I immediately thought of this:
He just seems too - zealous; too excitable in his portrayal of the madness of Donald Trump. It's like he desperately wants his book to be the one that brought down the president, ala Woodward/Bernstein, and hopes it happens before we ask too many questions.
To me, he's already received one hit to the credibility when he said he met with Trump for three hours. Three hours is a decent enough time for an author or crack journalist. But Trump fired back and insisted he did no such thing. Wolff then clarified that he had met with Trump for around three hours 'over the course of the campaign.'
Now, that's a little different than the idea that he was in a room with Trump for three hours for an interview. I could "meet with" a VP of a corporation for three hours over the course of many months, and it would amount to no more than routine snippets of 'odd weather we're having, how is the family?, how's that diet going?, how many oranges have you eaten in life?'. It takes more than what Wolff said to suggest you have inside info on the president.
If that is the case according to Wolff himself, I'm not going to join the 'slap him in a straight jacket' brigade of the Left. Especially if there are others questioning the author's track record.
If Trump is guilty of something illegal, or has a serious (and verified through proper medical channels) issues, then I except him to be removed from office. It isn't as if Trump doesn't do his best to add credibility to the book when otherwise it might have gone away:
Uh huh. Like, smart.
But the Left is pushing our nation to one of lawlessness and post-due process vendettas against any and all who resist its dictates, and using the idea that Trump is so bad, it doesn't matter what is done to oppose him. I'm not ready for our nation to become another leftist revolutionary cesspool just so liberals don't have their feelings hurt from having lost another election.
Post a Comment
Let me know your thoughts