Bob Woodward: "Administrative Coup D'etat"

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: howtonhawky

What's he going to do if he has and disapproves? He can't fire them again.

Hopefully choose more wisely in the future and quit having such a big heart when it comes to top level appointments.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: underwerks

Why would deep state fanboys be celebrating this?

I think they would see it as doing the right thing, as some have already suggested.

So.... deep state?

Lol

No, deep-state fanboys.

Do you believe Gary Cohen did the right thing in stealing documents from Trump's desk because he feared the outcome?

"He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the rails. We're in crazytown," Kelly is quoted as saying at a staff meeting in his office. "I don't even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I've ever had."

I would love to know the dangerous ideas he had that porter had to talk him back on.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: underwerks

Why would deep state fanboys be celebrating this?

I think they would see it as doing the right thing, as some have already suggested.

So.... deep state?

Lol

No, deep-state fanboys.

Do you believe Gary Cohen did the right thing in stealing documents from Trump's desk because he feared the outcome?

I think taking matches away from impulsive children isn’t a bad thing.

a reply to: knoxie

...and whether "dangerous" is defined, by them, the same way I define it.

Must admit, I'm somewhat curious about that, too.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Confirmed. Nothing to see here.

mobile.twitter.com...

a reply to: carewemust

www.cnbc.com...

White House chief of staff John Kelly's full statement: "The idea I ever called the President an idiot is not true. As I stated back in May and still firmly stand behind: "I spend more time with the President than anyone else, and we have an incredibly candid and strong relationship. He always knows where I stand, and he and I both know this story is total BS. I'm committed to the President, his agenda, and our country. This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump and distract from the administration's many successes."

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: underwerks

Why would deep state fanboys be celebrating this?

I think they would see it as doing the right thing, as some have already suggested.

So.... deep state?

Lol

No, deep-state fanboys.

Do you believe Gary Cohen did the right thing in stealing documents from Trump's desk because he feared the outcome?

I think taking matches away from impulsive children isn’t a bad thing.

What about stealing documents from the president’s desk?

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: howtonhawky

What's he going to do if he has and disapproves? He can't fire them again.

Hopefully choose more wisely in the future and quit having such a big heart when it comes to top level appointments.

Well to me, Trump values loyalty to him above all else. Ethics, morality, personal corruption all take a back seat to loyalty (it should be noted this is a one way street). This really hits home with the Manafort trial. He wanted to pardon him. Never mind that he is unquestionably guilty, but because he didn't flip on Trump, Trump wanted to pardon him (luckily smarter minds stayed his hand so far).

Plus, I don't think Trump has a very positive opinion of Woodward, so it is likely he wouldn't give a crap what Woodward wrote about these people. Regardless if any of it is true or not.

So to circle back on Porter, I could see Trump rehiring him in a skinny minute if he proclaimed loyalty to Trump.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Do you believe Gary Cohen did the right thing in stealing documents from Trump's desk because he feared the outcome?

That really depends on the content of the document doesn't it?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Do you believe Gary Cohen did the right thing in stealing documents from Trump's desk because he feared the outcome?

That really depends on the content of the document doesn't it?

No, it doesn’t.

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Do you believe Gary Cohen did the right thing in stealing documents from Trump's desk because he feared the outcome?

That really depends on the content of the document doesn't it?

No, it doesn’t.

Sure it does. What if the document was a draft that the draftee took off his desk because he wanted to fix a typo? Furthermore, you can't even point to any crimes committed here.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Do you believe Gary Cohen did the right thing in stealing documents from Trump's desk because he feared the outcome?

That really depends on the content of the document doesn't it?

No, it doesn’t.

Sure it does. What if the document was a draft that the draftee took off his desk because he wanted to fix a typo?

Except that’s not what this was.

NiNjjABackflip wrote:

“There is no evidence of dwindling cognitive abilities”

Sure there is. Read, for example: “Trump wasn’t always so linguistically challenged. What could explain the change?“ This article appeared last year in the journal, STATNEWS, an online health industry publication.

The article compares recorded, unscripted statements from Trump about 20 years or so ago with statements from last year. They point out:

“In interviews Trump gave in the 1980s and 1990s (with Tom Brokaw, David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, Charlie Rose, and others), he spoke articulately, used sophisticated vocabulary, inserted dependent clauses into his sentences without losing his train of thought, and strung together sentences into a polished paragraph, which — and this is no mean feat — would have scanned just fine in print. This was so even when reporters asked tough questions about, for instance, his divorce, his brush with bankruptcy, and why he doesn’t build housing for working-class Americans.

Trump fluently peppered his answers with words and phrases such as “subsided,” “inclination,” “discredited,” “sparring session,” and “a certain innate intelligence.” He tossed off well-turned sentences such as, “It could have been a contentious route,” and, “These are the only casinos in the United States that are so rated.” He even offered thoughtful, articulate aphorisms: “If you get into what’s missing, you don’t appreciate what you have,” and, “Adversity is a very funny thing.”

Now, Trump’s vocabulary is simpler. He repeats himself over and over, and lurches from one subject to an unrelated one, as in this answer during an interview with the Associated Press last month [April, 2017]:

“People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you’ve been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it’s funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the Electoral College. Big, big, big advantage. … The Electoral College is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall.”

These days he manages to cram 30 seconds worth of ideas into about 3 minutes worth of talking. If that's not cognitive decline, it's a pretty damn good imitation.

The full STATNEWS article can be seen at:

www.statnews.com...

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Do you believe Gary Cohen did the right thing in stealing documents from Trump's desk because he feared the outcome?

That really depends on the content of the document doesn't it?

No, it doesn’t.

Sure it does. What if the document was a draft that the draftee took off his desk because he wanted to fix a typo?

Except that’s not what this was.

How do you know? You don't know what the papers said. To me, you look like you are trying to dredge up controversy where there is none. If these two acted inappropriately then why does it matter since they aren't in the Trump Admin anymore? There aren't any crimes you can point at that have been committed and these two acting inappropriate is a poor reflection on their boss, Trump.

This thread just tells me that Trump is terrible at vetting people he hires. Also, this isn't surprising since it has been commented on many many times throughout Trump's Presidency that he thrives on this chaos and Game of Thrones type power struggles that go on under him.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
NiNjjABackflip wrote:

“There is no evidence of dwindling cognitive abilities”

Sure there is. Read, for example: “Trump wasn’t always so linguistically challenged. What could explain the change?“ This article appeared last year in the journal, STATNEWS, an online health industry publication.

The article compares recorded, unscripted statements from Trump about 20 years or so ago with statements from last year. They point out:

“In interviews Trump gave in the 1980s and 1990s (with Tom Brokaw, David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, Charlie Rose, and others), he spoke articulately, used sophisticated vocabulary, inserted dependent clauses into his sentences without losing his train of thought, and strung together sentences into a polished paragraph, which — and this is no mean feat — would have scanned just fine in print. This was so even when reporters asked tough questions about, for instance, his divorce, his brush with bankruptcy, and why he doesn’t build housing for working-class Americans.

Trump fluently peppered his answers with words and phrases such as “subsided,” “inclination,” “discredited,” “sparring session,” and “a certain innate intelligence.” He tossed off well-turned sentences such as, “It could have been a contentious route,” and, “These are the only casinos in the United States that are so rated.” He even offered thoughtful, articulate aphorisms: “If you get into what’s missing, you don’t appreciate what you have,” and, “Adversity is a very funny thing.”

Now, Trump’s vocabulary is simpler. He repeats himself over and over, and lurches from one subject to an unrelated one, as in this answer during an interview with the Associated Press last month [April, 2017]:

“People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you’ve been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it’s funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the Electoral College. Big, big, big advantage. … The Electoral College is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall.”

These days he manages to cram 30 seconds worth of ideas into about 3 minutes worth of talking. If that's not cognitive decline, it's a pretty damn good imitation.

The full STATNEWS article can be seen at:

www.statnews.com...

He has since aced the cognitive abilities test. How does that fit into your “evidence”?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because the book says otherwise, but you would know that had you any idea what we are talking about.

From the article in the OP:

Woodward describes several instances where Trump administration officials - chief economic adviser Gary Cohn and White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter, in particular - removed documents from the president's desk to keep Mr Trump from signing them. It was all part of a larger effort to insulate the administration, and the nation, from what they saw as Mr Trump's more dangerous impulses.

Documents that would have allowed the president to withdraw the nation from the North American Free Trade Agreement and a trade deal with South Korea were hidden - and the US has since committed to renegotiating the pacts.

Woodward describes these acts as "no less than an administrative coup d'etat".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

yes manafort will be pardoned.

no portman will not be rehired as long as trump knows what happened. By your own words trump likes loyalty and what rob and gary done does not sound loyal.

a reply to: NiNjABackflip

No. The book doesn't say otherwise. There are no listed crimes in that blurb you just posted for instance.

a reply to: carewemust

As I said before, Woodward and his "unnamed sources" have taken down a President in the past.

That said, it seems like Woodward did a pretty good job getting most things on the record for this book.