015: "based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning" to "meet their financial obligations." Although he declared with predictable exaggeration that "the money is pouring in," no one believes that Germany, which will go from 1.19 to 1.22 percent of GDP this year, will nearly double its outlays to hit even the NATO standard of two percent.

Trump's signature policy initiative, rapprochement with Russia, appears dead in the water. Unfortunately, the president's strange personal enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin undercut his desire to accommodate a great power which has no fundamental, irresolvable conflicts with the America. Contrary to neocon history, Russia and America have often cooperated in the past. Moreover, President Trump's attempt to improve relations faces strong ideological opposition from neoconservatives determined to have a new enemy and partisan resistance from liberal Democrats committed to undermining the new administration.

President Trump also appears to have no appointees who share his commitment on this issue. At least Trump's first National Security Adviser, Mike Flynn, wanted better relations with Russia, amid other, more dubious beliefs, but now the president seems alone. In fact, Secretary Tillerson sounded like he was representing the Obama administration when he demanded Moscow's withdrawal from Crimea, a policy nonstarter. Ambassador-designate Huntsman's views are unclear, but he will be constrained by the State Department bureaucracy, which is at best unimaginative and at worst actively obstructionist.


taavitheman , March 10, 2017 4:04 PM

"Unfortunately, the president's strange personal enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin undercut his desire to accommodate a great power which has no fundamental, irresolvable conflicts with the America."

I did my due diligence on the writer after this absolutely baffling argument that has no basis on certain fundamental laws of geopolitics. Referring to this: https://www.bloomberg.com/n...

So now it gets me thinking like this: Who are Mr. Bandow's clients today? Figures...

Eric Zuesse , March 14, 2017 8:24 AM

Some say that the reason for Trump's total reversal of his campaign-position on Russia is the American Deep State (the U.S. aristocracy and its agents). I agree with that view.

Sarastro92 Eric Zuesse , March 19, 2017 11:43 AM

And other say you're a sap for believing a bunch of half-baked one-liners that Trump often contradicted in the same sentence... He never had a coherent policy on anything, no less foreign policy... so don't complain now that he's showing his true colors

tom Eric Zuesse , March 19, 2017 10:28 AM

The USA should FORCE other nations to use DIPLOMACY as a means to preventing wars. If they don't, they lose all support, financial and otherwise, from the USA. This would include Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The only thing Trump should take a look at in all this is the INHUMANE policies that previous administrations have used to placate the military/industrial clique's appetite for money and blood! If it's going to be "America First" for Trump's administration, it better start diverting this blood money to shore up America's people and infrastructures!

America2028 , March 12, 2017 1:19 PM

Most of these issues come down to the fact that President Trump doesn't have anything resembling a "grand strategy", or even a coherent foreign policy. His views are often at odds with each other (his desire to counter China economically and his opposition to the TPP, for example), and I suspect that most were motivated by a desire to get votes more than any kind of deep understanding of global affairs.

R. Arandas , March 10, 2017 9:36 PM

Most of his supporters, at least from what I can tell, are actually quite resolutely against entering a new war, and are strongly condemnatory of the neo-conservatism that involved the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In fact, according to the polls taken at the time, more Democrats favored military intervention in Syria than Republicans did.

olde reb R. Arandas , March 21, 2017 5:53 PM

I believe the American people are beginning to realize the CIA has the obsession for multiple, unending wars all for the benefit of Wall Street.

Ref. http://farmwars.info/?p=15338 . A FACE FOR THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT

mladenm , March 11, 2017 8:45 AM

It appears "military-industrial complex" or "deep state" refuses to take step back and insists on sucking more money from taxpayers. On first glance all is great for them, bombing of Middle East will continue, and so will military expansion at cost of civilian programs. However, ramifications to rest of the world should not be dismissed. EU countries are divided on following Washington hard line against Russia or diverge with USA. Currently, EU is cracking and might fall apart. Some in USA would cheer it but in long run it will mean loss of strongest US supporter against China. Regarding Middle East, Trump punished victims of AlQaeda and did nothing against financiers of AlQaeda, which will only increase local tensions. So indeed, not a great start...

Mark Thomason , March 11, 2017 11:13 AM

While I basically agree that Trump is not following through on his campaign, we must keep in mind that the campaign of his opponent was for MUCH more of the same, new wars, vastly increased fighting in current wars. So more of the same is in fact a big step down from the alternative.

That does not excuse doing more of the same, but just asserts that we did get some of what we voted for/against.

We should get the rest of it. Stop those wars. They don't serve us.

richardvajs Guest , March 19, 2017 1:46 PM

There are similarities between Trump and Putin . The GOP and its rich corporate members have decided to use Trump as the oligarchs in Russia used Yeltsin. The oligarchs used a drunken Yeltsin to pry the natural resources out of the public commons for the grabbing by the oligarchs. Likewise, our rich are going to use an unwitting Trump to lower their taxes to nothing while delivering austerity to the 99%.
To the oligarchs' surprise and dismay, Yeltsin's incompetence led to Putin and his scourge of the oligarchs. So will Trump's incompetence lead to the end of our system of crony capitalism and the rebirth of socialism such as the New Deal, and higher taxes.
The crooked bastards can never be satisfied even with 3/4 ths of the whole pie, so no-one should pity them for being hoisted on their own petard.

Asia at War , April 30, 2017 12:52 AM

Trump forgot what he promised to the people. He sold his soul to the devil. I hope he doesn't send more of our children to die for the "Deep state."

Doug Nusbaum , March 21, 2017 5:17 PM

I'm sorry --- Trump had a foreign policy? As near as I can tell, he just said whatever the crowd in front of him wanted to hear. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? Remember that this is a man who can be shown, in his own words, to have been on all sides of almost every issue, depending on the day of the week, and the phase of the moon.

Stefan Reich , March 20, 2017 6:13 AM

You really take all that time to analyze the guy instead of just seeing he is a madman? Wouldn't that be faster?

gentry_gee , March 20, 2017 3:41 AM

He, they, the US, that is, must obey Israel. Israel wants Assad gone in the end for their territorial expansion. It also helps the oil companies and isolates Russia further into a geostrategic corner.

dieter heymann , March 19, 2017 11:58 AM

This headline is way over the top. The first and foremost foreign policy statement which brought numerous voters to Trump was the US-Mexico wall and at least some of that wall will be constructed. Hence it is the only promise which has not (yet) changed except for who will pay for it.

OBTUSEANGLE , March 19, 2017 9:39 AM

The truth can be buried, but eventually it will be exposed. Only a matter of time.

Harold Smith , March 19, 2017 12:34 AM

Why must we give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume that his campaign presentations were made in good faith? That is a very generous assumption.

There's a simple and more logical explanation for what's going on with "foreign policy" in the "Trump" administration: Trump's a liar, and his whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. We're the victims of a "bait-and-switch" scam.

freewheelinfranklin543 , March 18, 2017 4:03 PM

Because he lied. Just like he lied about draining the swamp and just restocked it with new varmints from Goldman Sachs and even an ex-Soros employee. Nothing new for me. Been watching elections for about 60 years and this is same ole. America can't take much more of this before it collapses and splits apart. The world isn't going to take much more from dc either. God help us. We are in a pickle!

dieter heymann , March 18, 2017 9:35 AM

The fundamental problem of exonerating Trump and blaming this non-reversal on the non-existing "deep state" is believing that anything a candidate said on the campaign trail can be executed when that candidate becomes president. Such reversal has happened so frequently in our history that it is truly amazing that " he does not do what he promised" still has adherents.

There is no reversal. I see reality clashing with words. I do not blame Trump for reversals. I see some shift from unrealistic to more realistic. It is called learning on the job.

Elelei Guhring , March 11, 2017 8:06 AM

Every political position on the planet is stuck in the 80s. There is no one with a will to change what is happening, mostly because no one wants to get tarred and feathered once the:

a) economy implodes upon itself in the most glorious Depression to ever happen, and;

b) world war 3 erupts but engaging such a variety of opponents, from Islam to China and Russia and even minor trivial players such as North Korea, and;

c) civil disobedience in the western world rivals that of even third world revolutions as people revolt against a failure to protect them from Islamic violence, to preserve their standard of living and their perceived futures. Lots of change coming, but nothing that any politician is promising.

Politicians are dinosaurs. We are entering a world where large numbers of people will make things happen. It's called Democracy.

An Eastern European , March 11, 2017 2:10 AM

Trump will remain close to Putin ideologically and he might continue to admire the man as a strong leader BUT there is one thing that neither Putin nor Trump can change and it is that Russia and America are natural rivals. Geopolitics. Land vs Sea. Eurasia vs Atlantic. Heartland vs Outer Rim.

Trump is hawk, don't be mislead. You cannot have a great country if you're not willing to kill and die for it. Russia knows that. Which is why Putin made Russia great again after the horror of the Yeltsin years. Now America knows that too.

[Feb 08, 2018] We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda apparatus

Notable quotes:
"... We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda apparatus. It has little to do with the victim's intelligence since almost all human opinions are formed by emotional reactions that occur even before the conscious mind registers the input. ..."
Feb 08, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Daniel , February 5, 2018 at 6:57 pm

We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda apparatus. It has little to do with the victim's intelligence since almost all human opinions are formed by emotional reactions that occur even before the conscious mind registers the input.

Through critical thinking, we can overcome these emotional impulses, but only with effort, and a pre-existing skepticism of all information sources. And even still, I have no doubt that all of us who are aware of the propaganda still accept some falsehoods as true.

It could be that having former Intelligence Agency Directors as "news" presenters, and Goldman Sachs alum and Military/Industrial complex CEOs running important government agencies makes clear to some the reality that we live in an oligarchy with near-tyrannical powers. But most people seem too busy surviving and/or being diverted by the circus to notice the depths of the propaganda.

[Feb 03, 2018] Kayfabe is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as real or true, specifically the portrayal of competition, rivalries, and relationships between participants as being genuine and not staged. Kayfabe became a code word for maintaining this reality for the general public.

Feb 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

ruffhouse Feb 3, 2018 4:31 PM Permalink

Post-American Politics Is Kayfabe.

KAYFABE: kayfabe /ˈkeɪfeɪb/ is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true," specifically the portrayal of competition, rivalries, and relationships between participants as being genuine and not of a staged or pre-determined nature of any kind.

Kayfabe has also evolved to become a code word of sorts for maintaining this "reality" within the direct or indirect presence of the general public.

http://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/10/08/post-american-politics-is-kayfabe-the-word-is-kayfabe/

[Feb 03, 2018] But What If He s Not an Idiot by John Atcheson

Notable quotes:
"... The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight ..."
"... content of Secretary Clinton's emails that hurt her, ..."
"... Cunning. Sociopathic. Narcissistic needing his constant narcissistic supply (adorers). ..."
"... Trump inherited great wealth. He learned one big lesson in life early on. Hire competent people and they will save your ass when you make a blunder. Trump's one skill is as a promoter of Trump. ..."
Feb 03, 2018 | www.commondreams.org

36 Comments

Trump could be playing us all. And not considering that is, well, idiotic.

Turns out, the first word a lot of people think of when it comes to President Donald Trump is this one: idiot .

The White House's handling of the Comey firing looks a lot like a clip from The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight . The Press Secretary hiding in the bushes, Trump sending virtually his entire staff under the bus with his various and rapidly shifting versions of his reasons for the firing, and his unhinged Twitter rants at the press for covering the fiasco as a fiasco.

Once again, pundits are talking about impulse control, the ADD Presidency, rank amateurism in the Oval Office, threats to Democracy -- all the stuff that they talked about in the campaign. The stuff that was supposed to doom his bid for the presidency to failure.

"It's worth considering what we are not talking about as we watch this political pornography play out."

All of this is grim stuff. We haven't seen a threat to democracy as serious as this since Watergate, so I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be addressing it.

But it's worth considering what we are not talking about as we watch this political pornography play out and also, how does the focus on Russia undercut the Democratic Party? In other words, what if this is exactly what Trump intended when he fired Comey? It's worth remembering Trump's mentor was Roy Cohn, who was a master at controlling the narrative and one of his favorite techniques was to change the subject with an in-your-face outrage of one kind or another.

Let's examine what we're not talking about, and then what the effect of the whole Russian narrative is having on the Democratic Party.

What We Aren't Talking About

Shortly before Trump tossed in the Comey Molotov Cocktail into the national living room, here's what was dominating the news:

But none of that is being discussed much any longer. And if you ran as a populist, but all your policies are benefitting the top 1%, that's exactly what you'd hope for. Yes, the few Congressional members who are brave enough to hold town meetings are still getting mugged by outraged constituents, but these meetings are not getting the kind of coverage they would have pre-Comey. And that means the Health Care Bill isn't getting the kind of serious examination it would have if the media weren't doing all Comey, all the time. Again, exactly what you'd want if you knew the guts of the legislation were so bad, that if it got out there, even the Trump bobble heads would be pissed off. So folks aren't talking about the fact that it was rushed to the floor before getting scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), before we knew what its effects were and what its ultimate cost could be, before people caught on to the fact that the state waiver provision stuck in the revised version of the bill turned it from merely a cruel piece of legislation to the cruelest piece in modern history.

Or take the budget "proposal," which was getting panned by the media and even the few Republicans left in the Senate who actually are fiscal conservatives. Hell, even Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) took issue with some of the cuts. This reprise of "trickle down" and "supply side" chicanery was being almost universally ridiculed by the press and economists, and it was heavily influenced -- if not outsourced to -- the Heritage Foundation, an outfit funded by the likes of the Koch Brothers. Here again, the last thing Trump wants after running as a populist and a fiscal conservative is to get widespread coverage of just how much this plutocrat's budget resembles the stuff he railed against in his campaign.

And speaking of budgets, the media once again ignored the sanest budget proposal in Washington, The Congressional Progressive Caucus's Better Off Budget , which cuts the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years -- Trump's budget would have increased it by at least $1.4 trillion over that time period, by the way -- while creating 8.8 million new jobs. The Better Off Budget uses policies that are wildly popular with the majority of Americans to accomplish this.

Now, it must be said that the press always ignores the CPC's budget proposals, but maybe Trump was taking no chances -- after all, if anyone held them up side-by-side, Trump and the Republicans would have been unmasked as the charlatans they are.

But there's no danger of that when it's all Comey, all the time.

Much is made of the fact that Trump's popularity among those who voted for him hasn't budged, despite the fact that he's screwing them left and right with his policies. Well, these kinds of maneuvers may explain why. Look back. When the Russian stuff was first heating up big time, we suddenly just had to bomb Syria. Wagging the dog is a time-honored way to change the subject. So is firing a controversial senior public servant.

Comey, the Russians, and the Establishment Arm of the Democratic Party

If Trump isn't an idiot, then here's where his tactics are brilliant. The neoliberal elitists who control the Democratic Party have been trying to keep the focus on the Russian intervention in our election as the reason Hillary Clinton lost. The progressives in the Party have been attacking the Party's estrangement from the people and its rejection of the New Deal policies as the reason. In short, there's a battle on for the heart and soul of the Party.

Firing Comey, brings the whole Russian thing to the fore, and works to sidetrack the real debate the Democratic Party needs to have about its future.

"Firing Comey, brings the whole Russian thing to the fore, and works to sidetrack the real debate the Democratic Party needs to have about its future."

Two things were working to undermine the establishment's hold on the Party until Comey's firing. First, Sanders continued to poll as the most popular politician in America. Second, people were beginning to realize that it was the content of Secretary Clinton's emails that hurt her, not the emails per se . And that content revealed the soft underbelly of the Democratic Party. To wit: the neoliberal belief in small government, the power and goodness of the market, free trade, deregulation, and fiscal austerity was simply too close to the Republican dogma to generate enough passion among progressives to get a good turnout, and Democrats need a good turnout to win elections.

But now it's all Comey all the time, and the Democratic establishment is taking full advantage of that to deflect attention from the real reason they're losing at all levels of government. It appears they'd rather risk losing elections than embrace a truly progressive agenda, and Trump just reinforced their self-serving narrative.

Yeah. What if he's not an idiot?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

John Atcheson John Atcheson is author of the novel, A Being Darkly Wise , and he has just completed a book on the 2016 elections titled, WTF, America? How the US Went Off the Rails and How to Get It Back On Track , available from Amazon. Follow him on Twitter @john_atcheson


notwistalemon May '17

Quote from your article:
"But now it's all Comey all the time, and the Democratic establishment is taking full advantage of that to deflect attention from the real reason they're losing at all levels of government. It appears they'd rather risk losing elections than embrace a truly progressive agenda, and Trump just reinforced their self-serving narrative."

In my opinion you are right on the mark; especially with your last paragraph. Practically all the ultra rich in the world live in the same "gated community". Their goal is to control the world's resources and somehow survive the coming mass die-off due to severe climate disruption. To them their party never ends!

drone1066 May '17
It's possible he's not stupid AND he has zero impulse control. That seems most likely. He's good at subverting the few things he does think out.

But Democrats have quintupled down on Russia. For them, it's a battle for existence. They were completely exposed, and it's going to take a lot of "Russia!" to keep that conversation about their profound corruption from taking place.

And Atcheson is also right that this party much prefers losing than giving up its donorship buffet. That's why they do nothing to correct the course to get more votes. They're relying completely on their corporate media allies to keep the illusion going. So far it's working, to the great shame of rank and file Democrats.

SkepticTank May '17
drone1066 The D-Party would rather stumble back to electoral victory on the anti-Trump effect than offer policy that might clash with the wishes of their corporate donors.

Case in point: Single Payer now back-burnered as a distraction from anti-trump hysteria.

Sad to see so many otherwise intelligent commenters here falling for the usual D-Party parlor tricks.

erisx May '17
Whether Trump's just lucky or know how to work a room is unimportant. Results matter, and the result is that the important stuff's not being discussed, and the Greatest Heist In The World continues. Lest we forget, that Heist is NOT just about the USA. There's a reason they call it 'globalization.'
natureboy May '17
Excellent assessment.

Corporate bribes, big salaries, perks and tv star jobs will have to be torn from Neoliberal Democrats' cold dead hands.

And Don, Rupert and the rest of Mammon's soldiers will soon have to deal with an Artificial Intelligence that learns in one day what it took humans 40,000 years to learn. Interesting times.

Direct Democracy

ontheres May '17
Anyone who carefully followed the primaries knows that the democratic machine used all kinds of corrupt methods to defeat Bernie Sanders. And, anyone who follows the general election knows that the election is easily rigged - especially computer voting that leaves no paper trail and cannot be audited. The hypocrisy of Russians hacking our elections when they are hacked by our own politicians, and Russians interfering with our elections when our corporate elite have no problem interfering with elections in other countries all makes me ill. Don't know how many other voters out there are like me, but sure would like to hear from them.
Somehow almost none of this get mentioned in any press, progressive or otherwise.
BWilliamson May '17
bjoldlygo Trump can't control what he himself thinks. He's been a promoter of the Trump name for 40-50 years. That is a reflex with him. That is the extent of his thinking. There are many others around him, supporting him. Praising his genius, as this article is inclined towards, is their means of exploiting his great weakness.
BWilliamson May '17
wolfess There is nothing behind the scenes. Everything is happening center stage. If you spend your time trying to see behind the scenes you're going to miss the whole show.
Olhippy May '17
ontheres No, the seething undercurrent of the discontented is rarely reported on in the "news". Only when it explodes as in Missouri riots or Occupy Wall Street takeovers, does it get coverage which is put down by government forces, either civilian or feds. The Democratic primaries were changed, back in the 70's I believe, after anti-war candidate McCarthy got the nomination nod. That's when the super delegates came about, so they had more control of things. Expect the GOP too, to change things to keep future Trumps' from getting the nod.
Wereflea May '17 1
I see Atcheson's point but I think he needs to remember that Trump is a Prince of inherited wealth. Trump may be an idiot (he really did seem more intelligent before he got elected and then we had a good look at him and listened to his sometimes unintelligible speech patterns) but he has always been in a position where he delegated authority to people who got paid to be smarter than he was, so his 'idiocy' didn't show as much.

Trump paid high priced lawyers to arrange his deals. He paid expensive consultants and investment managers and on and on and all of those people were exceptionally intelligent. He paid someone to ghost write his book for him. Trump makes the same mistakes as he was always wont to do but back then they were always covered and massaged for him by his staff! After all... he was the Prince!

The Oval Office is not quite the same as a business conference with his lawyers, assistants, bankers and etc. Thus we see Trump blurting out statements that his advisors pull him back from as soon as they get the chance . Being president means everything you say gets publicized and despite all his billions that was not the case for the Prince back when he was just a wheeler and dealer.

Trump runs without a script too often but who in his entourage will dare tell the Prince that when he speaks (without their permission first) he ends up sounding like an idiot! Trump may be feeling constrained by his need to be less reckless and impulsive.

Trump unfiltered? Yeah well maybe he really is an idiot too!

Trumps just wanna have fun!

Lrx May '17 1
Olhippy I think you need to go back and review the history of Democratic primaries. Until 1972 the candidates were largely chosen in smoke-filled back rooms. George McGovern was instrumental in largely turning the Democratic primaries over to the voters. And that is how he got the nomination. Unfortunately he only won a single state but he was the people's choice to run. I wouldn't be concerned about the superdelegates. They always go along with the candidate who got the most pledged delegates. It is unlikely they would ever do otherwise. Unless the people chose a candidate who was really off the charts like Trump. Without superdelegates the Republicans were unable to stop Trump once the RNC backed him. Given what happened to the Republicans a case can be made for the superdelegates. Parties can choose their candidates any way they want. They don't have to let the people vote. Both parties now do and for the first time that turned into a complete disaster.
Godless May '17
The Comey firing also distracted from the Kushner family peddling visas for real estate deals in China; the Pence-Koback Commission to make voter cross-checking a federal law; and Sessions reinvigorating the war on drugs and legal marijuana to strike more minority voters from the rolls. El Presidente Naranja Mentiroso only cares about playing to his base and his base loves watching Democratic heads explode. As long as his base is happy, and they are happy with his performance, the Reptilians in Congress will be afraid to move against him. I thoroughly believe that the voter suppression moves will win the Reptilians the elections in 2018 and 2020. With their control of gerrymandering for another decade and the paid-to-lose Democrats only concerned about donor money, the Reptilians have clear sailing to gain 38 governorships and the ability to rewrite the constitution in their twisted image.
skiendhiu May '17
Wereflea I agree with you on your points of Trump having smart lawyers, assistants,bankers etc. around him doing the "smart" work, I am sure he allso used other tactics, of itimidation of one kind or another , taking it to the courts, threats of financial ruin, he allso wasnt kidding when he said he "knew' the system and how it worked, ..or rather how to work it, but he didnt do that singlehanded either, and i am sure there are more than one or two politicians at different levels from municipalitys on up, in his pocket and or good graces.

But to think him not an idiot is getting to be a bit of a stretch, does he really believe that he actually came up with the phrase "prime the pump"? I knew he was an idiot years before he made fun of the disabled reporter, but that single act confirmed it for me.

Yeah "prime the pump" what is he going to lay claim to next? "four score and seven years ago" " E=mc2" or how about.."and Trump said...let there be light"... I 'll tell you who else the idiots are...and that is any one taking this guy seriouslly any longer at least in a presidentiall sense,... that is just ...idiotic in the extreme.

formerly May '17
What If He's Not an Idiot?
Anyways, most of the American people are idiots .... the dark state and the 0.1% mostly aren't idiots -- just psychopaths.
Michael_Wilk May '17
I think it's more likely that the Democrats are even more moronic than is Drumpf, which is why, as usual, they are serving only to strengthen the GOPhers while pretending they're defenders of the public. Why do you think that hundred or so Democrats are signed onto John Conyers' single-payer bill now that Drumpf is in the Oval office and the Republicans hold majorities in both houses of Congress, when they could have done so when Obama was the chief executive and their party controlled Congress including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but instead passed a bill that was modeled on the Heritage Foundation's plan? It's all so much political theater designed to distract the public from the last great plundering of the nation before it collapses in on itself.
cassandra May '17
Lrx The Republicans used rule-changing, altho not superdelegates, to derail Ron Paul. There is never just one way to subvert truth.
cassandra May '17
ontheres I'm with you. The whole Russian thing is ridiculous. And they've never been accused of actually hacking voting machines, just the DNC emails which showed how slimy the DNC is. I have read that Georgia believed someone tried to hack their voting machines and they hired a private firm to investigate. What they found was hacking was attempted the the Dept of Homeland Security.

The simple fact that, after losing in 2000 by voting manipulation and probably via voting machines in 2004, the Dems took over the House in 2007 and 2 years later the Presidency and the Senate, they never, to my knowledge, introduced any legislation to require paper trails in federal elections. As far as I'm concerned that said all one needs to know about the Dems. It would have been a simple one page piece of legislation, Ok, maybe 2 pages.

ToniWintroub May '17
Wereflea Factor in his mafia connections here and abroad. To roll around in that slime at the high level he's in requires cunning to kiss up to the really rich guys who can hurt him and whom, actually, he can hurt. Then he's learned how to survive while he manipulates. Idiot? Define the term.

Cunning. Sociopathic. Narcissistic needing his constant narcissistic supply (adorers). Blackmailer and probably blackmailed. I gotta get Barrett's biography of this POS.

Wereflea May '17
ToniWintroub I wore out years ago but it just goes on and on! Lol

Actually at this point in time I am very much engaged in this garbage since Trump is stunningly entertaining as a rightwing boob out of his element and unraveling as we speak. Trump's adventures in incompetency fascinate me. It is just week after week in a steady progression of mistakes, attempted corrections, attempts at re-correcting those corrections that make them even worse and so forth. It would make for an interesting TV show (sort of like the 'apprentice got himself fired') except that this gross and often crude person can trigger a nuclear war on a whim which puts a damper on the pleasures of watching him deconstruct in front of our eyes.

Nevertheless, it is without doubt the most unexpected presidency of my life. Watergate was a comeuppance but Trump is bizzaro world in action.

Btw... Trump inherited great wealth. He learned one big lesson in life early on. Hire competent people and they will save your ass when you make a blunder. Trump's one skill is as a promoter of Trump. He was never a big brain and up until recently, he never pretended to be.

He is rich and loves being the center of attention. However his being rich is often at the expense of others. You assume that because Trump has long had shady connections that he must be an intellect to survive the association. Not really. Trump makes sure that he is profitable for them and they have no problem with that. It isn't genius on his part. It is always having his projects go way over budget. He guarantees them the cream and they 'have an arrangement'.

Prior to becoming president, Trump's associates, advisors, lawyers and accountants kept Trump making money and that made them money.

Trump is truly like the medieval Prince who lives in a sumptuous palace but who needs his Grand Vizier to actually run things in the country. Keep your eye on Kushner who has become the architect of oligarchy by being the real deal maker (he has the intellect) that Trump only promotes (he has the ego and the big mouth)!

[Feb 01, 2018] Michael Wolff Kicked Off Morning Joe By Mika Brzezinski Mid-Interview

Notable quotes:
"... On Thurdsay morning, in a rare example of the antipathy many journalists feels toward "Fire and Fire" author Michael Wolff, MSNBC co-host Mika Brzezinski abruptly cut off her interview with Wolff on Morning Joe, after the author of the scandalous, if largely fictional, "tell all" book of the Trump presidency, said he never suggested that U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley had an affair with President Donald Trump. ..."
"... To that Brzezinski replied, " You might be having a fun time playing a little game dancing around this, but you're slurring a woman. It's disgraceful." ..."
"... Melania feelings dont seem to worry her ..."
"... "Hey...you cannot lie on our show...we're the only ones allowed to do that".. ..."
Feb 01, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The anti-Trump "resistance" appears to be turning on itself.

On Thurdsay morning, in a rare example of the antipathy many journalists feels toward "Fire and Fire" author Michael Wolff, MSNBC co-host Mika Brzezinski abruptly cut off her interview with Wolff on Morning Joe, after the author of the scandalous, if largely fictional, "tell all" book of the Trump presidency, said he never suggested that U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley had an affair with President Donald Trump.

To that Brzezinski replied, " You might be having a fun time playing a little game dancing around this, but you're slurring a woman. It's disgraceful."

"We're done" the Morning Joe then cut off the interview after asking, with a straight face, " are you kidding? you're on the set of Morning Joe, we don't BS here."

The exchange comes after Wolff recently appeared on Real Time With Bill Maher, where he said he was "absolutely sure" the president was having an affair with someone, and alluded to who that person was in one paragraph of his White House tell-all -- that person being Haley, according to the Daily Beast . In the following days, Haley - a former South Carolina governor - has vehemently denied any relationship with Trump.

Minutes after Wolff was kicked off, he tweeted: " My bad, the President is right about Mika "...


Cognitive Dissonance Feb 1, 2018 10:18 AM Permalink

Righteous indignation in all its glory. First you destroy the others, then you destroy your own, then you destroy yourself. It is the inevitable conclusion to the self reinforcing insanity of righteous indignation.

Badsamm -> Cognitive Dissonance Feb 1, 2018 10:21 AM Permalink

Melania feelings dont seem to worry her

eclectic syncretist -> DownWithYogaPants Feb 1, 2018 11:17 AM Permalink

"We don't BS here" ROFLMFAO!

Jerry Springer is Amateur hour compared to these assclowns.

j0nx -> Nameshavebeenc Feb 1, 2018 10:31 AM Permalink

Mika and Joe never had terrible things to say about Trump until he didn't let them into his little party and tweeted about her bloody post-surgery face. It's such a personal vendetta with them at this point that it isn't even legitimate news TV anymore. Has nothing to do with him or his policies. They are just pissed that he dissed them. They have lost all relevance. Sad.

CheapBastard -> j0nx Feb 1, 2018 10:40 AM Permalink

One slime bag bashing another slime bag. Glorious! Winning!

northern vigor -> Nameshavebeenc Feb 1, 2018 10:39 AM Permalink

"Hey...you cannot lie on our show...we're the only ones allowed to do that"..

newmacroman -> Nameshavebeenc Feb 1, 2018 10:43 AM Permalink

ZBigly embarrassing

[Jan 31, 2018] Is Trump yet another "bait and switch" artist?

Jan 31, 2018 | www.unz.com

Seamus Padraig , Next New Comment January 31, 2018 at 8:37 am GMT

@Harold Smith

That was always one of the things that most unnerved me about Trump from the start: what, exactly, motivated him to run? (The other thing about him that bothered me was his overweening Zionism.) The idea that he was some kind of plant certainly did occur to me, but the MSM didn't treat him the way they usually treat 'The Chosen One'. Compare him with the treatment the MSM gave that other 'outside, nontradional' candidate, Emmanuel Macron.

So what did motivate Trump? Ego? Vainglory? Some burning conviction somewhere? I still don't know. One way or the other, though, I'm pretty sure that MAGA is dead.

Harold Smith , Next New Comment January 31, 2018 at 3:09 pm GMT
@Seamus Padraig

"So what did motivate Trump? Ego? Vainglory? Some burning conviction somewhere? I still don't know."

Several lines of reasoning point me to the conclusion that Orange Clown is a "deep cover" or "sleeper" agent that's been "waiting in the wings" for his Zionist masters' call.

I believe that the political ascendancy of Orange Clown should be seen as a sign of Zionist desperation.

Anyway, one valid line of reasoning, IMO, is to rule out anything else. At 70 years old, Orange Clown is no spring chicken. So why would he run run NOW?

If he had actually followed through on his campaign rhetoric, or at least some of it, he'd be considered a true American hero, IMO. He's going to finally get us out of NATO? He's going to pull out of the hopeless war in Afghanistan and cut out the costly and self-destructive nation building crap? He's going to collaborate with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and finally investigate the worst crime in U.S. history?

If so he'd go down in history as a modern American revolutionary. The guy that single-handedly saved America from the "beast". And he's going to begin this herculean task at the age 70 years old? Seriously? How many historical examples are there where a 70 year old all of a sudden became a political visionary and led a revolution?

He's at the age where most people suffer cognitive decline, prostate problems, etc., but he's going to square off against "the powers that be", put himself at risk of assassination and lead a revolution in American politics? I just can't accept that.

Okay, but what about if he wanted to be president "just for a taste of power"? And that's a fair question, IMO.

That may explain why he wouldn't necessarily give a damn about following through on his campaign promises, but it doesn't explain why he would reverse himself on everything of major

[Jan 24, 2018] Wolff book: Hope Hicks is his daughter and Ivanka his wife

This sleazy Wolff just can't stop...
This "Trump chicks theme" was definitely underutilized in fire and Fury" Wolff later tried to revive and capitalize of it as the tool to support the declining book sales with "Triumph mistress" rumor.
Notable quotes:
"... Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, who Trump blames for the bulk of the book, as he was one of Wolff's most prominent sources, reportedly told people that 'The daughter ... will bring down the father.' ..."
"... Me thinks Mr. Wolff has got bats in the belfry. ..."
"... ''I have included that which I believe to be true'' - a quote from Wolff himself. Also, The Author's Note to Wolff's book states the quotes in it are all "recreations". ..."
Jan 22, 2018 | dailymail.co.uk

Hope Hicks is his real daughter and Ivanka is his real WIFE: How Trump can't say no to his family and is totally reliant on his communications director

With Melania Trump often keeping a low profile, White House staffers refer to first daughter Ivanka Trump as her father's 'real wife' and Communications Director Hope Hicks as the president's 'real daughter,' a new book alleged.

Author Michael Wolff, who wrote the forthcoming 'Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House' revealed these designations in the context of who is now closest to Trump, with many high-level aides leaving within the president's first year.

That distinction goes to Hicks, the president's 29-year-old former campaign press secretary who Wolff said is now Trump's 'most powerful White House advisor.'

'Hicks' primary function was to tend to the Trump ego, to reassure him, to protect him, to buffer him, to soothe him,' Wolff wrote in a story about the writing of his book, published Thursday by the Hollywood Reporter.

'It was Hicks who, attentive to his lapses and repetitions, urged him to forgo an interview that was set to open the 60 Minutes fall season,' the author continued. 'Instead, the interview went to Fox News' Sean Hannity who, White House insiders happily explained, was willing to supply the questions beforehand.'

In a preview of the book published Thursday in the Hollywood Reporter, Wolff also explained how Trump couldn't say no to his kids, casting this characteristic as 'foolishness.'

'It's a littleee, littleee complicated,' the president reportedly told his first Chief of Staff Reince Priebus when explaining why he wanted to give Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner official White House jobs.

They're now serving as senior advisers in the West Wing. However, Wolff did not describe their tenure as a happy one. 'By July, Jared and Ivanka, who had, in less than six months, traversed from socialite couple to royal family to the most powerful people in the world, were now engaged in a desperate dance to save themselves, which mostly involved blaming Trump himself,' Wolff wrote Thursday in the Hollywood Reporter.

'It was all his idea to fire Comey!' the couple nicknamed 'Javanka' reportedly said, referring to Trump's ouster of the former FBI director that prompted the appointment of a special counsel.

Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, who Trump blames for the bulk of the book, as he was one of Wolff's most prominent sources, reportedly told people that 'The daughter ... will bring down the father.'

Ashley Parker is a White House reporter for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2017, after 11 years at The New York Times, where she covered the 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns and Congress, among other things.  Follow @ashleyrparker

EmmaJanesMommy , Jacksonville, United States, 2 weeks ago

Me thinks Mr. Wolff has got bats in the belfry.

Sen Dog, Everywhere, United Kingdom, 2 weeks ago

''I have included that which I believe to be true'' - a quote from Wolff himself. Also, The Author's Note to Wolff's book states the quotes in it are all "recreations". Nice try liberals .

[Jan 23, 2018] Hope Hicks Famous For 'Hard-To-Maneuver-In Short Skirts,' According To 'Fire And Fury' Author by Paula Mooney

This "Trump chicks theme" was definitely underutilized in fire and Fury" Wolff later tried to revive and capitalize of it as the tool to support the declining book sales with "Triumph mistress" rumor.
Notable quotes:
"... Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... The Stepford Wives ..."
"... Dallas Observer ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Morning Joe ..."
Jan 22, 2018 | www.inquisitr.com
Hope Hicks is featured prominently in Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff, as proven by book excerpts that have made it to the public, as reported by the Inquisitr . The tome speaks of the 29-year-old Hicks' unlikely rise to become one of President Donald Trump's closest confidantes, even relating Hope's preferred manner of dressing to one that aligns with Trump's favorite look.

"Ten days before Donald Trump's inauguration as the forty-fifth president, a group of young Trump staffers -- the men in regulation Trump suits and ties, the women in the Trump-favored look of high boots, short skirts, and shoulder-length hair -- were watching President Barack Obama give his farewell speech as it streamed on a laptop in the transition offices."

Wolff notes that Hope was a 26-year-old when she was hired onto the Trump campaign as the first official hire. Hailing from Greenwich, Connecticut, Hicks worked as a model prior to getting into the PR business and working for Ivanka Trump's fashion line. After Ivanka captured Hope for her dad's political campaign in 2015, Hicks took the political ride of a lifetime to become the gatekeeper to President Trump.

Michael writes about Hope's family, who worried about Hicks "having been taken captive" into the Trump world, with friends and loved ones joking that Hope would need therapy once her time in the White House was done. Wolff describes Hicks as a young woman who was inexperienced but "famous among campaign reporters for her hard-to-maneuver-in short skirts."

Book: Hope Hicks Famous For 'Hard-To-Maneuever-In' Short Skirts, Rumored Uniform Trump Liked In White House Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

The overall tenor of Hope's portrayal in the best-seller paints her as a "yes woman" who is way too overeager to seek Trump's approval. Fearful of making errors, Hicks was protected by Trump from blame -- an act that baffled others, claimed the author. Hope rose in the ranks to become Trump's most trusted aide, albeit one who was assigned the difficult task of getting Trump positive press in the form of a winning New York Times article.

Hope always backed Trump's point-of-view, according to Fire and Fury , with Hicks often landing firmly on Trump's side when the president complained of the media being out to get him with negativity. Hicks even developed an instinct for the types of articles that would make Trump happy, with Hope presenting those clips to the president, even as others brought Trump bad news.

Wolff even likened Hope to the classic robotic wives seen in The Stepford Wives , calling Hicks "a kind of Stepford factotum, as absolutely dedicated to and tolerant of Mr. Trump as anyone who had ever worked for him." According to the Dallas Observer , even crossing the line and allegedly calling Hicks a " piece of tail " hasn't apparently dampened Hope's enthusiasm in working for Trump, in Wolff's estimation, with Hicks failing to get the coveted and positive New York Times coverage.

"That, in the president's estimation, had yet failed to happen, 'but Hope tries and tries,' the president said. On more than one occasion, after a day -- one of the countless days -- of particularly bad notices, the president greeted her, affectionately, with 'You must be the world's worst PR person.'"

Hicks was also the person who greeted Trump each morning, "quaking" to tell him what the latest Morning Joe episode said about the president in the wake of Trump refusing to watch the show. Either way, Trump's closeness with Hope was something that not only baffled White House insiders but caused concern and alarm.

Michael wrote that "the relationship of the president and Hope Hicks, long tolerated as a quaint bond between the older man and a trustworthy young woman, began to be seen as anomalous and alarming." Existing as a go-between in the middle of President Trump and the media, Hope's complete devotion to Trump and her accommodating nature to him was being blamed as part of the reason for Trump's "unmediated behavior."

"His impulses and thoughts -- unedited, unreviewed, unchallenged -- not only passed through him, but, via Hicks, traveled out into the world without any other White House arbitration. 'The problem isn't Twitter, it's Hope,' observed one communication staffer."

[Jan 22, 2018] Fire and Fury SMU's Hope Hicks' Star Turn in Michael Wolff's Scathing Trump Book by Stephen Young

This "Trump chicks theme" was definitely underutilized in fire and Fury" Wolff later tried to revive and capitalize of it as the tool to support the declining book sales with "Triumph mistress" rumor.
Jan 08, 2018 | www.dallasobserver.com
Hope Hicks can now add "being objectified by the president of the United States" to the narrow list of accomplishments she's racked up as she's gone from SMU English major to White House communications director .

According to Michael Wolff's new presidential tell-all Fire and Fury , Hicks, a former model and Gossip Girl novelization cover star who caught Trump's eye while modeling for Ivanka Trump's clothing line, had on an on-again, off-again relationship with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. Hicks and Lewandowski's liaison culminated in a Page Six-covered screaming match on 61st Street near Park Avenue and Manhattan in May 2016.

The next month, Trump fired Lewandowski. In a moment of compassion, Hicks, who'd by then become one of Trump's closest, and tight-lipped, confidants, asked Trump how she could help Lewandowski.

"Why?" Trump replied, Wolff writes. "You've already done enough for him. You're the best piece of tail he'll ever have."

Hicks immediately fled the room after Trump's comments, according to Wolff, but it wasn't enough to stop her rise through the campaign's ranks. When Trump dumped former communications director Anthony Scaramucci last summer, Hicks, who did not return a request to comment on the contents of the book, took over as his interim replacement. In November, she took over the job full time.

Trump has disputed both the content of the book and Wolff's claim that he was granted extensive access to the White House in 2017. "I authorized Zero access to White House (actually turned him down many times) for author of phony book! I never spoke to him for book. Full of lies, misrepresentations and sources that don't exist," the president tweeted last week.

Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, called the book a "complete fantasy," during a press conference Thursday, the day before Fire and Fury 's release.

[Jan 22, 2018] Michael Wolff Hints at Current Trump Infidelity Hidden in Fire and Fury

"These people are the lowest form of life; vicious, ignorant, scheming, petty, savage, manipulative -- if given the opportunity and the right incentive, he would stab any one of them, and not lose a minute's sleep... Again, what was his motivation -- something is missing from this puzzle. Drugs or drink or mental illness? ... those rats in that sinking sack, they're fighting... He may be the dictionary definition of a firestarter to some, to me he's a rancid piece of filth." Guardian comment
"If you think abandoning your wife and cashing in on your "batty" mother-in-law's home is cruel, it turns out this is par for the course."
"And, really, sex with someone other than his wife and the attention of other people is all Michael Wolff really wants, at the end of the day."
"A clue to Wolff's character emerged in 2009, when the "bald, trout-pouted" 55-year-old was caught sleeping with a 28-year-old intern at Vanity Fair. His wife kicked him out of their Manhattan home, but not before joining him in an attempt to evict her 85-year-old mother because they wanted to sell the apartment she lived in. As you can tell, he's a charmer."
This is really sleazy interview... Typical project of Wolff own behavior as in
Wolff: "If this is a book that will bring down his President.." And the only topic he is capable to discuss is dirty rumors about President infidelity. For Trump the book title "The great transition" ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Maher asked if it was about a woman, to which Wolff answered, "Yeah. I didn't have a blue dress." ..."
"... Without hesitation, Wolff said yes. "You just have to read between the lines," he said, adding that it's toward the end of the book. "Now that I've told you, when you hit that paragraph you're going to say bingo." ..."
Jan 22, 2018 | www.thewrap.com

Everybody has been talking about Michael Wolff's best seller "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House" since it came out Jan. 5, but the author said there is one thing hinted at in its pages that he is surprised no has asked him about.

"Real Time With Bill Maher" kicked off its 16th season Friday night with Wolff, who hinted there was a tidbit near the end of the book that he thought would get tongues wagging. At first cagey, he said it's something he is "absolutely sure of, but was so incendiary that I just didn't have the ultimate proof."

Maher asked if it was about a woman, to which Wolff answered, "Yeah. I didn't have a blue dress."

Of course, the "blue dress" he's referring to is Monica Lewinsky's infamous outfit that was said to be stained with President Bill Clinton's semen.

His curiosity piqued, Maher wondered if it was somebody Trump is "f -- ing now?"

Without hesitation, Wolff said yes. "You just have to read between the lines," he said, adding that it's toward the end of the book. "Now that I've told you, when you hit that paragraph you're going to say bingo."

Watch the full interview above.


landshark123 , January 20, 2018 4:48 PM

25 years ago it would be categorized as nothing more then a Kitty Kelly gossip rag.

He wouldn't answer Bill's question because he didn't want to get his butt sued into oblivion. He seems to be reveling in how he BS'd his way into there.

Afra , January 20, 2018 10:16 AM

IMAGINE -- in your wildest imaginings -- that this was President O.
The more sordid America becomes the more his hyperverbal "base", along with our traditional "enemies", celebrate.

ErikKC2 , January 20, 2018 7:06 AM

And, it will only get more "interesting" over the next couple of weeks. I ordered the book on the first day I could. In fact, I pre-ordered it. And, it was just shipped today. Give it a couple of weeks for the shipments from Amazon to be delivered, and the book digested.

And, of course, it's Hope Hicks.

Afra ErikKC2 , January 20, 2018 10:18 AM

I'm going to say a creeper in that back door he mentioned. I like to give the young lady a little more credit. In my head. 😟

I Heart Suckabees , January 20, 2018 4:35 AM

get it, Sarah Sanders!

[Jan 22, 2018] Sleazy Wolff tried to prolong his five minutes of fame

This is the real Wolff -- sleazy and unscrupulous gossip columnist
Notable quotes:
"... Wolff said Friday on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" that he was "absolutely sure" of such a tryst, but acknowledged that he lacked "ultimate proof." "I didn't have the blue dress," Wolff told Maher, referring to the key piece of evidence from Bill Clinton's notorious Oval Office dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. ..."
Jan 20, 2018 | www.nydailynews.com

Originally from: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/michael-wolff-claims-trump-affair-white-house-article-1.3767521

President Trump may be having an extramarital affair in the White House, according to the latest bombshell claim from "Fire and Fury" author Michael Wolff.

Wolff said Friday on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" that he was "absolutely sure" of such a tryst, but acknowledged that he lacked "ultimate proof." "I didn't have the blue dress," Wolff told Maher, referring to the key piece of evidence from Bill Clinton's notorious Oval Office dalliance with Monica Lewinsky.

[Jan 22, 2018] Michael Wolff's Trump Affair Clues Point to Nikki Haley, and We Hate This Story (Column) by Tim Molloy

Yahoo tried to amplify the unsubstantiated and malicious rumor. Not the first time, not the last. So Yahoo bottom feeders are happy to feast on Wolff's excrements...
Notable quotes:
"... By October, however, many on the president's staff took particular notice of one of the few remaining Trump opportunists: Nikki Haley, the UN ambassador. Haley -- 'as ambitious as Lucifer," in the characterization of one member of the senior staff -- had concluded that Trump's tenure would last, at best, a single term, and that she, with requisite submission, could be his heir apparent. Haley had courted and befriended Ivanka, and Ivanka had brought her into the family circle, where she had become a particular focus of Trump's attention, and he of hers. ..."
"... Bingo? Wolff adds that Trump "had been spending a notable amount of private time with Haley on Air Force One and was seen to be grooming her for a political future." Wolff cited one "senior Trumper" who said the problem with Trump mentoring Haley "is that she is so much smarter than him." ..."
"... The White House, Haley and Wolff did not immediately respond to a request for comment. There are many problems with this theory, aside from Wolff going on national television to accuse people of having affairs. Among them: Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, was one of Trump's early Republican critics. ..."
"... She campaigned for Marco Rubio and then supported Ted Cruz. When she gave the Republican response to President Obama's final State of the Union address, she seemed to criticize Trump when she said: "During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices." Trump responded by calling her "weak" on immigration . ..."
Jan 22, 2018 | www.yahoo.com

"Fire and Fury" author Michael Wolff's accusation that President Trump is currently having an affair set off online speculation Saturday about who the other party might be. Based on Wolff's clues, it appears he's making insinuations about UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.

A quick side note before we go further: This is gross on every level. We don't have any evidence whatsoever to suggest that what Wolff is hinting at is true, so please consider this a story about an author making an accusation he admits he can't prove.

That said, Wolff went on "Real Time With Bill Maher" Friday to provide some encouragement to readers who may have given up halfway through "Fire and Fury" when he said a passage near the end of his book hints at the affair.

Also Read: Trump Demands Babies Not Be Born After Nine Months: No, Really, He Said This

"Now that I've told you, when you hit that paragraph you're going to say bingo," Wolff told Maher.

We've read the book. While there are icky descriptions about Trump's behavior with his spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, they come before the book's midway point. ("You're the best piece of tail he'll ever have!" Trump is quoted as telling Hicks about an ex, which Wolff says sent Hicks "running from the room.")

The only passage we've found near the end of the book that references a Trump relationship with a woman who isn't his wife or daughter is this one:

By October, however, many on the president's staff took particular notice of one of the few remaining Trump opportunists: Nikki Haley, the UN ambassador. Haley -- 'as ambitious as Lucifer," in the characterization of one member of the senior staff -- had concluded that Trump's tenure would last, at best, a single term, and that she, with requisite submission, could be his heir apparent. Haley had courted and befriended Ivanka, and Ivanka had brought her into the family circle, where she had become a particular focus of Trump's attention, and he of hers.

Bingo? Wolff adds that Trump "had been spending a notable amount of private time with Haley on Air Force One and was seen to be grooming her for a political future." Wolff cited one "senior Trumper" who said the problem with Trump mentoring Haley "is that she is so much smarter than him."

Also Read: 'Real Time': Michael Wolff Hints at Current Trump Infidelity Hidden in Bombshell Book (Video)

The White House, Haley and Wolff did not immediately respond to a request for comment. There are many problems with this theory, aside from Wolff going on national television to accuse people of having affairs. Among them: Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, was one of Trump's early Republican critics.

She campaigned for Marco Rubio and then supported Ted Cruz. When she gave the Republican response to President Obama's final State of the Union address, she seemed to criticize Trump when she said: "During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices." Trump responded by calling her "weak" on immigration .

... ... ...

[Jan 22, 2018] From Elizabeth Taylor to Donald Trump Insinuations, Half Truths and Lies by Dr. Fred Eichelman

Notable quotes:
"... "No, it can really hurt" she replied. She went on to tell us how in one story the cover headline announced "Elizabeth Taylor is slowly killing her mother." As it turned out the story was about how her mom worried about her daughter's health and travels. Elizabeth went on to relate that in the United Kingdom you could not get away with such stories. She had sued successfully 15 times, winning each. "I did not need or want the money" she confided. "I just wanted a retraction. That is not possible in the United States." ..."
"... These kind of distortions about Elizabeth were not just prevalent in magazines. Books have done the same thing. There is a biography of Elizabeth Taylor by an author known for penning page turners about celebrities with as much dirt as possible. In one story she described an argument between Elizabeth and John during a political gathering locally here in the Roanoke Valley. One that had her storming off and not returning. We were there with other friends and no such thing happened. ..."
"... Now I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and the idea of freedom of speech. I also know I do not have the right to go into a theater showing a film and shout "FIRE" if there is no fire. I could be rightfully arrested for that because of the possible danger to public safety. ..."
"... Today we see people in the liberal media distributing fake news with every opportunity they can find. They have done every thing they possibly can to see the presidency of Donald Trump fail. The Michael Wolff book makes a case that every one around the president, including family, think he is not competent and not smart. He is fair game for such fake news. ..."
Jan 13, 2018 | politichicks.com

The title may cause readers to think this is strictly about the half baked book by Michael Wolff on the Trump Administration. That is already being debunked by even some liberal sources like the Washington Post which has been finding errors on every page. The only criticism I would make is that too much is being said about it and that makes sales of the book go up. The old adage that "Get banned in Boston if you want a best seller" holds true.

The concern here is the interpretation by the courts of the First Amendment that people with a public position are fair game for the spreading of information whether true or untrue. This has been going on for some time and the first I became aware of it was with the entertainment media.

Dr. Fred Eichelman and Elizabeth Taylor

Back in the late seventies my wife Carolyn and I were privileged to host Elizabeth Taylor several times when her husband John Warner was running for the U.S. Senate here in Virginia. We found Elizabeth a very open person and easy to talk with and there was one question I had to ask.

I had seen a number of covers on Super Market magazines with stories hinting of scandals and Elizabeth Taylor was a popular subject. I had heard that Hollywood stars did not mind that sort of thing as bad publicity was still good publicity as long as it kept their name in the news. I had to ask Elizabeth if this was true in her case.

"No, it can really hurt" she replied. She went on to tell us how in one story the cover headline announced "Elizabeth Taylor is slowly killing her mother." As it turned out the story was about how her mom worried about her daughter's health and travels. Elizabeth went on to relate that in the United Kingdom you could not get away with such stories. She had sued successfully 15 times, winning each. "I did not need or want the money" she confided. "I just wanted a retraction. That is not possible in the United States."

These kind of distortions about Elizabeth were not just prevalent in magazines. Books have done the same thing. There is a biography of Elizabeth Taylor by an author known for penning page turners about celebrities with as much dirt as possible. In one story she described an argument between Elizabeth and John during a political gathering locally here in the Roanoke Valley. One that had her storming off and not returning. We were there with other friends and no such thing happened.

Now I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and the idea of freedom of speech. I also know I do not have the right to go into a theater showing a film and shout "FIRE" if there is no fire. I could be rightfully arrested for that because of the possible danger to public safety.

Today we see people in the liberal media distributing fake news with every opportunity they can find. They have done every thing they possibly can to see the presidency of Donald Trump fail. The Michael Wolff book makes a case that every one around the president, including family, think he is not competent and not smart. He is fair game for such fake news. People with common sense know that a man who was an honor student in college, became a billionaire, was a success on TV and able to get elected president is no small potatoes. The success with our economy alone should erase such ideas.

Of course not being a born politician Donald Trump believes in fighting back and he makes ample use of Twitter for this. This is also not news as when Ronald Reagan was president his competence and ability to lead was often called into question. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil labeled President Ragean as an "amiable dunce." Reagan made ample use of television to go over the heads of congressional critics and the media. In this digital age Donald Trump is only doing what many wish they could do to protect themselves.

While our president can protect himself, you have to wonder about so many others in government, business. the entertainment world and elsewhere who have found untrue criticism in the media too much to handle. The definition of what people are not exempt from untrue news keeps broadening. This sort of thing is even happening on college campuses where conservative teachers have found themselves under attack by student publications using the First Amendment as their defense even when not telling the truth.

There is no easy answer here and we can only wish that someday common sense will find a solution to protect us all from such attacks.

Dr. Fred Eichelman is a retired teacher and a director for Point North Outreach, a Christian media organization. He recently had a book published, Faith, Family, Film-A Teacher's Trek. Fred is a former local Republican Committee chairman and has attended hundreds of conventions from political to science fiction. He sees the two as compatible. Fred also tells us he values very much a title we gave him since he could not be a PolitiChick. PolitiDude.

[Jan 22, 2018] Michael Wolff's 'Fire and Fury' to Become TV Series (Exclusive) by Lesley Goldberg, Andy Lewis

Notable quotes:
"... Endeavor Content -- the financing and sales arm formed in October between sister companies William Morris Endeavor and IMG -- has purchased film and television rights to the No. 1 best-selling book. The massive deal is said to be in the seven-figure range. ..."
Jan 17, 2018 | www.hollywoodreporter.com

Michael Wolff's controversial Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House is coming to television.

Endeavor Content -- the financing and sales arm formed in October between sister companies William Morris Endeavor and IMG -- has purchased film and television rights to the No. 1 best-selling book. The massive deal is said to be in the seven-figure range. Endeavor Content plans to adapt the book as a TV series. A network is not yet attached, as Endeavor will now begin shopping the project.

Wolff will executive produce the series, with veteran Channel 4 and BBC executive Michael Jackson -- now CEO of indie producer Two Cities Television -- also on board to produce.

[Jan 22, 2018] How Michael Wolff duped the White House into giving him access to Trump's aides by Allahpundit

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... According to Bloomberg , Wolff didn't even initiate this project. It fell into his lap when Trump dialed him up out of the blue to compliment him on a CNN appearance in which Wolff bashed the media's coverage of the president. So susceptible is POTUS to flattery and so eager is he to satisfy his eternal grudge with the press that a little bit of cheerleading from Wolff was all it took for him to place his trust, essentially blindly, in a far more devious reporter than the ones he's always complaining about. ..."
"... CNN drives him nuts so he turned to Michael farking Wolff, of all people, to try to balance the scales. The irony is as thick and dense as the brain matter of White House deputies who went along. ..."
"... In fact, for the first six months of Trump's presidency no one in his White House -- including then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and then-Press Secretary Sean Spicer -- stopped Wolff from repeatedly scheduling appointments in the West Wing. He visited about 17 times, according to a person familiar with the matter. Nor did they monitor what Trump's aides were telling the controversial author ..."
"... [An] Obama aide said his communications team kept strict tabs on authors' work -- micromanaging access to the White House, assigning press aides to mind the authors during interviews or asking staff for summaries afterward, closely tracking lines of questioning and making sure writers were escorted off the grounds after their appointments. ..."
"... Some of Bloomberg's sources claim that Kellyanne Conway gave him access more than once and appears to have spoken with him at some length. Conway's a longtime political player. What's her excuse for not knowing Wolff's reputation and intervening to protect Trump from him? ..."
"... Dubke left the job in late May but Trump's fateful phone call to Wolff allegedly happened in early February 2017, with Wolff conducting interviews at the White House not long afterward. Dubke's a right-wing media-relations pro of longstanding. He didn't speak up about Wolff either? ..."
"... In the end, though, it all falls on Hope Hicks, who was Trump's informal communications director before being formally appointed to the job in September at the tender age of 29 after Dubke quit. Although she had no leadership role in the West Wing until the fall, she's an old-school Trump deputy who was with him before the campaign. She's either the unofficial head of the Praetorian Guard or she's a very high-ranking member. Where the hell was she when Wolff came knocking? Did she do any due diligence as to whether he could be trusted to write the sort of book he was proposing to write? If so, how did she miss the high-profile critiques of his methods in magazines like Brill's Content and The New Republic ? It's tempting to accuse Hicks of being too young or simply out of her depth to do her job effectively for Trump -- but then how do you explain the apparent negligence on Conway's and Dubke's parts, too? ..."
"... Wolff's going to end up filthy rich from all this, and not just from book royalties. "Fire & Fury" will soon be a TV show (although, more likely, a TV miniseries) with Wolff himself as executive producer. And given the propensity of Trump staffers to leak, he's probably already hard at work on "Fire & Fury 2: More Fiery, More Furious." Congrats to Hope and everyone else for sharpening a knife and handing it to Wolff before allowing him to stab their boss repeatedly with it. Exit question via a million different people: Isn't there already a "Fire & Fury" TV show on cable news every day? ..."
Jan 17, 2018 | hotair.com

... According to Bloomberg , Wolff didn't even initiate this project. It fell into his lap when Trump dialed him up out of the blue to compliment him on a CNN appearance in which Wolff bashed the media's coverage of the president. So susceptible is POTUS to flattery and so eager is he to satisfy his eternal grudge with the press that a little bit of cheerleading from Wolff was all it took for him to place his trust, essentially blindly, in a far more devious reporter than the ones he's always complaining about.

... ... ...

[Jan 22, 2018] Michael Wolff discusses Fire and Fury

British interviewer is heads above US MSM interviewers. He also approach Wolff with kid gloves, but he pins a couple of time his ego ;-)
Of cause BBC is a neoliberal swap and they interviewed Wolff half-dozen times :-)
In his BBC interview and this interview Wolff clearly state that Trump is not fit for the office "mentally unfit for office" ;-). Here Wolff also claims is Trump is like a child.
Also on the question of allegation of "collision with Russia" Wolff state that "emperor has no clothes" while in reality it is Wolff who has no cloth doing this hatcet job without verification of even basic facts. He also pushed Bannon under the bas.
When confronted with that fact that Bannon challenged of Wolff claims, he just start blabbing.
The interviewer suggested that this book is a fascinating gossip taken at the heat of the moment, that this is one dimensional book.
Jan 06, 2018 | bbc.co.uk

Michael Wolff discusses his book Fire and Fury, about US President Donald Trump's first nine months in office, with Nick Robinson. Mr Trump has accused the author of making up stories and has called him a "total loser".

[Jan 22, 2018] EPIC: CNN Host GOES OFF On Anti-Trump Michael Wolff for what he did on Live Tv

Highly recommended!
Nice exposure of duplicitous character Wolff "I certainly said whatever necessary to get the story"
Key question: Did you misrepresent yourself trying to get access to Trump. "I like the person" "I want to humanize the president" "You know that I like him" "Nobody is doing it" "I might be able to change perceptions"
Another interesting question: "Where all those pledges accurate when you made them? " Why you present yourself as a beacon to combat bias against the President.
Jan 21, 2018 | www.youtube.com
Tom S., 3 days ago
Mainstream media turned into political party! Mainstream media professional liars are political assassins for the worst people on this planet. Mainstream media is a political apparatus which is bought and paid off by champagne-socialists, thieves set-up-entirely to serves rich and powerful to extract from small and weak. Mainstream media professional liars will continue to support political scum and their style of cronyism and rampant corruption that is stunting the country's development.

Mainstream media will make sure to siphon off large chunks of targeted electoral subsidies and Lobbying cash which will enable them to preserve their fancy cars, apartments and privileged status as American people suffer!

JD Mott, 1 week ago
Like everything the Left thinks is Nirvana this too is turning against them. Wolfe is well known for injecting fiction into his recollection.

[Jan 22, 2018] CNN's Brian Stelter owned by Michael Wolff: No disrespect, you border on being a ridiculous figure

Notable quotes:
"... CNN, Michael Wolff -- Reliable Sources. HaHaHaHaHaHa! ..."
Feb 01, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Daniel Stetson

CNN, Michael Wolff -- Reliable Sources. HaHaHaHaHaHa! 

Daniel Jansen, 1 month ago
The media is totally ignorant of real issues that matter to the American people they are so involved in defending their own opinions that they have forgotten their purpose of keeping the public informed of what's happening they have taken it upon them self to defend the Democrats and their corrupt world order agenda
Keith M, 2 weeks ago

Media=fake news

 Official Jayo, 1 week ago

Pot meet kettle. I now believe Wolff knew exactly what he was doing with the fake book. He knew the media would eat it up and he could ride off into the sunset with one last big payday.

Frankie Dog Turner, 1 week ago

CNN is just very fake news. Brian Stelter is a ridiculous figure and so if Wolfe. Like Uncle Fester and Mini-Me two pitiful idiots on stage together..

Raymond Armatino, 1 week ago

This was staged. Its there to make Wolf seem like he is telling truth in his book and I dont buy it for many reasons.

[Jan 21, 2018] Michael Wolff: Everyone in the liberal media is a Trump enemy

This Jul 12, 2017 interview of Wolff when he took somewhat pro-Trump stance...
Jul 12, 2017 | BBC Newsnight

Explicit statement of Wolff on FBI-contractor organized meeting in Trump tower that definitely suggests malice.

[Jan 21, 2018] Michael Wolff's Book: Trump lawyers threaten ex-aide Bannon - BBC

BBC presstitutes on meeting in Trump tower
Jan 04, 2018 | bbc.co.uk

Tony Blair disclaimed the statement of Wolff in the book

[Jan 20, 2018] Looks like no one edited this book

Jan 20, 2018 | www.amazon.com

C on January 19, 2018

It's like no one edited this book

Badly written. It's like no one edited this book. Really makes me question the author's credibility and journalistic integrity. Doesn't cite sources, even when providing direct quotes. That's not okay.

I'm glad someone had the courage to write about the imbecile in our White House, but this kind of crappy writing that borders on tabloid-level makes our side look just as bad as "the other side".

Wolff is lucky that the Bannon controversy happened, otherwise this book wouldn't have sold more than a handful of copies.

Lisa Popolo on January 19, 2018
Amateur level writing

Gossipy and fun, but a difficult read with such poorly edited, sloppy writing. Such sentences worth only of Trump himself.

joe-maryland on January 19, 2018
Save money, watch the news, Trump nuts in either case

Kind of a waste of money. Just watch the news and read the tweets, you'll figure it out for free.
It would be more interesting if it had some notes on sources, but there is no way to determine 1st hand info, 2nd hand info, and third hand in a mirror info.

Allan on January 19, 2018
Terribly written mess

There was not much here that you didn't already know. But the writing is so terrible that it was difficult to make it to the end of a rather short piece. He repeatedly writes long paragraphs consisting of single sentences. He compulsively inserts long parenthetical expressions everywhere which breaks up the flow and requires reading and reading to try to figure out what he's saying. I would expect a best selling author to be able to construct a comprehensible sentence but he mostly fails.

MTANDIZ on January 19, 2018
#1 for the FAKE BOOKS AWARD.

1st we had FAKE NEWS, now we have FAKE BOOK. Maybe NEXT YEAR, this book will make the FAKE BOOKS AWARD.

Kathleen GAM on January 18, 2018
As much as I wanted to like this book

As much as I wanted to like this book, because I detest Trump, the only thing I can say about this book is it stinks. It's repetitive, poorly written and he could use a proofreader. There's nothing in it that we haven't all read on the internet.

[Jan 19, 2018] Interesting in a voyeuristic sense but stylistically and factually flawed

Notable quotes:
"... The media has done everything to discredit him and are always found to be false. Sure, he is obnoxious but enough already. ..."
"... Fire and fury seemed to be a compilation of the news stories about Trump that had already been worked and reworked in the written media. Other than a little embellishment it was like reruns on cable TV. You had heard the story so many times you could almost say the lines with the characters. ..."
Jan 20, 2018 | www.amazon.com
shoesarei on January 18, 2018
Interesting in a voyeuristic sense but stylistically and factually flawed.

The inaccuracies are off-putting. How credible is the rest of this book if he calls Stephen Miller Jason? I am far from being a Trump fan, but I am also far from being a Bannon fan. Wolff clearly likes Bannon and admires the daily chaos and "war footing" tactics he engendered. I would love to read a book like this but one that is edited and vetted before going to print.

Angela M. Hey VINE VOICE on January 18, 2018
Bannon's White House legacy

This chronicle of life in the White House is more about Steve Bannon and his buddies versus Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner's more liberal views. Highlights of President Trump's first nine months provide material for the book's chapters.

There are almost no good words for Trump. The reader gets tired of hearing he's confused, stupid or uninformed. The writing is tedious and relies on Yiddish and journalistic jargon to add gravitas. If you want to know more about Trump, this is not the book.

One reads about White House chaos and the book explains the political infighting that contributes to it. The communications professionals' comings and goings are explained. The chief of staff gyrations and Air Force One trip insights provide interest.

If you keep up with the news you won't learn much about Trump, but as a partial biography of Bannon this is worth reading.

adam j schlaff on January 18, 2018
Not a Trumpet but come on.

Seriously this book has been debunked by so many. I don't always agree with Trump but this is pure slander. I hope he sues and wins.

The media has done everything to discredit him and are always found to be false. Sure, he is obnoxious but enough already.

teamleade on January 18, 2018
Full of fire and fury but signifying nothing.

The hype on this book got my attention but it was a book "I could put down". Fire and fury seemed to be a compilation of the news stories about Trump that had already been worked and reworked in the written media. Other than a little embellishment it was like reruns on cable TV. You had heard the story so many times you could almost say the lines with the characters.

[Jan 18, 2018] His great gift is the appearance of intimate access by Kyle Swenson

How you spell "hypocrisy" Mr. Wolff...
Notable quotes:
"... "a portraitist who has mastered the art of the suck-up putdown." ..."
"... "And by repeatedly reminding the reader of what a dishonest, scheming little s -- he is, he seeks to inflate his credibility." ..."
"... "hit piece (plural hit pieces) (idiomatic) a published article or post aiming to sway public opinion by presenting false or biased information in a way that appears objective and truthful." ..."
"... I've seen Wolff on television several times and he comes across very badly. He is pretty full of himself. ..."
Jan 04, 2018 | www.washingtonpost.com

Originally from: Michael Wolff's Trump book The latest in a career of controversy - The Washington Post

Wolff had taken shots in a recent Newsweek column at the media's "apoplexy" over the 45th president, specifically calling out Stelter for delivering on his show each week, in the writer's words, a "pious sermon about Trump's perfidiousness."

"I hope I pronounced that right," Stelter joked for a gawky transition. "Do you feel my style is wrong or my substance is wrong, trying to fact check the president?"

Wolff, snazzy in a dandy banker's navy suit, pocket square, and trademark thick framed glasses, didn't flinch. "I mean this with truly no disrespect, but I think you can border on being quite a ridiculous figure," he told the host. "It's not a good look to repeatedly and self-righteously defend your own self-interest. The media should not be the story."

The television moment -- an acerbic jab at a media heavyweight on his own show -- was classic Wolff. But it was also a bit of foreshadowing. Nearly a year later, Michael Wolff himself is very much the story this week.

...He has also, as The Washington Post's Paul Farhi wrote on Wednesday, been accused by critics of "pushing the facts as far as they'll go, and sometimes further than they can tolerate."

...Critics have blasted the writer in the past for filling his column inches with insight and imaginative recreation rather than actual reporting.

..."His great gift is the appearance of intimate access," an editor told Cottle in 2004. "He is adroit at making the reader think that he has spent hours and days with his subject, when in fact he may have spent no time at all." Another former colleague said: "He did get a lot of things majorly wrong, but he never was just pedestrian . . . You have to admire his balls."

Chicken and tuna sandwich 1 week ago Why would you even mention Jones? He is in no way a legitimate source for anything, not even the entertainment he has admitted in court he engages in. That's like referencing Manson for midwifery. "a portraitist who has mastered the art of the suck-up putdown." "And by repeatedly reminding the reader of what a dishonest, scheming little s -- he is, he seeks to inflate his credibility."

Two of the best lines I've read in a while. I haven't read his books but I like what I'm hearing about this one. Now the real question is not whether or not it is true, it's how will Trump spin this into a whirlwind he can reap unearned profits from?

the cavalier, 1 week ago

Sounds like the perfect supercilious self absorbed twit to cover a supercilious self absorbed twit.

crown scientist, 1 week ago

Based on what I've as yet read in the excerpts published by NewYork Magazine I would suggest Michael Wolff has introduced our distressed democracy to alt-journalism, the Access Hollywoodification of presenedtial history. What drips with irony is that the Stupid Orange Clown essentially fathered this freak of literature.

b everdene 1 week ago

You can see what happened here. Wolff set the stage for gaining Trump's trust (and access) by publically criticizing Trump critics, but then he turned the tables on Trump and wrote an unflattering profile. How fun.

Call it Presidential Pornology.

scchan.2009, 1 week ago

So if I understood what Wolff does: if you - assuming you are famous enough - give Wolff a chance or a hole to write BS about you, he will do it.

The thing about many similar "journalism", the tall tales are not even remotely unbelievable. It is totally consistent with the character even if it is false. It is playing the anti-hero of the Daily Mail or NY Post. People enjoy reading gossip, be that be rubbish on Fox News or BS come out from Wolff's or Stephen Colbert's mouth.

For now, have a good laugh without suspension of belief!

Greatful Deadline , 1 week ago

"hit piece (plural hit pieces) (idiomatic) a published article or post aiming to sway public opinion by presenting false or biased information in a way that appears objective and truthful." https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hit_piece

In other words, if it's true (as in "he has tapes"), then it's NOT a "hit piece."

jim380691910 , 1 week ago

I've seen Wolff on television several times and he comes across very badly. He is pretty full of himself. Trump and Wolff, two unlikeable people, truly deserve each other. I'm so disgusted with Trump that I'm fine with anyone flushing him down the toilet.

mr.natural, 1 week ago
"But Wolff has also been taken to task for blurring the lines between hot take and hatchet job. "Wolff exploits the human tendency to confuse frankness and cruelty with truth-telling," media critic Jack Shafer wrote in Slate in 1998. "And by repeatedly reminding the reader of what a dishonest, scheming little s -- he is, he seeks to inflate his credibility.""

This book will be a must read for all those who need to have their biases reinforced, to be reminded that they are better than the rest, that anyone not agreeing with them is indeed a knuckle dragging Troglodyte.

[Jan 17, 2018] Mediocre book

Notable quotes:
"... A journalist friend recently observed that good journalism leaves you understanding something you never even thought you cared about. This book did the opposite - left me pretty much not caring about something I was really curious about. I found the transcript of Glenn Simpson's testimony at the Senate hearings on the Steele dossier more riveting ..."
"... Wolff had an opportunity to put this disaster in writing -- a writing that any serious observer would want to add to their "reference" library. Wolff failed -- poor editing, overuse of a thesaurus, convoluted sentence structure and frequently leaving the reader wondering if statements made are Wolff's opinions or simply his ideas of what were thoughts of a person or group he has written about. There are some interesting bits in this book but it took work getting through Wolff's poor writing to get to the bits. ..."
"... unless you've been reclusive over the past several weeks, you know about most of the juicy bits. ..."
"... If you're thinking of reading a book, why not try something about a president of accomplishment Lincoln, (there's an entire that lists books about Lincoln)Teddy Roosevelt ( David McCullough's "Morning on Horseback is fantastic and Edmund Morris' trilogy about Roosevelt is not to be missed), Franklin Roosevelt? (Again there's a shelf full of books: I'm partial to Doris Kearns Goodwin's "No Ordinary Time" and Geoffrey C Ward's "Before the Trumpets" and "A First Class Temperament." If you want to read about a shady president try John Farrell's "Richard Nixon: A Life." Nixon is a whole lot more interesting than Trump. ..."
"... Disappointed. Full of innuendo and gossip. Editors should be flogged for all the errors they let by. Also someone needs to tell the author that he doesn't need to use ten dollar words to try and make the book seem credible. ..."
"... After the best parts were revealed in the media, the rest of the book reads as a dry attempt at juicy gossip. ..."
"... I'd like to read a more straight forward plain speaking account with sources to set the record straight. Guess we'll get this from Bannon's testimony quite soon! ..."
Jan 20, 2018 | www.amazon.com

Uppsala on January 17, 2018

Mediocre book about a crappy president.

To begin with, I was very irritated by all the editing mistakes that appeared in the Kindle edition. Writers lose some credibility when their "finished" product is riddled with grammatical errors. This book is just not well-written. At first the account was galvanizing, especially seeing in print one of Trump's speeches--which I would assign a D-minus at best. Incoherent, highly repetitive writing (or in this case Trump's speaking) indicates incoherent thinking; the president does not argue, he asserts. He has anecdotes but no evidence. Facts are clearly anathema to him; logic escapes him. But all this is really no surprise because he has shown himself over and over to be a vain, emotionally needy idiot, who is a compulsive liar being propped up by immoral toadies (in his staff and in congress). That said, after the first 90 or so pages, I became really bored. And why not? Trump (the subject of the book, after all) has nothing to say. He has no plans to solve the country's many problems and seems dangerously susceptible to repeating what the last person he talked to said.

James Garrett on January 17, 2018
Gossip

See the subject line. This book is TMZ material. If you like it, go for it. It is going for s laugh. However, you would be better off reading the summaries online.

David on January 17, 2018
Unsettling and not a lot of new information

I pre-ordered this book primarily because Trump was opposed vehemently to its publication. (The same reason, years ago, that I saw "The Last Temptation of Christ." Local religious extremists were picketing the theater.)

I cannot say that reading the book was enjoyable. It reflects the troubling times we are in now and the likelihood of difficult times ahead. And I am asked to trust this author regarding the details. It would be easier for me if Wolff had been a journalist with the discipline imposed by a news editor. As it is, the quotes and attributions stand as gossip (though I am inclined to believe most or all of them, since they appear to fit logically with information already public).

The broad brush (e.g., "All of the senior staff...") may be true, but could a careful investigator not find a true believer among them? I am certain that I could not work in this administration, but there must be one who is as devoted to Trump as I have been to other elected officials for whom I have worked.

Did I learn anything? Some details, perhaps, but not the big picture. I had known that this president is a dangerously ignorant narcissist from his public statements. Is his public persona (a childish, insecure man who holds grudges, lashes out at real or perceived opposition, and evidences no maturity) likely to be similar to his behavior in the White House? It seems probable.

complexanimal on January 17, 2018
A Tabloid-esque Exposι Befitting our Time

This is a poorly sourced, hearsay laden book that would get ripped to shreds and given a C- if presented as a final project in any top 500 journalism graduate school in the country. However, I very much doubt the author intended it to adhere to The Rulebook of Journalistic Ethics and Integrity. In short, it revels in being a salacious story about gossip and innuendo -- fitting quite well in our age of social media, aggregated and questionable sources, and our own attention span lacking president. In effect, it reads like an extremely long, multi-part post in Reddit's /r/bestof section.

Regarding the "truthiness" and authenticity of the facts that lies within: yeah, I generally believe most of it is probably true. There is not much secrecy in the bumbling ineptitude of the Trump administration and the in-fighting that is hidden in plain sight. Rake stepping seems a constant favorite past time of our Dear Leader and his cohorts. Bear in mind, 'Fire and Fury' seems clearly on the side of Bannon, so I would certainly take any of his character opinions -- particularly, of those he clearly despises (Jarvanka) -- with a boulder sized grain of salt. Also, there are some factual errors that are troubling to say the least. For example, Wolff suggests that Trump's father was definitely a member of the KKK. From my cursory research on the topic, this claim seems circumstantial at best. There are also errors in poll numbers sprinkled throughout the text.

Should you read it? Perhaps, but don't expect anything terribly enlightening. If you're like me: a mainstream liberal who reads the failing New York Times and the Bezos Washington Post, I doubt any of this will be much of a surprise to you. What the book mainly does is sum up the top 50 forehead slapping headlines of this disastrous presidency in the past year, so if you've been paying attention, you've already read a version of this. I suppose it is useful to have a story arc within a single book that covers the first year of the Trump presidency. Had it been better written, properly sourced, and factually correct, it might have really been something.

Plimoth Rock on January 17, 2018
Sound and fury signifying nothing.

This work to me seemed like more than a timeline of events covering the period within which Wolff had been given West Wing access. That the timeline was extruded with often sourceless hearsay makes it a bedfellow with a 14 year old's diary. I learned little that was new, except for the seedier alleged "conversations" with the major and minor players. Reading it made me depressed with the realization that the majority party and its henchmen in DC right now wouldn't know the truth or respect it if it pushed them down the stairs.

Philly Lawyer on January 17, 2018
Disappointing

I am mad that I rushed to buy this book because of the hype and my intense dislike of Trump. A journalist friend recently observed that good journalism leaves you understanding something you never even thought you cared about. This book did the opposite - left me pretty much not caring about something I was really curious about. I found the transcript of Glenn Simpson's testimony at the Senate hearings on the Steele dossier more riveting .

Do yourselves and favor and read that, or read the March 2017 New Yorker piece on Robert Mercer, or any of the many excellent pieces on Trump and his administration in the New York Times or Washington Post. I gave the book 3 stars anyway because - well - it is a only book about the dysfunctional Trump White House.

Cou on January 17, 2018
Important story poorly told

The history of Trump's first year in office has been followed by most Americans who have any level of interest in politics. Wolff had an opportunity to put this disaster in writing -- a writing that any serious observer would want to add to their "reference" library. Wolff failed -- poor editing, overuse of a thesaurus, convoluted sentence structure and frequently leaving the reader wondering if statements made are Wolff's opinions or simply his ideas of what were thoughts of a person or group he has written about. There are some interesting bits in this book but it took work getting through Wolff's poor writing to get to the bits.

Stephanie Patterson on January 17, 2018
Donald Trump is a bore

Donald Trump is a bore.

This book is very readable though unless you've been reclusive over the past several weeks, you know about most of the juicy bits.

On Sunday, the historian Niall Ferguson, was the interviewee in the "By the Book" feature in the New York Times Book Review. He was asked the standard question for this interview: "If you could require the American president to read one book, what would it be? And the prime minister? His answer was priceless: "I agree with you that it would be wonderful if both Mr. Trump and Mrs May read one book. I don't much mind which one it is."

If you're thinking of reading a book, why not try something about a president of accomplishment Lincoln, (there's an entire that lists books about Lincoln)Teddy Roosevelt ( David McCullough's "Morning on Horseback is fantastic and Edmund Morris' trilogy about Roosevelt is not to be missed), Franklin Roosevelt? (Again there's a shelf full of books: I'm partial to Doris Kearns Goodwin's "No Ordinary Time" and Geoffrey C Ward's "Before the Trumpets" and "A First Class Temperament." If you want to read about a shady president try John Farrell's "Richard Nixon: A Life." Nixon is a whole lot more interesting than Trump.

You already know more about Trump than he knows or realizes about himself. Skip this and read about a real president.

Becca on January 17, 2018
Disappointed. Full of innuendo and gossip

Disappointed. Full of innuendo and gossip. Editors should be flogged for all the errors they let by. Also someone needs to tell the author that he doesn't need to use ten dollar words to try and make the book seem credible.

Ricksterf on January 17, 2018
Poorly Written Book

I teetered between 2 and 3 stars, which means I'm somewhere between "don't like the book" and "it's okay. Here's why. The book was poorly written. Mechanically, there were way too many breaks (commas everywhere) throughout the flow of reading. Combine this with there were too many sophisticated words throughout the whole book, and there were typos and grammatical errors along with that. All these things distracted my attention away from what Mr. Wolff was trying to convey. I ultimately lose interest thus stopped reading the book.

To Mr. Wolff: If a reader is spending more time looking up the meaning of words or is constantly re-orientating because there are so many parenthetical notations, they will probably lose interest. I'm sure the material that surrounds the disaster our country is in right now is quite complicated. The task of explaining all this should not involve additional layers of confusion and arcane language.

Johanna Moscoso on January 17, 2018
All the best parts were publicized.

After the best parts were revealed in the media, the rest of the book reads as a dry attempt at juicy gossip.

John Crossland on January 17, 2018
Illuminating reading but a bit pompously worded for a wide audience

I learnt a lot about the nuttiness with the staff and the family, but I was glad I got the Kindle edition to look up some fairly obscure wording with the built in dictionary. I'd like to read a more straight forward plain speaking account with sources to set the record straight. Guess we'll get this from Bannon's testimony quite soon!

[Jan 17, 2018] Is There Life After Liberalism

Notable quotes:
"... As exciting as the 1930s ..."
Jan 17, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

Fourteen months ago, in the first flush of power, Steve Bannon gave an interview to Michael Wolff -- beginning a relationship that would prove his undoing -- in which he boasted about his plan to realign our politics. His nationalist-populist movement, he argued, would transform the G.O.P. into something truly new: a right-wing worker's party that spent freely, "jacked up" infrastructure all over the country, and won "60 percent of the white vote" and "40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote" on its way to a 50-year majority.

"We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks," Bannon said. "It will be as exciting as the 1930s."

As exciting as the 1930s is not a line you hear every day, but rather than an alt-right dog whistle, what I heard in Bannon's formulation was the idea that in the Trump era, as in the crisis years that gave us both F.D.R. and Hitler, everything might be up for grabs: not just electoral coalitions, but the nature and destiny of the liberal order. Which would be a terrifying prospect but also an exciting one, since it would mean that the long "end of history" that followed the Cold War had irrevocably ended, and that it was time to imagine radical revisions to a stagnant-seeming liberal West.

Flash forward a year and a couple months, though, and Bannon's vision seems pretty much dead: its rumpled leader sacked and ritually denounced, its bold populism subsumed into the same old, same old Republican agenda. Trump remains temperamentally authoritarian and personally vile, but the idea of Trump_vs_deep_state as an ideological revolution, whether akin to Roosevelt's or Mussolini's, has mostly evaporated.

Recent Comments

Candlewick 2 days ago

No. There isn't *life* after liberalism; just a bunch of dead men (GOP) wondering the earth with black hooded robes and scythes.

SP 2 days ago

It does not matter what we call these philosophies, whether Liberalism, Capitalism, Libertarianism etc. Good, ethical moral, wise,...

Michael Kubara 2 days ago

This suffers from the journalist disease-- "ism-ism": castigating "liberalism" without defining it." the crisis years that gave us both F.D...

[Jan 16, 2018] The Donald Trump Conversation Politics' Dark Heart Is Having the Best Time Anyone's Ever Had

Initial article about Trump by Michael Wolff which allowed him to put a feet into WH door later, in February 2017 when he decided to milk the Trump administration.
That's was probably the only major interaction of Wolff with Trump. Wolff claimed that Trump liked it ("for some reason"), but I do not see what can be liked in this article. It is very mediocre.
It is alarming to see that Trump did not understand whom he is dealing with: "This isn't an interview or a conversation. It's a hit piece by a nobody, Michael Wolff, opinionated and inflaming, punctuated with short hand picked Trump quotes. Trump is correct about the dishonesty of the media."
You see all Wolff's typical tricks, innuendo, and his infatuation with the celebrities here "a pint of vanilla Haagen-Dazs ice cream"... "a 5,395-square-foot Colonial mansion" ...""There had to be over a thousand policeman. They had a neighborhood roped off, four or five blocks away from this beautiful house. Machine guns all over the place.". Nothing of substance. You will never guess from the article whom Trump represents and how he channels the anger of ordinary Americans against neoliberalism and globalization.
You can also can see Wolff's flattery in action (just in case; he decided to write the book much later, in Feb of 2017). Later Woff did the same trick with Bannon and actually got the access to WH via him.
It looks like among readers of Hollywood reporter there here some Trump supporters. Comments to this article are really interesting to read now, two years later and they are more informative that Wolff's article by leap and bounds.
Notable quotes:
"... One thing to understand about Trump is that, rather unexpectedly, he's neither angry nor combative. He may be the most threatening and frightening and menacing presidential candidate in modern life, and yet, in person he's almost soothing. His extreme self-satisfaction rubs off. He's a New Yorker who actually might be more at home in California (in fact, he says he usually comes to his home here -- two buildings on Rodeo Drive -- only once a year). Life is sunny. Trump is an optimist -- at least about himself. He's in easy and relaxed form campaigning here in these final days before the June 7 California primary, even with Hillary Clinton's biggest backers and a city that is about half Latino surrounding him. ..."
"... If onstage he calls people names, more privately he has only good, embracing things to say about almost everybody. (For most public people I know, it is the opposite.) He loves everybody. Genuinely seems to love everybody - at least everybody who's rich and successful (he doesn't really talk about anyone who isn't). Expressing love for everybody, for most of us, would clearly seem to be an act. But with Trump, it's the name-calling and bluster that might be the act. ..."
"... What a self serving article once again, can't you fools write without trying to demean your next president, in every paragraph? ..."
"... Another sleeze. Nuff said. ..."
"... This wasn't an "interview", Mr. Wolff. It read like a terribly biased libturd desperately attempting to 'bait' a Presidential candidate with childish, unimportant questions. We get it...you don't approve of Trump. Now go home and cry in your pillow. ..."
"... Let's get this straight, Trump exists because the leadership of both parties declared an undeclared war on the American people. Their disdain towards ordinary Americans makes them willing to lie to get theirs and screw everybody else. The Republican leadership? Losers. That's why he exists. ..."
"... Totally biased flake article, the author is clearly a Clinton shill. The give away is labeling Clinton Cash a "hatchet job", considering a huge portion of the MSM on the left have validated the book as 100% accurate and true. ..."
"... Surprised Trump bothered giving the antagonistic Michael Wolff the interview, but it does show Trump is fearless. Hillary won't go within 5 miles of Fox News. ..."
"... The arrogance of the writer, Michael Wolff is breathtaking. We get it Mr. Wolff. Your story included the small talk and you articulated YOUR pre-conceived opinions and impressions of Mr. Trump. ..."
"... Like or hate 'em there is one thing that Trump and Sanders have both accomplished: They have thoroughly exposed the corruption and the contempt for the American People that is "mainstream" politics for both sides. ..."
"... For that reason alone, it's been great to have these guys in the race. ..."
"... This isn't an interview or a conversation. It's a hit piece by a nobody, Michael Wolff, opinionated and inflaming, punctuated with short hand picked Trump quotes. Trump is correct about the dishonesty of the media. ..."
"... Here in "liberal" Boston the Trump signs are everywhere. Bad sign for Madame Mao. Trump may not take Massachusetts but he is closing the gap with that hideous woman. ..."
"... Like Trump said: "The press are very, very dishonest. Some of them are downright sleazy".Thank God for the internet, otherwise the MSM would have us believe Madame Mao is the Virgin Mary. ..."
"... I wouldn't be surprised to see the 'Hollywood Reporter' shut off comments early. ..."
"... They delete all non-liberal comments, usually later in the morning... the millennial lib's arrive late to work in the morning because they're out partying all night... ..."
Jan 16, 2018 | www.hollywoodreporter.com

The long day is ending for Donald Trump with a pint of vanilla Haagen-Dazs ice cream. We're settling in for a late-night chat at his Beverly Hills house, a 5,395-square-foot Colonial mansion directly across from the Beverly Hills Hotel. He's here for the final presidential primary, a California coronation of sorts, after rallies in Orange County (where violence broke out and seven people were arrested). He is, as he has been for much of our conversation - and perhaps much of the last year - marveling at his own campaign. "You looked outside before, you see what's going on," he boasts about the police surrounding his house, and the Secret Service detail cramming his garage and snaking around the pool at the center of the front drive. And he's just returned from a big donor fundraiser in Brentwood for the Republican Party at the home of Tom Barrack, the investor and former Miramax co-owner. "There had to be over a thousand policeman. They had a neighborhood roped off, four or five blocks away from this beautiful house. Machine guns all over the place."

One thing to understand about Trump is that, rather unexpectedly, he's neither angry nor combative. He may be the most threatening and frightening and menacing presidential candidate in modern life, and yet, in person he's almost soothing. His extreme self-satisfaction rubs off. He's a New Yorker who actually might be more at home in California (in fact, he says he usually comes to his home here -- two buildings on Rodeo Drive -- only once a year). Life is sunny. Trump is an optimist -- at least about himself. He's in easy and relaxed form campaigning here in these final days before the June 7 California primary, even with Hillary Clinton's biggest backers and a city that is about half Latino surrounding him.

... ... ...

If onstage he calls people names, more privately he has only good, embracing things to say about almost everybody. (For most public people I know, it is the opposite.) He loves everybody. Genuinely seems to love everybody - at least everybody who's rich and successful (he doesn't really talk about anyone who isn't). Expressing love for everybody, for most of us, would clearly seem to be an act. But with Trump, it's the name-calling and bluster that might be the act.

... ... ...

Trump will turn 70 on June 14, but he shows no sign of fatigue even as our conversation drifts toward 11 p.m. He's been at this since either 4 a.m. or 6 a.m. (he offers different times at different moments).

...Then I came back and did more meetings, then I did a fundraiser tonight, then I did Kimmel. And now you. You're not a two-minute interview guy."

V. M. Varga > HelloTommy • 2 years ago

Bernie has no chance and Hillary is a neocon. What war next.

Ranger_Ric > Political Hostage • 2 years ago

Neocon or neoliberal, they are the same animals and there is no difference between George Bush and Hillary Clinton. They all answer to the same NWO masters.

There is a difference in Hillary's case... She is a habitual liar, a fake, a criminal and a lesbian. Other than that, there is one uniparty, the Washington Criminal Mafia.

Penny • 2 years ago

I love the smell of radical establishment media's hysteria this early in the morning. Naturally, the media elite who have not gone after Obama for not having a press conference since 2009 and Clinton, who has not had one in over a year, doesn't make a bean's hill of difference. ROT is the name of the "mainstream" media, especially when they see their D.C. lifestyle of corruption and cover-ups threatened by a straight-shooting, take-no-prisoners man like Trump.

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN--TRUMP/SESSIONS 2016

YesMeansNOMeansYES • 2 years ago

What a self serving article once again, can't you fools write without trying to demean your next president, in every paragraph?

Walter White > YesMeansNOMeansYES • 2 years ago

Another sleeze. Nuff said.

mredward > Political Hostage • 2 years ago

As you read the anti Trump posts, remember the Hillary pacs have purchased over a million dollars worth of bogus posters here.

SmartDoctor • 2 years ago

Hmm. The real news is NOT that the competition is in a statistical dead heat during the first week of June. The real news is that Hillary's polls have been steadily plummeting, and with her level of charisma, charm, and message, it is totally illogical to assume that they are going to improve anytime soon. They won't. And Trump, the "clown", the totally undetectable candidate, the spoiler, the guy with no Republican backing what so ever, keeps going up and up and up. Of course the left never, ever shows the size of the crowds he attracts to his rallies. The left is completely out of touch with the American mainstream (you know, the folks Mr. Nixon once called "the silent majority".) Trump has the momentum nationwide, and no one except Southern black ladies likes Hillary. There is your story! Next paragraph, "how did this happen?" And keep in mind, the FBI hasn't spoken yet, Bernie ain't through yet, the left wing, Soros financed riots haven't begun yet, 2 weeks in politics is a lifetime, and we haven't gotten to the convention boost yet. Yeah, I'm biased. In America's favor, sorry if that offends anyone. TRUMP 2016

Political Hostage > SmartDoctor • 2 years ago

I live in the South, with a ton of black folks, and have yet to see any HRC bumper stickers on their cars. It's mostly Coopers, Beetles, and Cubes that have the HRC swag on them. Not many though.

Our building has about 6,000 people working in it and there maybe a handful of Bernie stickers too. Most working people aren't looking in the direction of democrats.

Bill Strang • 2 years ago

And you don't think the media is too easy on Hillary? Every time she opens her mouth, she lies and the media just ignores it. But lets just hold Trump to a much higher standard then a standard democrat.

Penny > Bill Strang • 2 years ago

That is the job description of the elitists (a/k/a "mainstream" media). A recent survey revealed that 85 percent-plus media are demRATS

Wilkins Micawber • 2 years ago

A vote for Clinton is a vote for the leftist, moonbat, felon, gay, generational welfare leech, gov union, drug addicted, pervert, lgtqxyz, pedophile, academic, stupid college kid, white guilt ridden, illiterate third world invading trash, in other words the Democrat base, that supports her.

Angry black woman > Wilkins Micawber • 2 years ago

10000 up votes

TroyGale • 2 years ago

I like confident people who are confident because they have struggled and won in the arena. Trump is no different, he wins...Why?
Here is a quote from General George Patton, I think it explains it perfectly....

"All men are timid on entering any fight. Whether it is the first or the last fight, all of us are timid. Cowards are those who let their timidity get the better
of their manhood."

Trump doesn't let his timidity get involved, AT ALL.

Brian washere • 2 years ago

Here's an inconvenient truth liberals (media) don't want to face. All those blue collar dems that have always been brainwashed into thinking the Bolsheviks (D) were for the "working man" are finally opening their dim eyes and realizing they have been sold down the river.

The regulations puked out by government that chases their workplaces out of the country and the illegals they have to compete with for replacement jobs, all trademarks of the progressives, have f--ked them hard. They are going to go Trump in huge numbers.

All the dems voter fraud and manipulation won't save Shrillary from that fact. This is going to be so lopsided it will make Reagan/Carter look like a nail-biter.

Bill Thompson • 2 years ago

I'll vote for him because I want to control our border, enforce our immigration laws, cut the H-1B visas, keep our troops home, eliminate free trade, protect the 2nd amendment.

phosgene • 2 years ago

is trump ever going to have to answer a single challenging question about how he is full of sheet? this is an "interview" where he eats ice cream and talks about himself. we already know he can do that. the only policy or current events based questions i saw he was completely oblivious. there is no room for anything in trump's world but trump.

hillary volunteered for the goldwater campaign when she was younger. her credentials as a republican and a conservative are stronger than trump's. the guy has conned millions into completely selling out their party and beliefs. sad.

nonuser > phosgene • 2 years ago

Congratulations, you've made Michael Wolff very happy.

dudefromdixie • 2 years ago

Trump is going to unite the right like none before him. He is also going to conquer the left, like none before him.

HelloTommy • 2 years ago

Donald Trump's new finance guru: once a Clinton donor, Soros employee. Steven Mnuchin also contributed to Obama, Kerry and Gore. You Trumpets are so gullible. He is also an ex-Goldman-Sachs employee and PAC donor. We're suppose to hate that right? Tell me how that is okay?

MICHAELNLA > HelloTommy • 2 years ago

"gullible?"

You Liberals voted for a guy who you thought was Black, not once but twice...guess you forgot to ask him who his mother was.

Meanwhile, Hussein has DOUBLED the National Debt in 8 years!

We have 95 MILLION Americans out of the work force.
50 MILLION Americans on Food Stamps.
Half of college grads unemployed.

And you expect Americans to give the "D" party another
four years in the White House...KEEP DREAMING, LEFTY!

OWilson • 2 years ago

The arrogant left, and their pals in the Media, are not used to being questioned. Hillary hasn't had a press conference in 2016. She lets CNN do all the Trump bashing, all the time. They see a change coming, and it scares the hell out of them all.

jj333 • 2 years ago

This wasn't an "interview", Mr. Wolff. It read like a terribly biased libturd desperately attempting to 'bait' a Presidential candidate with childish, unimportant questions. We get it...you don't approve of Trump. Now go home and cry in your pillow.

SamVaughn • 2 years ago

Let's get this straight, Trump exists because the leadership of both parties declared an undeclared war on the American people. Their disdain towards ordinary Americans makes them willing to lie to get theirs and screw everybody else. The Republican leadership? Losers. That's why he exists.


ObiterDictum • 2 years ago

Menacing who? If he financially runs the country like his campaign, expect some of those non-essential government employees to be out on the street. For years our Government has not been afraid of the governed, but now they fear our proxy.

Bluto Redneck ✓Shithole Appr. > ObiterDictum • 2 years ago

Exactly. I predict a 15-20% real cut in our federal bureaucracy. And God help any of those fools that go out on strike. Air traffic controllers anyone?

phosgene > ObiterDictum • 2 years ago

he's not going to cut a damn thing. do you even listen to what he says? build a wall, kick out 11 million people, massive military increases, massive increase for veterans, massive infrastructure rebuilding, replacing obamacare with something "better".

none of this is small government stuff, kids. he hasn't mentioned cutting a single thing on the stump. oh yeah, and the age old republican idea of reforming entitlements? OUT THE WINDOW!

well, that only costs a few TRILLION.

Reaganite✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ • 2 years ago

One of the more obvious reasons Trump has been viewed by so many as the GOP΄s best hope of defeating Our Empress of the Seven Genders is precisely because he - and he alone among the candidates - doesn΄t give a flying flip about the "civility" speech code Democrats impose upon Republicans (or the New Tone muzzle Republicans impose upon themselves) that prohibit the Left from ever having to face the mocking, the insults, the scathing satire, and the verbal abuse they themselves vomit upon the Right on a daily basis. The establishment still doesn΄t seem to understand just how refreshing this is.

Reaganite✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ • 2 years ago

Donald Trump and his people are upending the Political Media/Progressive Establishment industrial complex narrative. These " media cretins of PC conformity" are staring into the abyss of their own personal irrelevancy. Trump's celebrity and unapologetic surrogates allow his campaign to fight them with devastating effect. The professionally offended are blinded to their own hypocrisy.

Weezy -Stable Genius • 2 years ago

Totally biased flake article, the author is clearly a Clinton shill. The give away is labeling Clinton Cash a "hatchet job", considering a huge portion of the MSM on the left have validated the book as 100% accurate and true.

What kills many is these reporters really believe the public is incapable of discerning their real intentions when producing articles like this.

In the meantime, Trump continues to roll on and gain further momentum.

notimportant > phosgene • 2 years ago

Completely different situation. Make the media responsible for what they tout! They can say what they want, but they better make sure it's correct. Of course, liberals don't believe in personal responsibility. By the way, Putin has an 80% approval rating in his country and many people respect the man outside the country. That's because he's a man and stands up for what he believes. He doesn't allow bullying or ugliness by those who disagree with him to effect him. Time we had that in our country and we will when Trump is president. Neither Putin nor Trump are one world order supporters. Neither am I

ScottPM • 2 years ago

Nothing would be worse than having a President that has shown that they are utterly reckless, arrogant, and shows a total disregard for American lives by INTENTIONALLY mishandling classified information. Information is classified because people die if it gets out. hillary has shown she can NOT be trusted as President.

phosgene > ScottPM • 2 years ago

you are completely ignorant. half the paperwork the government generates is classified. they completely misuse it ON PURPOSE. it is meant to control information. lives have nothing to do with it. it is about protecting their butts

strongisland • 2 years ago

Amazing how a mere journalist for the Hollyweird Reporter repeatedly attempts to elevate himself intellectually above a man who is light years more successful than himself. The mocking doesn't work here. In fact, it belies what the author is all about. The typical Gen Y, millennial liberal snark that is never to be taken seriously...because, well, these fools think no issues are actually serious. As long as the progressive playbook is being fulfilled...these fools are happy in their rapidly deteriorating paradise.

For someone who is seemingly so in tune with the important issues...he sure skirted them as conveniently as possible when it came to this interview. Sometimes...a worthy opponent brings out the best in an individual. Sadly, for Donald Trump...he was tangling with a total lightweight here.

cageysea • 2 years ago

"... He loves everybody. Genuinely seems to love everybody - at least everybody who's rich and successful (he doesn't really talk about anyone who isn't)..."

Uh.... Yeah, I got nothin'.

Mitch Alan > Bad Will Hunting • 2 years ago

...Surprised Trump bothered giving the antagonistic Michael Wolff the interview, but it does show Trump is fearless. Hillary won't go within 5 miles of Fox News.

Deplorable- jean Lee • 2 years ago

The arrogance of the writer, Michael Wolff is breathtaking. We get it Mr. Wolff. Your story included the small talk and you articulated YOUR pre-conceived opinions and impressions of Mr. Trump. You are the one with the black heart! Trump 2016

Stormrdr • 2 years ago

Like or hate 'em there is one thing that Trump and Sanders have both accomplished: They have thoroughly exposed the corruption and the contempt for the American People that is "mainstream" politics for both sides. The mechanizations and back-room dealings have been fully revealed with each attempt to derail these "outsiders". For that reason alone, it's been great to have these guys in the race.

I can't say I'm a big fan of either one of them, but I do admire what they've accomplished for America's political future (whether or not it was intentional).

Rocky • 2 years ago

This isn't an interview or a conversation. It's a hit piece by a nobody, Michael Wolff, opinionated and inflaming, punctuated with short hand picked Trump quotes. Trump is correct about the dishonesty of the media.

jack4949 • 2 years ago

Here in "liberal" Boston the Trump signs are everywhere. Bad sign for Madame Mao. Trump may not take Massachusetts but he is closing the gap with that hideous woman.

jack4949 • 2 years ago

Like Trump said: "The press are very, very dishonest. Some of them are downright sleazy".Thank God for the internet, otherwise the MSM would have us believe Madame Mao is the Virgin Mary.

Yip Yap • 2 years ago

I wouldn't be surprised to see the 'Hollywood Reporter' shut off comments early. It has been doing that lately when comments don't go it's way. THAT WALL'S GOIN' TA BE HUUUGE!!!

barney59 > Yip Yap • 2 years ago

They delete all non-liberal comments, usually later in the morning... the millennial lib's arrive late to work in the morning because they're out partying all night...

[Jan 16, 2018] Is There Life After Liberalism - The New York Times

Notable quotes:
"... As exciting as the 1930s ..."
Jan 16, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

Fourteen months ago, in the first flush of power, Steve Bannon gave an interview to Michael Wolff -- beginning a relationship that would prove his undoing -- in which he boasted about his plan to realign our politics. His nationalist-populist movement, he argued, would transform the G.O.P. into something truly new: a right-wing worker's party that spent freely, "jacked up" infrastructure all over the country, and won "60 percent of the white vote" and "40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote" on its way to a 50-year majority.

"We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks," Bannon said. "It will be as exciting as the 1930s."

As exciting as the 1930s is not a line you hear every day, but rather than an alt-right dog whistle, what I heard in Bannon's formulation was the idea that in the Trump era, as in the crisis years that gave us both F.D.R. and Hitler, everything might be up for grabs: not just electoral coalitions, but the nature and destiny of the liberal order. Which would be a terrifying prospect but also an exciting one, since it would mean that the long "end of history" that followed the Cold War had irrevocably ended, and that it was time to imagine radical revisions to a stagnant-seeming liberal West.

Flash forward a year and a couple months, though, and Bannon's vision seems pretty much dead: its rumpled leader sacked and ritually denounced, its bold populism subsumed into the same old, same old Republican agenda. Trump remains temperamentally authoritarian and personally vile, but the idea of Trump_vs_deep_state as an ideological revolution, whether akin to Roosevelt's or Mussolini's, has mostly evaporated.

Continue reading the main story