New Bob Woodward Book

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peebo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
www.investors.com

The Mainstream Media Thought Bob Woodward Was A Hack, Until His Trump-Bashing Book Came Out

The mainstream press is rushing to defend Bob Woodward after President Trump attacked him over his new book. That's funny, because journalists themselves had been saying far worse things about Woodward for more than a decade.
www.investors.com www.investors.com

After years of being called a hack for writing things vaguely complementary to Bush and vaguely critical of Obama, Woodward gets his reputation back by attacking Trump. The only real question is was he selling out then, or is he selling out now…
 
ProVobis said:
You mean like when the SCOTUS decided the 2000 election?
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court is not “law enforcement”. Besides, the ultimate count was in Bush’s favor and it’s the job of the courts to determine disputes that are cognizable by the law. That’s a whole lot different from law enforcement agents “going rogue” to influence election outcomes by suppressing evidence against their favored candidate and fabricating it against the party they oppose. That, most assuredly, is NOT their job.
 
What we’ve heard about in the Woodward book and now also the NYT piece really is not new news at all but just confirmations of what we’ve read and heard for well over a year now. Even during the campaign, Trump acted as one who is “amoral”, such as his “Lock here up!” chant, which if done would be clearly unconstitutional. He has no respect for the rule of law and he’s made that abundantly clear many times over.

We are nearing a crisis point, and we need to pray that this doesn’t unravel what this country was built on, and Congress should take this matter very seriously and investigate these charges and then do what is right for the country.
 
We have had a skilled group of angry Democrats investigating Trump for about two years now. And so far, they have come up with nothing. On the other hand, we know the FBI soft-pedaled the Clinton investigation for political reasons. They said so themselves.

Imagine if Mueller discovered that Trump got $150 million from Russia and signed off on Russia getting 1/5 of American uranium supplies. Imagine if Melania got a half million for a speech in Moscow in that time frame. Mueller would burn the White House down with the Trumps inside it.

If Hillary committed crimes, and it does appear probable, then it wouldn’t be unconstitutional to lock her up for it. Doing it might be politically motivated, but it sure wouldn’t be unconstitutional.
 
It does make one wonder how the online forums would have read during Watergate.

President Nixon enjoined off the charts approvals and then one of the best investigative journalists published. The rest is history.
 
Nixon had his die hard supporters right to the end. Pat Buchanan still believes Nixon got a raw deal. But yes, the Internet has driven this sort of conversation out of livingrooms and letters to the editor and into a whole new and much bigger realm.
 
Ridgerunner said:
We have had a skilled group of angry Democrats investigating Trump for about two years now. And so far, they have come up with nothing
Click to expand...
The Mueller investigation started off being run by Republicans, and is still being run by Republicans. Trump’s constant tweeting of “Democrats!” and “Witch Hunt!” doesn’t make it magically come true. And your “nothing” that they have come up with includes criminal charges and guilty pleas.

Unlike the Benghazi “investigation,” run by actual Republicans, which came up with 0 criminal charges and 0 guilty pleas.
 
The problem here is that Clinton didn’t sign off on the deal. A committee did.
 
TheLittleLady said:
President Nixon enjoined off the charts approvals and then one of the best investigative journalists published.
Click to expand...
He was one of the best when going after Nixon, then he was a hack when going after Obama or not going after GWB, now that he’s going after Trump, he’s one of the best again. It seems to be a pattern.
 
angel12 said:
The Mueller investigation started off being run by Republicans
Click to expand...
Just wrong. Mueller himself has purported to be a Repub, but his legal team is made up of Democrat contributors and supporters. Rosenstein is supposedly Mueller’s boss, and he recently said he’s not a member of any party.

The Justice Department did not investigate Benghazi. At the time, that department was run by Democrats. That was during the Obama administration, remember?
 
angel12 said:
The Mueller investigation started off being run by Republicans, and is still being run by Republicans. Trump’s constant tweeting of “Democrats!” and “Witch Hunt!” doesn’t make it magically come true. And your “nothing” that they have come up with includes criminal charges and guilty pleas.
Click to expand...
One thing of note in Woodward’s book, is that there are no claims of Russia-Trump collusion. This seems a notable omission. For that matter, none of the criminal charges or guilty pleas have anything to do with Trump-Russia collusion, or even anything to do with the Trump campaign. Odd that…
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
I recognize that’s your claim. But you haven’t proved it.
Click to expand...
There has been no evidence for any other release of those comments apart from the tweet. The various news stories all quote the statements tweeted.
 
dvdjs said:
There has been no evidence for any other release of those comments apart from the tweet. The various news stories all quote the statements tweeted.
Click to expand...
Did you expect the various reports to be different? When one quotes another, one tries to reproduce it faithfully. This is the basis for your failure to recognize the various sources of these statements?
 
Exactly, and let us also not forget the Whitewater investigation that turned up 0.

Also, let me just mention that the “Lock her up!” chants by both Trump and his followers is pretty much what we’d expect of those with a lynch-mob mentality since she certainly wasn’t proven guilty of anything except using bad judgment.

The fact is that we basically have a president who has been charged with being “amoral” by a senior adviser, which I do believe has been substantiated by so many of his statements and actions, so it does beg the question why many of those who consider themselves to be Christians continue to still support him? Why would a moral person defend such actions and words?

To me, it’s partisan politics matched with blind hero-worship as being the only logical reason that I can think of, unless a person really doesn’t follow politics all that closely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top