Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, January 05, 2018

Michael Wolff: There was, after the abrupt [Anthony] Scaramucci meltdown, hardly any effort inside the West Wing to disguise the sense of ludicrousness and anger felt by every member of the senior staff toward [Donald] Trump's family and Trump himself. It became almost a kind of competition to demystify Trump. For Rex Tillerson, he was a moron. For Gary Cohn, he was dumb as ---. For H.R. McMaster, he was a hopeless idiot. For Steve Bannon, he had lost his mind. Most succinctly, no one expected him to survive Mueller. Whatever the substance of the Russia "collusion," Trump, in the estimation of his senior staff, did not have the discipline to navigate a tough investigation, nor the credibility to attract the caliber of lawyers he would need to help him. (At least nine major law firms had turned down an invitation to represent the president.)

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

There was more: Everybody was painfully aware of the increasing pace of his repetitions. It used to be inside of 30 minutes he'd repeat, word-for-word and expression-for-expression, the same three stories -- now it was within 10 minutes. Indeed, many of his tweets were the product of his repetitions -- he just couldn't stop saying something.

Donald Trump's small staff of factotums, advisors and family began, on Jan. 20, 2017, an experience that none of them, by any right or logic, thought they would -- or, in many cases, should -- have, being part of a Trump presidency. Hoping for the best, with their personal futures as well as the country's future depending on it, my indelible impression of talking to them and observing them through much of the first year of his presidency, is that they all -- 100 percent -- came to believe he was incapable of functioning in his job.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from Michael Wolff's article:

Steve Bannon was openly handicapping a 33.3 percent chance of impeachment, a 33.3 percent chance of resignation in the shadow of the 25th amendment and a 33.3 percent chance that he might limp to the finish line on the strength of liberal arrogance and weakness.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-04 12:39 PM | Reply

"At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends"

FROM THE ARTICLE

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-04 12:59 PM | Reply

Greatness manifests itself in myriad ways. Some day, in the distant future, Americans will look back and wonder how it is that we failed to recognize the greatness of Donald Trump. If alien cultures from other galaxies ever do decide to contact humanity it will only be hundreds of years from now after receiving belated radio/television transmissions of Donald Trump's TV show 'The Apprentice' and realizing that indeed higher intelligence has evolved on this planet.

#3 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-01-04 04:54 PM | Reply

#3 And you would actually win a case.

#4 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-05 11:56 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

And in today. Wolfe admitting much of it might not be true. Hmmmm, there's a shocker.

#5 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-05 11:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Wolfe admitting much of it might not be true." - #5 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-05 11:57 AM

No link.

Hmmmm, there's a shocker.

#6 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-05 12:02 PM | Reply

"increasing pace of his repetitions. It used to be inside of 30 minutes he'd repeat, word-for-word and expression-for-expression, the same three stories -- now it was within 10 minutes."

That's dementia.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-05 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#6 www.businessinsider.com

Here you go Hans. Forgot that you need your hand held.

#8 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-05 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#8 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-05 12:21 PM

Here you go, fishpaw:

"...can't be sure if parts of it are true" =/= "much of it might not be true"
Didn't forget that you're stupid.
Not sure how Hans knew what Boaz said on the Kennedy thread when Hans wasn't here but keep trying.

Posted by fishpaw at 2017-05-18 11:58 AM | Reply | Flagged newsworthy by gracieamazed

Then came the ridicule:
Might want to wash that info off, seeing as you pulled it from your bum, fish

Hans was clearly replying to Boaz (regarding the initial comment on Kennedy's death) who joined in 2005.

Reading is fundamental

#72 | Posted by RevDarko at 2017-05-18 11:37 AM

Fishpaw,

WTF are you babbling about. Hans has been here since before I have been here.

Joined 2005/06/16

#95 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-05-18 12:09 PM

Do you learn from Jeffy how to be wrong about everything or is the training vice-versa?

#98 | Posted by bocaink at 2017-05-18 12:11 PM

"Joined 2005/06/16"

Hilarious. Fishpaw thinks the above means someone joined in 2016. It must be difficult to be that stupid.

#106 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-05-18 12:34 PM

Yer mean that isn't the 2005th of June, 2016???

#107 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-05-18 12:35 PM

#9 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-05 12:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-05 12:21 PM | Reply | Flagged funny by LauraMohr, newsworthy by LauraMohr

The turn to the dark side seems complete.

#10 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-05 12:29 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#10 | POSTED BY HANS

Looking at who flags what, is an insecure behavior.

Regarding the link you tried to refute ....

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.

Hmmmmmm ....

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-01-05 12:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"Looking at who flags what, is an insecure behavior." - #11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-01-05 12:38 PM

No it isn't.

"But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true."

Seems you also missed this part:

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

"Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."

Hmmmmmm ....

#13 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-05 12:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#11 Hans never seems to rely on what the writer actually says, he relies on what he is told to think.

#14 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-05 12:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Hans never seems to rely on what the writer actually says, he relies on what he is told to think." - #14 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-05 12:46 PM

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

"Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."

Oops.

#15 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-05 12:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."

Hmmmmmm ....
#13 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2018-01-05 12:46 PM | FLAG:

"I believe to be true" Hmmmmm. In your words Hans shouldn't he be showing us a link?

#16 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-05 12:49 PM | Reply

"Glad to see your hanging on to that..." - #12 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-05 12:42 PM

Such clear and obvious examples of public humiliation (as pointed out by people on both sides of the aisle) are few and far between.

You're welcome.

#17 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-05 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- like that wart on your --------.

Apparently FishP has an Open Access Pass.

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-05 12:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Hans shouldn't he be showing us a link?" - #16 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-05 12:49 PM

You yourself provided it in your #8.

Obviously, you're too stupid to remember what you yourself posted a mere 28 minutes earlier.

Oops.

#19 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-05 12:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Either someone the white house grows up or Trump's presidency is going to end with him running naked and flinging poo on his way to the oval office to push a big red button.

#20 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-05 12:57 PM | Reply

"...or Trump's presidency is going to end with him running naked and flinging poo on his way to the oval office to push a big red button." - #20 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-05 12:57 PM

The thing is, we can't be certain that hasn't already occurred.

#21 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-05 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#19 Hey Dummy , re-read #16 and figure out that you should ask Wolfe for a link.

#22 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-05 01:14 PM | Reply

"...and figure out that you should ask Wolfe for a link." - #22 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-01-05 01:14 PM

Wolff posts here?

What's his DR nom de plume?

#23 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-05 01:16 PM | Reply

I think it's zed

#24 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-05 01:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#24

I don't know, but I've heard many people say it's ZED.

#25 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-05 01:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

An interesting quote from Trevor Noah about the book's claims that Trump didn't even want to win the Presidency:
"If you believe that he didn't want to win, then it's hard to believe he colluded with the Russians. If anything, instead of trying to shut this book down, Trump should be sending a copy to Robert Mueller."

#26 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-05 01:51 PM | Reply

#26

Trump's interactions with the Russians we're part of his normal way of being in the world.

Lawless, entitled, vindictive.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-05 01:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If you believe that he didn't want to win, then it's hard to believe he colluded with the Russians.

He didn't want to win. The Russians wanted him to win.

I've always said Hillary won the prize donald was after: win the popular vote for bragging rights but lose the EC and not actually have to be president.

#28 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-01-05 02:05 PM | Reply

"increasing pace of his repetitions. It used to be inside of 30 minutes he'd repeat, word-for-word and expression-for-expression, the same three stories -- now it was within 10 minutes.

That's dementia."

If none of the article is true, how come Trump repeated "no collusion" 19 times in a recent 30 minute interview with the NYT? It sounds like dementia to me too.

#29 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-05 02:12 PM | Reply

"If you believe that he didn't want to win, then it's hard to believe he colluded with the Russians. If anything, instead of trying to shut this book down, Trump should be sending a copy to Robert Mueller."

If he ran well (i.e. did a lot of damage to Hillary) but didn't actually win, and in the process made friends with Putin and the Russians, chances are Trump anticipated a financial payoff in the form of his long coveted Trump Towers in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Duh.

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-05 02:17 PM | Reply

David Jolly‏ @DavidJollyFL

David Jolly Retweeted The Hill
Michael Wolff just singlehandedly extended the Mueller investigation. DC and NY are one party consent jurisdictions. He has tapes of statements by Sr. WH officials that may corroborate or conflict with statements made under oath to Mueller, raising the liklihood of perjury.

The Hill‏ @thehill
Journalist behind new Trump book has recordings of White House officials making explosive remarks:
thehill.com

#31 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-05 02:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Gal, you should have your own radio show or at least your own blog site.

#32 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-05 02:34 PM | Reply

#32 Danni, maybe we could co-host, co-author?!? Give 'em all hell with a one, two punch! lol

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-05 02:38 PM | Reply

"DC and NY are one party consent jurisdictions. He has tapes of statements by Sr. WH officials that may corroborate or conflict with statements made under oath to Mueller, raising the liklihood of perjury."

Damn, that's ---- NEWSWORTHY.

#34 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-01-05 02:48 PM | Reply

I can believe that Trump DID NOT EXPECT to win. All of the illegal activity, including the Russian conspiracies, took place during the campaign with a nod and a wink from Trump. They had no way of knowing that their life would be turned into a fishbowl by a special prosecutor and they would be subjected to federal prosecution. They had no way of knowing about the dossier or that they woulod be forced to turn state's evidence.

Of course, Mueller's dragnet is a lot bigger than the flunkies who are singing like a canary. Their days are done.

As always, the coverup will be real Waterloo for Trump and his family, including the impeachable offense of obstruction of justice and the state charges that will be waiting for them all when this thing is over.

The end of the disgraceful era of Trump will be entertaining.

#35 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-05 03:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Wolff lines on Trump that ring unambiguously true

There are definitely parts of Michael Wolff's "Fire and Fury" that are wrong, sloppy, or betray off-the-record confidence. But there are two things he gets absolutely right, even in the eyes of White House officials who think some of the book's scenes are fiction: his spot-on portrait of Trump as an emotionally erratic president, and the low opinion of him among some of those serving him.

Why it matters: Wolff captures the contempt some Trump aides have for the president and his family. Axios' Jonathan Swan notes that this includes people you see trumpeting their loyalty to him.

In the past year, we have had many of the same conversations with the same sources Wolff used. We won't betray them, or put on the record what was off. But, we can say that the following lines from the book ring unambiguously true:

www.axios.com

#36 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-05 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Looking at who flags what, is an insecure behavior."

If you believe it is then it is so stop doing it or you WILL feel insecure.

If you believe it isn't then it isn't and looking WILL have no effect on you.

Not even gonna bother with the rest of your NOT believing.

Welcome to FantasyLand.

The place where you helped make it so that we get to believe what we want to believe!

Are you not yet entertained? This years upcoming episode of the Trumpy Show has been said by the critics in the City to be the best Episode ever!

Hope you enjoy it. After all YOU asked for it!

And guess what? THIS year you don't even have to drink responsibly!

Because, it will really help you enjoy it if you don't.

#37 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-05 06:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The end of the disgraceful era of Trump will be entertaining."

I reckon that depends on your idea of entertainment.

The damage has been done.

Nothing good will come of this, not even in the end.

#38 | Posted by Angrydad at 2018-01-05 07:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nothing good will come of this, not even in the end.

#38 | Posted by Angrydad

My friend. You are not doing it right! When I finally admitted to myself that there is absolutely nothing I can do about what will happen and how it will end it all became clear to me.

Stoke up the fire, pull up a chair and crack a cold one fire up my vape and enjoy the Trump Show. The ending is gonna be way better than Dallas and the X-Files combined.

Of course, I am older and can do that now and get away with it.

I do really feel bad for the young un's though.

If Trumpy does have a tantrum and use his Big Button and send us all to the "Corn Field" they never had a chance.

#39 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-05 07:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

ANGRYDAD

What Donnerboy said.

#40 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-05 07:21 PM | Reply

"If Trumpy does have a tantrum and use his Big Button and send us all to the "Corn Field" they never had a chance."

He can try but if he does not one of us who survive will forget his name or crimes.

Right now the people are satisfied with the legal system (though it moves to slow).

In a post apocalyptic wasteland Trump would be remembered as a nuclear Nero and his line hunted till the end of time.

#41 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-05 07:33 PM | Reply


While Pres Trump tries to claim that Mr Wolff had no access, Pres Trump does not go on to explain why Mr Wolff had the blue pass (not the usual temporary gray pass) that gave him access within the West Wing, the blue pass that allows him to sit in the West Wing and just talk to people.

And, fwiw, from what I've read, both Washington DC and NY have one-side recording permission laws. In other words, only one side of a recorded conversation needs to agree to be recorded in order for a conversation's recording to be legal.

Of course, that then begs the question... is the Trump Administration so utterly clueless that they gave a blue pass to Mr Wolff? Did they not even call Mr Murdoch to see what happens when Mr Wolff writes a book? The minimum of due diligence.

Geesh... clueless, absolutely clueless.

But ... he has a bigger button.....

#42 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-01-05 08:22 PM | Reply

Check it out.
Everyone denying this book also believes Obama is a Kenyan Marxist Muslim.
What a koinkydink!

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-05 08:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Looking at who flags what, is an insecure behavior."

If Poster A looks at who flags Poster B's posts, how does that make Poster A insecure? It doesn't. It makes Poster A curious.

#44 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-05 08:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#11 ... Looking at who flags what, is an insecure behavior. ...

I was trying to ascertain the original author of this comment because I have signifcant concerns when security issues are raised.

If it is not you, I apologize, but comment #11 was as far back as I could trace it. And it looks like the original comment.

Was it your comment?

If so, what in God's heaven are you talking about? Please provide more details.

thx.

#45 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-01-05 10:44 PM | Reply

LAMPLIGHTER @ 42

Since Mr. Wolff was using Mr. Bannon's couch in Mr. Bannon's office and compiling information for Mr. Bannon's book for Mr. Bannon I suspect it was Mr. Bannon who put his stamp of approval on the blue pass.

And in case nobody noticed Trump on closed circuit at the last press conference, he has to squint hard to read a normal sized teleprompter.

He needs glasses!

If he saw Wolff in the west wing it was probably just a blur.

#46 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-06 01:15 AM | Reply

With just the information we have now, not even waiting for further information from Mueller, the entire administration should be chased out of Washington. Let the military take over temporarily if necessary but get these animals out of power before we end up in a nuclear war or a land war with Iran just to distract us from the criminality and insanity of this administration. It is quite clear that what is going on far exceeds the excesses of Nixon and he resigned to avoid impeachment. One has to wonder where is the patriotism within the Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

#47 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-06 11:17 AM | Reply

Michael Wolff freely admits in the book that he didn't bother attempting to substantiate any of its claims. People told him things, and then he put them in a book. Apparently this is considered good journalism..

#49 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2018-01-06 08:19 PM | Reply

Michael Wolff freely admits in the book that he didn't bother attempting to substantiate any of its claims. People told him things, and then he put them in a book. Apparently this is considered good journalism..

#49 | POSTED BY GONOLES92

Just like the journalistic engineered innuendo behind 'Clinton Cash' -- amiright?

You can argue all you want about corruption involving Clinton speaking fees and access, about Clinton's use of the Lincoln Bedroom, about the Clinton Foundation ...

We all just saw, with our own eyes, Republican corruption involving a quid pro quo between funding campaigns for GOP candidates -- and not just the Mercer Family and Trump, but all GOP billionaire donors saying out loud "no more campaign funding unless you give me my tax cut" via Lindsey Graham's big mouth -- and an unpaid for $1.5 trillion tax cut mostly aimed at these same douche-bag billionaires ...

And if that's not corruption then nothing is.

I'll be sure to buy Wolff's book.

#50 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-06 08:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just like the journalistic engineered innuendo behind 'Clinton Cash' -- amiright? ,- pinch

Did the author admit he was full of crap?

Am I wrong?

I'll be sure to buy Wolff's book. -pinch

Only an idiot would buy a book where the author freely admits to leaving the truth up to your interpretation.

And only a bigger idiot would give you a news newsworthy...

#51 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-01-06 10:26 PM | Reply

Only an idiot would buy a book where the author freely admits to leaving the truth up to your interpretation.

#51 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

You want to take things literally?

Only an myopic partisan hack will explain away the corruption of Lindsey Graham admitting that if he and the rest of the Republicans in Congress don't give their biggest billionaire donors free taxpayer money totaling $1.5 trillion, the donors will stop giving Republicans campaign money.

#52 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-06 10:52 PM | Reply

I read part of the book today.

What the author has to say about Trump's Debauchery in front of the Boy Scouts can be confirmed with ease.

#53 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-06 11:05 PM | Reply

"...amiright? ,- ..." - #51 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-01-06 10:26 PM

Are you right?

You've never been so far.

Why break a losing streak?

#54 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-06 11:09 PM | Reply

#45 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

I thought it was a Hans post. If it was your apologies..

#55 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-01-06 11:09 PM | Reply

"Am I wrong?" - #51 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-01-06 10:26 PM

Why, yes you are.

As always.

You're welcome.

#56 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-06 11:10 PM | Reply

"I thought ..." - #55 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-01-06 11:09 PM

You never have.

You're 0-always.

Your streak is unbroken.

#57 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-06 11:13 PM | Reply

Only an idiot would buy a book where the author freely admits to leaving the truth up to your interpretation.

The Bible is a big seller.

#58 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-01-06 11:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

Bible is an anthology and even the weirdest parts remain more factual than Trump.

#59 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-06 11:58 PM | Reply

Just like the journalistic engineered innuendo behind 'Clinton Cash' -- amiright?

Exactly the same and glad we can agree on this.

#60 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2018-01-07 12:53 AM | Reply

Intersting definition of 'a year'.

#61 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-01-07 01:06 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort