world

Trump threatens Bannon with legal action; cell phones to be banned from White House West Wing

68 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

68 Comments
Login to comment

Jesus, Trump's losing it.. His paranoia knows no bounds

19 ( +20 / -1 )

She called the book "some trash"

Coming from someone who has to defend Trump’s trash.

LOL.

18 ( +18 / -0 )

This is getting better and better. Trump could never win a libel suit because he would have to PROVE that the publisher knew without a doubt that the information is lies. For them to do that, in court, they will have to publicly display any and all claims, and then prove they are incorrect before doing the aforementioned. This will basically make even more of a circus of the contents of the book. Then, he'll lose the suit, the book will be a best seller, and several more lawsuits, some of them potentially federal investigations against Trump and family, will open.

Hahahaha... the man is done.

18 ( +18 / -0 )

I've been around since Truman was president and I can honestly say that trump is the **** poorest excuse for POTUS that I've experienced.

18 ( +18 / -0 )

With any luck the cell phone ban includes Trump's.

Kuddos. ROFL. No wonder republicans lost a senate seat in Alabama. No wonder Dems lost 1,000 legislative seats. My lord! Smh.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

All of this book intrigue is just to distract from Comey’s leaked memos being designated as classified as well as the FBI opening two investigations into both Clinton emails and the foundation.

In the introduction of the book the author admits things in it are not even true and that others contradict each other.

-16 ( +0 / -16 )

In the introduction of the book the author admits things in it are not even true and that others contradict each other.

Please provide links.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

OK, so the guy wants to sell books, good for him, he wants to make money, go ahead, it's a free country, but given his track record, I do wonder about the validity of it, but for the haters, it'll be nothing but the same vitriol venom, nothing more, for the supporters, another big yawn....really big yawn.

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

Heh, and once again the right turns to self-cannibalism.

Real classy crew, aren't they.

17 ( +17 / -0 )

No wonder republicans lost a senate seat in Alabama. No wonder Dems lost 1,000 

But they gained a seat in the VA House of delegates and will now control it. LOL

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

https://mobile.twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/948612763882000384

and it’s not even Fox News.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I'm so tired of all this winning.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

it was only a matter of time before a book came it, theres just too much wacko coming from the white house , a writers wet dream. Trump has just made one too many enemy's this time

9 ( +9 / -0 )

 I do wonder about the validity of it what he was Trumps right hand man in the white house, theres nothing invalid about his position or experience, but youve got to expect the "discredit army" are up in arms again as this is the only way they can try and defend Trump. Ive said before Trump could shoot somebody in plain sight and they'd be an excuse for him

6 ( +6 / -0 )

In the introduction of the book the author admits things in it are not even true and that others contradict each other.

The author says he is presenting different versions of events from different people, some of which are untrue. He is leaving the reader to decide which is true.

It reminded me of when Trump got in a car fight on Twitter with a beauty queen and told his followers to check out a sex tape which didn’t exist. He later denied he did this in a live TV debate.

Trump’s version of events was baldly false.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

But they gained a seat in the VA House of delegates and will now control it. LOL

Literally by luck of the draw.

Also, Virginia's governor is a dem and it is a statehouse that has no national influence, we'll take the Alabama senate seat. Kuddos. #repubes can't even keep an Alabama senate seat. #repubs won Virginia by sheer luck. My lord! Don't even go there.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

FBI opening two investigations into both Clinton emails and the foundation. why do people continue to bring up Clinton, she will never be POTUS, she could go on a mass killing spree tomorrow it wont change the fact that Trump is still corrupt and inept and should never have become POTUS, any replacement would be better than Trump. Right just trying desperately to drag attention away from Trump, problem is Trump continues to drag it back towards himself. If Trump could just shut his hole for 5 minutes and not respond to every insult thrown at him hed probably get a bit of reprieve, he cant so the heat will continue unabated. LOL

9 ( +9 / -0 )

trump is the ** poorest excuse for POTUS that I've experienced. ** wow thats saying something especially since there was another POTUS that hated the media and tried to silence investigations into his dealings, his name was Nixon.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Blacklab: Nice link that simply reinforces that this White House is a dysfunctional hive of dishonest people. It is keeping with the tradition of some con posters here that have been shown to be liars - not you though, to be sure.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

If the supposed crimes of our President require investigation why wouldn’t the supposed crimes of a regular citizen. Equal justice under the law for all, right?

People are in jail for less mishandling of classified info than Hillary, Huma and Comey did. So let those jailed people out or have people who did the same crimes join them.

Parts of the book are fake as the author stated and as people who were supposedly quoted have confirmed.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

it was only a matter of time before a book came it, theres just too much wacko coming from the white house , a writers wet dream. Trump has just made one too many enemy's this time

Ahhh, the trilling book that keeps liberals reading all night. Hey, at least it gives them SOMETHING to do. Reading which is about the only thing that they can do.

It reminded me of when Trump got in a car fight on Twitter with a beauty queen and told his followers to check out a sex tape which didn’t exist. He later denied he did this in a live TV debate. 

Trump’s version of events was baldly false.

Well, then we just don't know what is real or false in this book, liberals will swallow everything and submit all of it as true and factual, I guess, if it helps them sleep at night, good on them.

Literally by luck of the draw.

Likewise, had the Democrat won.

Also, Virginia's governor is a dem and it is a statehouse that has no national influence, we'll take the Alabama senate seat. Kuddos. #repubes can't even keep an Alabama senate seat. #repubs won Virginia by sheer luck. My lord! Don't even go there.

So you are praising a vulnerable liberal in an Evangelical State? The guy is walking on landmines, the minute he goes AWOL, his two years will be a hazy memory. I think Trump will do just fine with Jones and by the way. looks like the GOP doesn't have to worry about the Senate after all, thank God!

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

The author is NOT saying person A said trump doesn’t know who John Boenher is and person B said he does so we can pick who we believe.

He is saying one person or more said something and he can’t be bothered to confirm if it’s what they said is true.

you accept a book presented as non fiction that tells you some parts aren’t true but won’t tell you which parts? That’s a fictional book sorry .

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

you accept a book presented as non fiction that tells you some parts aren’t true but won’t tell you which parts? That’s a fictional book sorry.

I don’t accept anything. I haven’t read the book. I think it’s better to reserve judgement until you have read a book. You clearly want to dismiss it before reading it. It’s not very open-minded.

As I said, think of Trump’s cat fight on Twitter and then denying telling his followers to check out a fictional sex tape. That was a very useful episode in the sense of telling you about the character of the man. Perhaps this book could provide insights of this kind.

Let’s wait and see.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

A theme is being advanced here: Trump's relationship with reality. His continued presence in the Oval Office at the moment has nothing to do with the Dems; it's a schism between old-school and tea party Repubs, the former looking after the welfare of the nation, the latter looking after partisan issues. For the former, Trump is a destructive interloper who should be removed; for the latter, he's a useful tool who could be tossed aside at the moment his usefulness is exceeded by his troublesomeness.

So there's this book, which rightly discusses Trump's fitness for office. The 25th Amendment could be invoked if a majority of Cabinet members and two-thirds of Congress choose to do so - which means it's an elephant fight. It has nothing to do with the Dems, not just due to the numbers but that Trump's successor would be Pence.

By all accounts, most GOP Congress members recognize that Donald Trump is a pathological narcissist with early stage dementia and only peripheral contact with reality. The question is which faction will win: that which puts country over partisanship, or the other. The battle for the soul of the GOP is deepening.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

This kitchen sink approach of Trump's lawyer to silence the book shows they really have no idea what they're doing and just trying to scare people into compliance. If they actually try to sue as an NDA violation, that implies the contents are accurate. If they try to sue as libel, then the onus is on the Trump White House to prove that the contents are intentionally, maliciously false.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

bass4funkToday  12:31 pm JST

OK, so the guy wants to sell books, good for him, he wants to make money, go ahead, it's a free country, but given his track record, I do wonder about the validity of it, but for the haters, it'll be nothing but the same vitriol venom, nothing more, for the supporters, another big yawn....really big yawn.

Whatever. Who cares if the likes of you take this seriously or not. Trump's obviously does or else there wouldn't be any lawsuit threats.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I don’t accept anything. I haven’t read the book. I think it’s better to reserve judgement until you have read a book. You clearly want to dismiss it before reading it. It’s not very open-minded. 

You're right, if the person writing the book didn't have a history of being a sketchy person.

As I said, think of Trump’s cat fight on Twitter and then denying telling his followers to check out a fictional sex tape. That was a very useful episode in the sense of telling you about the character of the man. Perhaps this book could provide insights of this kind. 

I doubt it, I think it's just more of fish food for the hungry fish, bash, bash and more bash, nothing more.

So there's this book, which rightly discusses Trump's fitness for office. The 25th Amendment could be invoked if a majority of Cabinet members and two-thirds of Congress choose to do so - which means it's an elephant fight. It has nothing to do with the Dems, not just due to the numbers but that Trump's successor would be Pence.

That will never happen, as to where you libs get that the 25th Amendment will be invoked, that will happen when we cows sprout wings. I heard this kind of laughable nonsense when Reagan was President, the left did the same thing, minus the internet, but had they had it back then, we would hear the same rhetoric. The man is fine and he should go out on a political Jihad if he has to to fight back at these liberal forces that try to bring him down and good on him.

By all accounts, most GOP Congress members recognize that Donald Trump is a pathological narcissist with early stage dementia and only peripheral contact with reality. The question is which faction will win: that which puts country over partisanship, or the other. The battle for the soul of the GOP is deepening.

Oh, boy...you guys keep reaching and can't touch anything. ROFL.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

You're right, if the person writing the book didn't have a history of being a sketchy person.

Hilarious. Donny Trump brags about stiffing small businesses because he wasn't happy with their work. He has also been accused of raping/assaulting how many women now? If only you applied the same standards to Donny that you apply to literally everyone else. Too funny!

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Kevin Drum has a quick quiz on how certain members of the Republican establishment view the mental deficiencies of Trump. Try it! - it's fun!

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/01/test-your-knowledge-what-are-people-saying-about-donald-trump/

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Bannon said the Kush & Co. should have phoned the FBI after they were approached by a Russian about having a meeting. Bannon was correct because the FBI could have investigated. It's a great agency. Look what it prevented just last month:

https://www.google.co.jp/amp/abc7news.com/amp/fbi-man-planned-christmas-terror-attack-for-sfs-pier-39/2812473/

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Hilarious. Donny Trump brags about stiffing small businesses because he wasn't happy with their work.

What?

He has also been accused of raping/assaulting how many women now?

Oh, dear. Funny none of it is sticking. I guess Lisa Bloom gave it her all, but even the ones that maybe have some evidence of Trump verbally saying something rude, they wouldn’t take the bait and as much as 750K! Imagine that, a charlatan like Bloom couldn’t even get one person to take her sleazy bait.

If only you applied the same standards to Donny that you apply to literally everyone else. Too funny!

I think libs getting overworked about this President is funny.

@Laguna

I you’re going to quote Mother Jones, then you might as well quote Alex Jones.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

When I'm in one of my homes, either in Fukuoka, California (?), or Texas, I enjoy reading. I'm looking forward to reading this book.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

When I'm in one of my homes, either in Fukuoka, California (?), or Texas, I enjoy reading. I'm looking forward to reading this book.

You are free to do with your money or spend it however you wish.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I don’t need to read the book past the author’s introduction of the book as containing lies and inconsistencies.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I don’t need to read the book past the author’s introduction of the book as containing lies and inconsistencies

Again, the author is talking about different versions of events - this can shed light on the characters of those involved. That could be useful in itself. I can't be sure because I haven't read the book and neither have you.

To take another example, Trump's version of his inauguration painted a picture of the most attended inauguration in history despite tangible evidence suggesting otherwise. Trump's version of his hissy, handbags-at-10-paces Twitter fight involving a fictional sex tape is that it never happened. Trump's version of 9/11 involved thousands of Muslims celebrating in the US despite zero independent evidence of this. Trump's version of his tax cuts is that they are the biggest in history despite this being demonstrably false. I'd go on but it's getting boring...

There are many versions of different events. If nothing else, this can help us identify who the liars are.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

There are many versions of different events. If nothing else, this can help us identify who the liars are.

You want to identify the liars amongst the cons? That's the funniest thing I've heard since someone told me Trump would make a good president.

Anyway, to find the liars, you would need objective evidence, like their own words that are digitally archived somewhere or from interviews like the author did to write this book.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Again, the author is talking about different versions of events - this can shed light on the characters of those involved. That could be useful in itself. I can't be sure because I haven't read the book and neither have you. 

Useful how? To hate the man more? I read both the previous Presidents book and I found nothing but boredom as well insignificant.

To take another example, Trump's version of his inauguration painted a picture of the most attended inauguration in history despite tangible evidence suggesting otherwise. Trump's version of his hissy, handbags-at-10-paces Twitter fight involving a fictional sex tape is that it never happened. Trump's version of 9/11 involved thousands of Muslims celebrating in the US despite zero independent evidence of this. Trump's version of his tax cuts is that they are the biggest in history despite this being demonstrably false. I'd go on but it's getting boring...

How do you know the guy isn’t straight up lying? Who are his sources? Do they vouch for him and how do they personally feel about the President etc.

There are many versions of different events. If nothing else, this can help us identify who the liars are.

Funny, most of us don’t need a book to know that the media are the biggest liars, so much so, they completely forgot how to present the news. Neutrality means nothing to them anymore.

Anyway, to find the liars, you would need objective evidence, like their own words that are digitally archived somewhere or from interviews like the author did to write this book.

When I hear liberals uttering the word “objective” I couldn’t stop laughing.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Anyway, to find the liars, you would need objective evidence, like their own words that are digitally archived somewhere or from interviews like the author did to write this book.

I disagree. That's how it used to work but that idea was thrown down the toilet with Trump. He maintains versions of stories which can be shown as demonstrably false through his own tweets or actual TV footage. Many of his followers, as evidenced here, sidestep this inconvenient problem or lapse into you never knows.

This book on the other hand can be dismissed as false, not even a you never know, just by reading an excerpt of the introduction on Twitter, the very platform where Trump has tortured truth to brutal levels. The veracity of the author can also come under attack while they trust a man who wallowed in birtherism.

Sad.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Jimizo: Astute analysis.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

How do you know the guy isn’t straight up lying?

I don't. I haven't read the book. Neither have you. I think it's better to reserve judgement. No doubt those involved wil respond to any errors or lies. Others, like Tillerson, may evade questions like when he called Trump a ( expletive ) moron.

By the way, if a person has a history of lying, do you dismiss everything they say? I just believe in consistency. It's like the story of the boy who cried wolf, or perhaps sex tape, or maybe largest inauguration crowd ever or well, you know what I mean.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Amazing but it seems there are some who would still act like it was nothing even if they found DT (and his hair) in bed with a loved one!!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Hah, the sad sack Trump apologists are spinning like they had to after the failed Iraq invasion. These mentally deficient rubes never learn. They just fall for over and over again for the latest con job. This time the con job is the President they voted for back in 2016. Every single member of the Bush, sorry the Trump leadership has called Trump an idiot or worse. Why, because he is. The rubes were deathly afraid of having a woman President after a black President so they voted for the train wreck President we have now. But will they learn from this horrible failure of recognizing reality, no they will not. Next time they will repeat the same incredible mistake and vote for a traitor to his country, an idiot, a greedy sexist lying loser. The rightwing nutters never learn.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The book isn't full of lies, just alternative facts.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Bannon was correct because the FBI could have investigated. It's a great agency

It can be a great agency. Especially when it just re opened the investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fbi-investigating-clinton-foundation-pay-to-play-report-article-1.3739011

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I just wonder if Trump supporters are worried that this book may portray him as an ignoramus who follows trash conspiracy theories, says revolting things about women and spends his time watching Fox and Friends while firing off idiotic Twitter salvos.

Hey, do you think this book could shed light on Trump’s assertion that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

A lawsuit could hurt Trump because Bannon's lawyers would be entitled to interview White House officials and collect potentially damaging documents from them in his defense

So about as likely to materialize as the lawsuits he vowed against the women that accused him of sexual assault.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I disagree. That's how it used to work but that idea was thrown down the toilet with Trump.

No, that started with Obama and Anita Dunn and her stupid so called war on FNC where they actually thought they could get that powerhouse off the air.

He maintains versions of stories which can be shown as demonstrably false through his own tweets or actual TV footage. Many of his followers, as evidenced here, sidestep this inconvenient problem or lapse into you never knows. 

He he also has stories and facts that have proved the left wrong, time and time again.

This book on the other hand can be dismissed as false, not even a you never know, just by reading an excerpt of the introduction on Twitter, the very platform where Trump has tortured truth to brutal levels. The veracity of the author can also come under attack while they trust a man who wallowed in birtherism. 

Sad.

Hmmmm.....considering Wolff’s less than sterling reputation, he is lucky about one thing, for the haters, writing a book on anything can make him rich, that’s our capitalist system, good on him for milking it, I would too.

Hah, the sad sack Trump apologists are spinning like they had to after the failed Iraq invasion.

Yeah and we’re still in Obama’s Afghan war and beefing up the troops, thanks a lot!

These mentally deficient rubes never learn. They just fall for over and over again for the latest con job.

Dems losing 1000 legislative seats, lowest governorships in the country, not only does the left never learn, but they got coned in supporting the worst flawed candidate.

This time the con job is the President they voted for back in 2016. Every single member of the Bush, sorry the Trump leadership has called Trump an idiot or worse. Why, because he is.

Yes, because the country wants another Bush and or Clinton dynasty to continue and Trump beat the crap out of Jeb, so of course they all have a chip on their shoulder, Jeb was a weak embarrassment, not to mention boring as heck.

The rubes were deathly afraid of having a woman President after a black President so they voted for the train wreck President we have now.

They weren’t afraid, but you had one of the worst Presidents presiding over a stagnant economy and a woman that had NO charisma whatsoever, not to mention the fact that the Democrats didn’t care at all for the middle class....even Mickey Mouse could have beaten her.

But will they learn from this horrible failure of recognizing reality, no they will not. Next time they will repeat the same incredible mistake and vote for a traitor to his country, an idiot, a greedy sexist lying loser. The rightwing nutters never learn.

Hey, I heard Liz Warren might run in 2020? ROFL and you say the right doesn’t learn?? God, I hope the woman does run. Lol

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I disagree. That's how it used to work but that idea was thrown down the toilet with Trump. 

No, that started with Obama and Anita Dunn and her stupid so called war on FNC where they actually thought they could get that powerhouse off the air.

Yet again you miss the point. I wasn’t talking about the media. I was talking about Trump making outrageously untrue claims which were proven untrue by his own rancid and idiotic tweets.

The example I gave many times was the invitation to his followers to check out a sex tape which didn’t exist and then denied doing it in a debate. It’s on record. Stinking, pathetic, idiotic trash you wouldn’t accept from a problematic teenager.

That’s what I was addressing. The idea of this book being dismissed as ‘trash’ by a spokesperson for one of the titans of trash should send us all ROFLing.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

he would try to stop publication of a book that portrays an inept president in a fumbling White House 

Because that secret might get out?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Bannon: "Go right ahead. Then, in court, we will start calling witnesses to take the stand and testify -- that all right with you, pal?"

2 ( +2 / -0 )

ThePBotJan. 5 01:04 pm JST

I'm so tired of all this winning.

I respect everyone's opinion, but I would really rather Trump straighten up his act than gloat about 'winning' when something bad happens. It's like rooting for the pilot of the airplane you are riding in to crash the plane.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

No, that started with Obama and Anita Dunn and her stupid so called war on FNC where they actually thought they could get that powerhouse off the air.

No, they did not. However, feel free to show some actual evidence from reliable sources to back up this claim. Then again, maybe you shouldn't bother since it is off the topic. Look at what the article is about.

He he also has stories and facts that have proved the left wrong, time and time again.

No, he does not, but if you have them, let's see them. Kindly provide links from credible sources.

Hmmmm.....considering Wolff’s less than sterling reputation . . .

You know nothing about Wolff, and don't give us any anecdotal claims, either. However, if by chance you actually have some factual examples to support your claim against the man then please, let's have them. Again, links from credible sources other than right-wing blogs, user-made Youtube videos, or cherry-picked opinion pieces from conservative media would be convincing.

Yeah and we’re still in Obama’s Afghan war and beefing up the troops, thanks a lot!

Not "Obama's Afghan War" as you erroneously claim. The war was started by Bush II. Yes, Obama had a chance to pull the U.S. completely out of it, but let's just say that if he did (which would have made the many people who voted for him happy) then you and your friends would've then claimed that it would have made America "weak" (see the far-right's reaction to the Iraq War--another Bush II boondoggle--for examples). Then again, don't bother since this is also off the topic of the article that we are supposed to be commenting on.

Dems losing 1000 legislative seats, lowest governorships (sic) in the country, not only does the left never learn, but they got coned in supporting the worst flawed candidate.

Another non-sequitur allowed to stand by the moderators. Never mind that it has nothing to do with the article and does nothing to support your argument--but you will continue to post this because you have nothing else to offer--go figure.

They weren’t afraid, but you had one of the worst Presidents presiding over a stagnant economy  . . .

Another falsehood. The economy was not "stagnant" as you claimed. In fact, you've been corrected on this many times by many other posters, but since facts don't matter to you, you'll continue to post this garbage. However, since you like anecdotal claims and seem to put a lot of emphasis on the economy by looking at the stock market, kindly explain how my stocks not only recovered from the 2007-2008 disaster but also doubled in value from 2009-2016. Then again, Jimizo already called you on this fictional claim of yours.

Hey, I heard Liz Warren might run in 2020? ROFL and you say the right doesn’t learn?? God, I hope the woman does run. Lol

Yeah, me too--but you have bigger and more immediate things to worry about--like mainly trying to keep power in both the House and Senate in the Midterms this year. Good luck with that.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The rubes were deathly afraid of having a woman President after a black President so they voted for the train wreck President we have now.

I have to call you out on that one. It had nothing to do with race or sex. Hillary Clinton was an sleazy, dishonest elitist with zero charisma. Had the DNC offered up just about anyone else, even Sanders, as a candidate, Trump probably would not have been elected.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

No, they did not.

Oh, yes, they did.

No, he does not, but if you have them, let's see them. Kindly provide links from credible sources.

Actually, he does, Wolff himself even said that a lot of what he knows come from recollections.

You know nothing about Wolff, and don't give us any anecdotal claims, either. However, if by chance you actually have some factual examples to support your claim against the man then please, let's have them. Again, links from credible sources other than right-wing blogs, user-made Youtube videos, or cherry-picked opinion pieces from conservative media would be convincing.

I don't know and neither do you, but I read a few books from him in the past and I can say, not impressed, even before he started to become a household name, so from my personal opinion and from many professional opinions from people in the field, the man and his writings are questionable.

Not "Obama's Afghan War" as you erroneously claim.

Oh, very much his. He said, the real war is in Afghanistan. He relocated troops, increased troop present, withdrew troops from Iraq (then we had the rise of ISIS) and then left Afghanistan, that makes it his war and now Trump has been handed the reigns.

Another falsehood. The economy was not "stagnant" as you claimed.

No, it was, the man never had a GDP over 3.0% that's not my opinion, that's just a fact.

Yeah, me too--but you have bigger and more immediate things to worry about--like mainly trying to keep power in both the House and Senate in the Midterms this year. Good luck with that.

Actually, the Senate looks better than good now, the GOP won another seat in the Virginia House of delegates, the economy is a super nova! Gains since the 1st of this year the Dow 2.33% S&P 2.60% and the Nasdaq at 3.38%, 1.84 million jobs added. Tax reform on its way. 2020 second term, slam dunk.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Along with the cell phones, the Trumps should be banned from the West Wing.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I don't know and neither do you, but I read a few books from him in the past and I can say, not impressed

Oh, you didn't mention that earlier. Which books did you read and what inaccuracies did you find? I'm genuinely interested.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

A lot, too many to mention.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

A lot, too many to mention.

You said a few. As far as I can find, he's only written about 6 books. Just name one or two and give us your insight into them.

It would be very helpful to hear an elite journalist comment on this writer in detail.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Will Mr. Trump be entitled to royalties?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You said a few. As far as I can find, he's only written about 6 books. Just name one or two and give us your insight into them. 

2 of them and totally misguided.

It would be very helpful to hear an elite journalist comment on this writer in detail.

We don’t need to get off on a tangent like you like, but suffice to say, you yourself can order it on Amazon.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

2 of them and totally misguided.

Two isn’t a lot or too many to mention.

What books and in what sense were they misguided? This would be very useful in telling us about the nature of this writer.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Jimizo: Don't expect to get any real answers to your questions. Just scroll up and see the responses that I got and their lack of any actual and verifiable support.

@Bass: Wolff himself even said that a lot of what he knows come from recollections.

Not this time. He decided to record many of the people whom he quoted in the book, but go ahead and smear him anyway.

@Bass: I don't know and neither do you,

Actually, yes you claimed that you did by stating, ". . . considering Wolff’s less than sterling reputation," so you know something that many of us don't. Unlike you, I never made the claim to "know anything" about the man, but nice try anyway.

@Bass: No, it was, the man never had a GDP over 3.0% that's not my opinion, that's just a fact.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly here. If a country's GDP doesn't hit the magical 3% growth rate, then its economy is considered to be "stagnant"? In 2015, when the GDP hit 2.9%, that's an example of a "stagnant" economy?

For a better understanding of the economy was like, have a look at these articles (they have actual facts and stuff like that):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/14/comparing-the-trump-economy-to-the-obama-economy/?utm_term=.1783f9e475f4

http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/gdp-growth-vs-nato-president

2020 second term, slam dunk.

Yeah, for which party?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

1.84 million jobs added

Not, presumably, as your sentence misleadingly indicates, since "Jan 1st of this year". It'd be nice if you could hold a thought long enough to actually understand what you're writing, and not bundle multiple timelines into a single sentence.

Job performance during Obama's presidency was good once the financial disaster he inherited - do you actually remember that, or have you allowed yourself to believe he caused it? - was turned around, and from then on, it was a continuous process of jobs being added. This process didn't stop with Trump, who inherited a healthy economy. Of the two, Obama has the better track record for this figure, simply by virtue of having a six-year unbroken run of job growth, from mass unemployment to near full employment.

Obama added jobs - if you consider it something that presidents actually do - at the rate of around 2 million a year.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Well Trump is a sane and intelligent man. When they try to go out and help the poor people in the street, they tend to be trashed. Should he change his way of living because middle intelligence people can"t stand to be outweigh.

I believe it is all about jealousy thinking. Bannon thought he could play the president behind the back of the president without him noticing because he would have been to busy with the day to day job. But, every night at 18th o'clock he goes checking on tv the result on his politics. That is what a sane and intelligent quirky man would do.

I don't always agree with Trump on his policy, but I agree on his genius strike.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

On Thursday, the White House also said no personal devices, including cell phones, would be allowed in the White House West Wing beginning next week for security purposes.

It's not that they're worried about people obtaining actual proof that those crazy stories in the book are true. It's for security purposes! Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I know one person who will be allowed to keep his cell phone. How else will he be able to tweet his manic ramblings at 3am?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"I don't talk to him. That's a misnomer."

"Misnomer."

Gads, what a blinking imbecile.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Well, Donny's daughter Ivanka lives in the West Wing, in violation of federal laws. She's his GF.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites