So here's the response to Woodward's book, beyond what Trump has tweeted at least three times now (i.e., the statements of Mattis and Kelly denying everything, because who ever heard of them even using such language, my stars!):
Bob Woodward got played in Fear!— Brad Parscale (@parscale) September 5, 2018
As a witness I can tell you most of these stories are made up from low confidence under performing people that have fallen flat on their faces because they didn’t have the talent or intelligence to be successful.
Just sad, ego driven failures!
By Robert Redford, I guess; is that movie already out?
Joining Generals Matthis and Kelly and John Dowd and Jay Sekulow. His incident about me entirely false. 20 to 30 witnesses saw it and can say he or his source are liars. Most important for libel purposes, he never called me. Didn’t want to know truth.— Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) September 5, 2018
President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
Which pretty much confirms everything of signal importance in Woodward's book, unless there is a grand conspiracy between the New York Times and Bob Woodward to create a complete fiction and sell it as news. Barring that InfoWars level of "reasoning," it's pretty hard now to debate the veracity of almost anything in Woodward's book, despite the best efforts of Mattis, Kelly, Parscale, and Giuliani (a/k/a the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum, Howe). Minor facts may be wrong, but the base reporting is now confirmed.
And remember, Woodward's book was "leaked" to WaPo, so the conspiracy is a complicated one at this point.
Oh, and there was a cogent argument to be had that Democrats should not focus on impeachment, but rather on investigation. Unless they take the Senate by a very wide margin, that's still a good argument. Still, can we afford this kind of slow moving coup d'etat for two more years?
Oh, and there was a cogent argument to be had that Democrats should not focus on impeachment, but rather on investigation. Unless they take the Senate by a very wide margin, that's still a good argument. Still, can we afford this kind of slow moving coup d'etat for two more years?
No comments:
Post a Comment