The Trump Presidency – 2016

[albionmoonlight]

Also, I think back seven months ago we all thought that the coronavirus would be under much better control by now.

If Woodward seven months ago knew how many people would die between now and then, he might have released the information earlier. But I do not think it was unreasonable for him to think that we’d have our shit together by now regardless of our initial missteps.

[stevew]

"Woodward is a liberal hack and promotes fake news" would have killed his story 7 months ago. It'll still work today.

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Saving lives >>>> respecting the tenets of basic journalism

He's arguably saving more lives now than if he had released it back then. There was less evidence of the severity of the disease then and it would've easily been deflected and Woodward branded unhinged and a rogue journalist and "you can't trust that damn liberal media, see! revealing state secrets!"

Maybe direct your outrage in the right direction towards, you know, the guy willfully misleading an entire country and admitting it? And don't kill the messenger. This is why nothing changes, because people like you constantly buying into and parroting the incessant "what-about-isms" and deviating from the real, actual injustice.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

He's arguably saving more lives now than if he had released it back then. There was less evidence of the severity of the disease then and it would've easily been deflected and Woodward branded unhinged and a rogue journalist and "you can't trust that damn liberal media, see! revealing state secrets!"

Again. I don't care about potential outcomes. You do the right thing, no matter what the outcome might be. Period.

Maybe direct your outrage in the right direction towards, you know, the guy willfully misleading an entire country and admitting it? And don't kill the messenger. This is why nothing changes, because people like you constantly buying into and parroting the incessant "what-about-isms"

There is no whataboutism. Trump is a scumbag. Woodward is a scumbag. I already knew that the former was. Didn't realize that the latter is, thus more anger in this moment at the latter. There's been plenty for Trump and his supporters.

[larrymcg421]

Wondering what people think of the Boston Globe story about the Catholic Church. They had evidence of more than 40 priests molesting children (and eventually 70+), but sat on the story for several months until they could link it to Cardinal Law and/or other church leaders. Were they wrong to do that because kids could've been molested during that delay or were they right to get the full story?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Wondering what people think of the Boston Globe story about the Catholic Church. They had evidence of more than 40 priests molesting children (and eventually 70+), but sat on the story for several months until they could link it to Cardinal Law and/or other church leaders. Were they wrong to do that because kids could've been molested during that delay or were they right to get the full story?

This kind of symbolizes to me the difference between isolated incidents and systemic issues. You can stop some isolated incidents if you come out early, but the systemic issues will continue to exist. Getting the entire story may help the systemic rot from getting cleaned up. The Globe's story on the Catholic Church would not have been nearly as useful if they didn't connect it to Cardinal Law. It would have been a "few bad apples" and the issue would continue.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Again. I don't care about potential outcomes. You do the right thing, no matter what the outcome might be. Period.

When exactly was it the right thing? This interview took place on February 7th, the first American was reported dead from covid on February the 28th, at what point does leaking this interview become doing the right thing?

Secondarily, the entire argument of "doing the right thing" in this case is built around isolating this particular issue & suggesting it is the first and only lie that Donald Trump told in this interview, which is questionable at best. Had Woodward done "the right thing" with the first lie presented to him, he would've lasted through a single interview session, and neither he nor we would have any of this information.

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Again. I don't care about potential outcomes. You do the right thing, no matter what the outcome might be. Period.

There is no whataboutism. Trump is a scumbag. Woodward is a scumbag. I already knew that the former was. Didn't realize that the latter is, thus more anger in this moment at the latter. There's been plenty for Trump and his supporters.

Maybe you're a scumbag for calling one of the most respected and important journalists in American history a scumbag for doing his job diligently? Like it or not Woodward's obligation as a journalist is to the facts and to truth, and not to "saving lives." So yes, he did the "right" thing. And you actually think the public would have listened to Bob Woodward if they weren't listening to Anthony Fauci, a you know, health/pandemic expert and epidemiologist? Get a grip. Woodward coming out earlier and lives being saved are two separate issues. The moral equivalency you're making is absurd and offensive, really.

[JPhillips]

I think there's a big problem with reporting news I book form. Woodward made his name on Watergate and that was reported largely as they discovered information. At some point information is important to reveal to the public and delaying that revelation by months diminishes the story. We can disagree whether or not that happened here, admittedly, I think it did, but I don't think we should look at news on a months from now timetable.

Would Nixon have resigned if all the Watergate reporting was released as a book in mid 1975?

[Bee]

I'm not a big fan of shooting the messenger. Trump is the one to blame and that is where the focus should be.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

Like it or not Woodward's obligation as a journalist is to the facts and to truth, and not to "saving lives." So yes, he did the "right" thing.

No. His obligation as a human being supercedes his obligation as a journalist.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Bee

I'm not a big fan of shooting the messenger. Trump is the one to blame and that is where the focus should be.

Wasn't really trying to do that. Noop's comment just spurred my (intended) one comment about Woodward that some people decided to attack.

[JPhillips]

We can believe Trump is a sociopath while also thinking Woodward and journalists in general should be less focused on maximizing book revenues.

And I'd be careful going full in on Woodward. He's a giant, but he's also done some really shady journalism. His 2002 Bush book wasn't exemplary journalism.

[JPhillips]

dola

Lou Dobbs goes with the Nobel nomination angle:

"President Trump today had a great day. A day that any president could only dream of"

lol

[Lathum]

Fox News. Fair and balanced.

[Flasch186]

The frog has been so boiled that shockingly, actual tapes of Trump saying shit himself won't move the needle for the cult.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

Lou Dobbs goes with the Nobel nomination angle:



lol

Out of morbid curiosity, I tuned in to see what Fox was saying today. That was the exact segment that I saw. They really live in a different world. No mention of Woodward thing in the 20-30 minutes that I watched (with the aid of fast-forwarding).

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Fox News. Fair and balanced.

Main headline: “ Woodward dismisses claims he could have saved lives by publishing Trump's coronavirus remarks sooner”

Because that’s the story...

This shit just makes me sick to my stomach.

[Lathum]

OANN claiming its a conspiracy between Woodward and Frank Caliendo

[Edward64]

FWIW I don't fault Woodward for not coming forward in Feb. I don't believe his lone voice would have saved lives, he (and whatever supporters came forward) would just have been brushed aside. Too much wiggle room then, just as there is now, for Trump to deflect.

My post above was his book and all the nuggets would be better in mid-Oct than now. Trump and team has about 1-1.5 months to do damage control. Maybe Oct 19-20, a couple days before the last debate.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

OANN claiming its a conspiracy between Woodward and Frank Caliendo

I really want to believe this.


So I will.

[Lathum]

You know what amazes me. Not that people on the right are questioning
WHY Trump would talk to Woodward. It is the fact that they aren't questioning why they support a guy that they would need to be worried about talking to a journalist because he would say something like this.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Lathum

OANN claiming its a conspiracy between Woodward and Frank Caliendo

At least for the next 2 days. Meanwhile, the GOP will give deep throated denials about it. Then Trump will come out and say that he totally told Woodward that and it will be a story for another day or two. Then the GOP apparatus will pivot to "see, he was trying to prevent panic by the rascally Dems". ...just as they would have done in February.

It's why I'm a bit befuddled about being upset about Woodward coming out sooner. It would just play out in February just as now. Only, back in February, very few people were willing to take this seriously - it was an "over there" problem. I know because I got onboard with it being a serious problem in mid-late February and started stocking up on stuff. But at work, myself and one other guy were the "crazy conspiracy theorists" who were worried about nothing.

And I'm not sure Trump being recorded saying anything would have changed that. Maybe I'm wrong. But the Access Hollywood tape didn't keep women from voting for him. Eric Trump's emails where he bragged about meeting with the Russians for dirt on Hillary didn't move anything (I mean, hell, most people have forgotten about that) or any of the recorded phone call transcripts from the impeachment trial. So why would Trump's words about COVID carry any more weight?

Maybe this gets into "whataboutism" territory but I think it's germane to the COVID response saying Bob Woodward would have moved the needle (which I guess isn't the argument - it's that he should have done it even if it didn't move the needle?): Bob Woodward didn't screw up the CDC testing, seize and then sell off PPE like political graft, fail to create a contact tracing apparatus before there were too many cases, etc. I mean, let's take him at his word from February, Trump thinks it's serious and knows it's passed through the air but he /still/ made masks a culture war thing. He wore a mask for like 2 days and has since gone back to not wearing it and making fun of people who do. Bob Woodward isn't some prince among men but I think placing the blame at his feet is projection.

SI

[Lathum]

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You know what amazes me. Not that people on the right are questioning
WHY Trump would talk to Woodward. It is the fact that they aren't questioning why they support a guy that they would need to be worried about talking to a journalist because he would say something like this.

That doesn't really surprise me. The all-in MAGA crowd will justify anything, and the rest of his voters have had 4ish years to exercise their "the ends justify the means" muscles.

[JPhillips]

The irony is that if Trump had said publicly what he said privately, it would have likely sparked an earlier and more robust response from multiple levels of government and would have then greatly improved his re-election chances.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

That doesn't really surprise me. The all-in MAGA crowd will justify anything, and the rest of his voters have had 4ish years to exercise their "the ends justify the means" muscles.

Oh, it doesn't surprise me in the least.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

That doesn't really surprise me. The all-in MAGA crowd will justify anything, and the rest of his voters have had 4ish years to exercise their "the ends justify the means" muscles.

I'm really at a loss - your response to this has me a bit flummoxed.

Like what does Woodward do with the tape? Release it on the news in February and say "hey, I got Trump on tape saying the virus is serious"? I mean, back when he recorded it, no one took the virus serious in the US except maybe people in Washington. It took until March 11th (NBA/Tom Hanks/Trump travel ban all happened in about 2 hours that night) for most people to take it serious. I remember that even into early March, I was "that guy" at work - we were all being fitted for tin foil hats for being worried about that crazy "over there" virus. The places where I was reading about COVID were covered in the same stories through early March: my family and coworkers think I'm crazy but I'm prepping anyway. A month earlier, it was barely on my radar even except as a "we might want to watch this because China doesn't just close down an entire province for nothing".

But I don't see how we, as a country, "do better" with the virus because of this. As in my above post, he still screws up the CDC testing because he put someone in charge because they shouldn't have, he still tries to sell off PPE for political graft, he still puts his inept son-in-law in charge of not creating a task force to deal with the virus and contact tracing, and even though he said it's spread through the air in the recording then, he's /still/ made masks a culture war item even though it probably would have him in a better position in the polls now if he had been an early adopter.

If a recording of Trump saying it was serious drops in mid February, back before people could possibly accept it, what does that do? I mean, I guess we'll never know. But I mean, what do you think it does?

EDIT: And I really also mean this from the "ends justify the means part". Like I think most of the folks on the left here are jaded enough to think that nothing Trump says matters so it's not like this is going to move the needle. Many of us have said as much. So it's not like we're sitting there gleefully rubbing our hands together like "oh man, Woodward just put a dagger in Trump". I think most of us are cynically (nihilistically) thinking that nothing matters so what's another "nothing" on the pile. Hell, I think many of us are surprised he even took it seriously at some point (and maybe he really didn't - when viewed in the lens of Trump, it's possible he said it because he thought it made himself look better to Woodward in some way) because his actions have always been to the contrary.

SI

[cartman]

Even Trump, without a trace of self-awareness, is blaming Woodward for not releasing the tapes sooner.

Bob Woodward had my quotes for many months. If he thought they were so bad or dangerous, why didn’t he immediately report them in an effort to save lives? Didn’t he have an obligation to do so? No, because he knew they were good and proper answers. Calm, no panic!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 10, 2020

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm really at a loss - your response to this has me a bit flummoxed.

I've read your post twice, and I'm not following what exactly you're confused about. Apologies, but do you mind rephrasing?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cartman

Even Trump, without a trace of self-awareness, is blaming Woodward for not releasing the tapes sooner.

[Ben E Lou]

Um...wow.

Delicious. pic.twitter.com/HnMV9RjOLC

— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) September 10, 2020

Ol' Lindsey is in a surprisingly tight Senate race right now, and Tucker throws him under the bus.

[Edward64]

I'm sure there are some legit students in the 1,000+ caught up in this but I'm okay with the overall premise that we should limit mainland Chinese students (there were approx 370,000 in 2019) when we are in the middle of an economic and, more importantly, technology war/race.

China slams U.S. over cancellation of 1,000 student visas

Beijing on Thursday hit back at a U.S. decision to revoke visas for more than a 1,000 Chinese students and researchers who the American government deemed posed a security risk or had ties to China's military.

Prejudice was behind the visa decision, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said.

The move was "outright political persecution and racial discrimination, which have seriously violated the human rights of Chinese students," he told a news briefing on Thursday, according to the state-owned Global Times.

Beijing also warned it reserved the right to take further action but did not elaborate.

[JPhillips]

Have we ever had a Prsident so unconcerned with truth?

In New Hampshire in late August, Trump read from a text that said NH lost 1 in 4 manufacturing jobs after NAFTA came in. He ad-libbed: "It was more than 1 in 4. That statistic is wrong. Please have it changed. That statistic is wrong. Far more than 1 in 4."

It was 1 in 4.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) September 10, 2020

[Drake]

If I'm Woodward's publisher, I'm not giving him permission in the book contract to release any interview tapes or tidbits until the marketing for the book is in place.

I'm not saying that's the case here, but if I'm the publisher, I definitely want to hold onto that explosive bit of info until right before the book comes out to push sales.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Drake

If I'm Woodward's publisher, I'm not giving him permission in the book contract to release any interview tapes or tidbits until the marketing for the book is in place.

I'm not saying that's the case here, but if I'm the publisher, I definitely want to hold onto that explosive bit of info until right before the book comes out to push sales.

Valid point

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I've read your post twice, and I'm not following what exactly you're confused about. Apologies, but do you mind rephrasing?

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Can't recall if I posted it here, but a good friend lost both of her parents to COVID within a five-day period this summer. They were conservatives who didn't take the virus seriously, but weren't by any means full-blown MAGA; they were the type who could have been swayed.

I'd like to make Bob Woodward sit down and explain to my friend why he thought he should hold this information for 7 months.

I guess what I'm struggling to articulate, while also trying to not be too much of a dick because you have a friend who lost two parents, is what would having Woodward sit down with your friends do?

Contextually, I'd argue that all of America at that point couldn't have even processed that information. The 6000 post COVID thread was at post 12. The personal part for me is that I was still a week or two away from where I was taking it seriously and when I started taking it seriously, practically no one else was. In late February, my coworkers thought I should be fitted for a straight jacket and tin foil hat when I mentioned I was buying some extra grocery supplies and watching the numbers from South Korea and Italy with grave concern. I mean everything happened at whiplash speed after March 11 where we went from "play NCAA tournament -> play NCAA tournament with no fans -> play short NCAA tournament -> play no NCAA tournament" is about 48 hours. If you told someone that a month sooner, they'd have thought you mad.

So, if Woodward releases the tape the day he does the interview, for instance, what happens?

There's a sliver of a hope that it changes the national conversation because if Trump takes it seriously*. I think the most likely thing is that it doesn't get any traction because it's an "over there" problem. The cynic in me says the second most likely scenario is that Trump says "hey, look, it's another lib trying to bring me down after I beat impeachment", he runs it through his usual spin cycle of deflect/deny/admit no fault/blow up something else and we dig in the culture war aspect of the pandemic even sooner. Especially considering this was just a couple of days after impeachment, it's going to be viewed as such a partisan trick that no one would believe it/process it.

*I'm just going to cut and paste this from above:

But I don't see how we, as a country, "do better" with the virus because of this. As in my above post, he still screws up the CDC testing because he put someone in charge because they shouldn't have, he still tries to sell off PPE for political graft, he still puts his inept son-in-law in charge of not creating a task force to deal with the virus and contact tracing, and even though he said it's spread through the air in the recording then, he's /still/ made masks a culture war item even though it probably would have him in a better position in the polls now if he had been an early adopter.

So, I mean, even if we take him at his word or he was saying what he thought made him sound "Greatest President Ever" to Woodward. If it's the latter, who cares - then it's not newsworthy, right? If Woodward has reasons to doubt its veracity, then he can't release it or the message gets diluted instantly anyway. But if he thinks it's serious (which is always dangerous with Trump; I mean, he just says whatever he thinks will benefit him the most at any given moment without any thought to truth or consistency): then that means Trump did all the dumbfuckery in the above paragraph even with full knowledge of how bad it was because it solely benefited him. Trump is an awful person: he lies, people died, people will continue to die, he profits in money and political power, he distracts with something crazier, and he will continue to divide people. This is who he is.

But this isn't about Trump, it's about Woodward. So what's the right thing for him to do? Release the tape then and there - that day/week in that partisan environment? "Hey, this is serious". Ok, it's serious. Sort of - we can't really trust Trump. And it's not enough to do something except maybe a China travel ban sooner. Best case scenario, we'd have the same problems but a month later so the death toll would have been down (like we don't get rid of the March/April numbers, they just shift to April/May - but they would all be delayed; we'd be looking at August's numbers now instead of Septembers). That's definitely something.

Trump hadn't horribly botched the pandemic response yet. You could assume he was actually genuine (as much as you can with anything, again) and that he was trying not to cause a panic. And that releasing the tapes then would cause one. We now know how bad COVID has become but at the time, it was just assumed it would be an Ebola that fizzles out before it reaches here or a SARS/Swine Flu that does limited damage in the USA. I guess this is the crux of what I'm getting at so I'll bold it: So Woodward has to know that Trump is hiding this information and was going to use it as part of his culture war which would kill people, that the pandemic will be bad, and that Trump will totally botch the response. That information is only newsworthy because we know after the fact that all three of these to be true. It wasn't newsworthy at the time. If he does release it then, it makes a wave that looks about the same as when he released his other Trump book - the left says "Trump bad", the right says "Trump good", and the middle, including these parents, don't even notice.

This is where you'd have to speculate because it would be totally dickish and irresponsible to ask the friend. But do you really think your friend (or you) thinks that Bob Woodward releasing this audio back in February a couple of days or a week after impeachment before the virus had taken much of a foothold in the USA (except whispers in Washington state and NYC) would have prevented those two deaths months in the future? Months that were filled with all sports shutting down (as a canary in the coal mine), Trump shutting down travel, most states shutting down their economy for a month, doctors left and right peddling that it was bad (even if it was just to sell you genuine, bona fide hydroxychloroquine tonic), and everything else we saw unfold? This one Bob Woodward recording of Trump back in February was going to be the thing that moved the needle for her or her parents? Not impossible, but it seems really improbable.

And looping it back to the original question, I'm guessing if I were Bob Woodward, I'd say "If I knew then what I knew now, of course I'd have made a bigger deal of it". But, at the time, it didn't seem like a big deal - anything different than the other 10 or 20 or however many hours of footage he has.

SI

[cuervo72]

I mean, in a way it does come off as "it's the liberal media's fault those conservatives didn't take the virus seriously."

(Honestly though, do any conservatives believe anything coming from the WaPo? Even if it's on tape? I honestly try for versions of stories NOT from the WaPo where possible because those from the right are probably going to immediately dismiss it out of hand otherwise.)

[Lathum]

Trump stating in his news conference he watched 5 hours of Fox News last night.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

what would having Woodward sit down with your friends do?

I don't want to speak for Ben, and maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think he's dealt with this (which seems to be the crux of your post) multiple times.

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Again. I don't care about potential outcomes. You do the right thing, no matter what the outcome might be. Period.

The way I understand what he's said, is that it doesn't matter what Woodward getting the information out would have accomplished, practically speaking. The point appears to me to be that people have a moral obligation to make public information that is in the public interest. Whether that harms their ability to acquire other information that it is in the public interest, consideration of what the consequences are of making the information public, etc. are not even relevant to the thought process.

[sterlingice]

But that's my point: at the time, the information isn't in the public's interest.

Like you're asking Woodward to be an epidemiologist who knows how bad COVID would be - not just bluster from Trump and you're asking him to know that future Trump would botch the response /and/ that the ensuing panic wouldn't be worse than the epidemic itself. And that's all assuming people would listen to it (which they probably wouldn't).

In retrospect, it's super critical. But at the time, it's not even as big as "hey, I just beat impeachment" and his generals saying he's nuts.

SI

[Ben E Lou]

Ah, OK SI. Got it. I think you're greatly overthinking my position here. Let me boil it down more simply. It's a question of ethics as far as I am concerned.

OVERARCHING PRINCIPLE--I try not to care about outcomes, but about doing what's right.
Why does a teenager lie and say he wasn't drinking last night when he was? He knows what's right (telling the truth,) but he is looking at the potential outcome(s) of doing what he knows to be right ("If I tell the truth, I might get grounded, I might get the keys taken away, etc. etc. etc.") He is trying to manipulate the OUTCOME rather than focusing on doing right.

2016 scenario: why did many of my personal Christian friends vote for Trump and try to get me to do likewise? They KNEW it was an unbiblical vote. Some even admitted it. But to a person, they said, "if I vote 3rd Party, HRC might become President, and I can't let that happen." They were trying to affect the OUTCOME rather than focusing on doing right.
Focusing on the outcome is a frequent root cause of incorrect choices.

Both Donald Trump and Bob Woodward (and plenty of others, but those are the ones we're talking about right now) knew that the virus was airborne and deadly. If it's raining and my neighbor doesn't know that grilling in the garage is a bad idea because carbon monoxide could fill his house, I should tell him that--even if I KNOW that he will not listen to me. I should still tell him. I don't care about Trump's political future being in jeopardy or Woodward obeying the laws of journalism or whether people would have listened. They knew that a deadly airborne virus was headed this way. They should have said something.

[Ben E Lou]

Holy cow.

Cancer survivor pleading for help with health insurance 'angry and hurt' over Tillis staffer's response :: WRAL.com

"You’re saying that, if you can’t afford it, you don’t get to have it, and that includes health care?" she asked.

"Yeah, just like if I want to go to the store and buy a new dress shirt. If I can’t afford that dress shirt, I don’t get to get it," he replied.

"But health care is something that people need, especially if they have cancer," Veals said.

"Well, you got to find a way to get it," he responded.

When she asked the staffer what she's supposed to do, he said, "Sounds like something you’re going to have to figure it out."

"To compare it to a dress shirt made me incredibly angry and hurt," Veals told WRAL Investigates.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Ah, OK SI. Got it. I think you're greatly overthinking my position here. Let me boil it down more simply. It's a question of ethics as far as I am concerned.

OVERARCHING PRINCIPLE--I try not to care about outcomes, but about doing what's right.
Why does a teenager lie and say he wasn't drinking last night when he was? He knows what's right (telling the truth,) but he is looking at the potential outcome(s) of doing what he knows to be right ("If I tell the truth, I might get grounded, I might get the keys taken away, etc. etc. etc.") He is trying to manipulate the OUTCOME rather than focusing on doing right.

2016 scenario: why did many of my personal Christian friends vote for Trump and try to get me to do likewise? They KNEW it was an unbiblical vote. Some even admitted it. But to a person, they said, "if I vote 3rd Party, HRC might become President, and I can't let that happen." They were trying to affect the OUTCOME rather than focusing on doing right.
Focusing on the outcome is a frequent root cause of incorrect choices.

Both Donald Trump and Bob Woodward (and plenty of others, but those are the ones we're talking about right now) knew that the virus was airborne and deadly. If it's raining and my neighbor doesn't know that grilling in the garage is a bad idea because carbon monoxide could fill his house, I should tell him that--even if I KNOW that he will not listen to me. I should still tell him. I don't care about Trump's political future being in jeopardy or Woodward obeying the laws of journalism or whether people would have listened. They knew that a deadly airborne virus was headed this way. They should have said something.

I guess where I'm having a problem is that if you're Woodward and you're interviewing Trump, over the course of 1 hour, you're going to get like at least a dozen (probably a lot more) things that make you raise your eyebrows. But you also don't know if what you're getting told is true or if he's just blustering.

You can't run to the media with all, lets say, 12 "crazy" things he told you in the hour because it's just not "newsworthy". You won't get a platform to even play the tapes. So you have to be able to determine what's relevant or not. Do you trust when Trump says it's going to bad? I mean, he kept holding rallys so he can't have thought it was really bad. Does he actually believe it's airborne or was that just the thing he saw that day on the KungFlu subreddit (I know hydroxychloroquine hadn't happened yet but same idea).

Like if February Woodward had September (or even June) Woodward's knowledge, I think it's a moral dilemma. But in February, do you even believe the words when Trump says them?

SI

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Holy cow.

Cancer survivor pleading for help with health insurance 'angry and hurt' over Tillis staffer's response :: WRAL.com

This just in: the party really doesn't care about anyone's well-being.

[Ksyrup]

I mean, c'mon! Is he also going to accuse Biden of starting his own steak brand that will fail miserably?

The President doesn’t seem ok pic.twitter.com/uH9B20Wf70

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) September 10, 2020

[ISiddiqui]

LOL, Trump thought he could get Woodward to write a glowing book about him, even when his aids kept warning him about it. Trump's self-denial is amazing.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Do you trust when Trump says it's going to bad? I mean, he kept holding rallys so he can't have thought it was really bad. Does he actually believe it's airborne or was that just the thing he saw that day on the KungFlu subreddit (I know hydroxychloroquine hadn't happened yet but same idea).

SI

But isn't that the story ? The story isn't covid, the story is making the public aware that the president at an early stage said one thing and did another on a matter of public health. It's not a matter of intel, it's a matter of the president admitting that he was misleading the public. If the Virus had turned out SwineFlu 2.0 this would have still been my position btw. Because similar to Ben i think that judging 'actions' by outcomes is not the way to go. Trump unilaterally deciding to create a counter-narrative and admitting to doing that is wrong in that moment. And a lot worse than him just really not grasping that it could be bad or sticking his fingers in his ears living in denial.

It's not about uncovering what is and isn't SarsCov2 at this stage (there were very few certainties) but that the president is chosing to portray it in a clear-cut way despite internally admitting to thinking differently and thus at the very least being aware of both options.

I still can't get over the fact that the event saving more Lifes than the president (who then still is not getting to grips with not being able to just wait it out and hope it will he fine) is ... Rudy Gobert and other players getting sick and Gobert acting like an Idiot.

Also: You really think Trump seeing this as dangerous and him holding rallys are mutually exclusive ?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

you're asking Woodward to be an epidemiologist who knows how bad COVID would be - not just bluster from Trump and you're asking him to know that future Trump would botch the response /and/ that the ensuing panic wouldn't be worse than the epidemic itself. And that's all assuming people would listen to it (which they probably wouldn't).

I don't think anybody's asking any of that from Woodward. What makes it newsworthy, all on it's own without any other context required, is that Trump told him something that contradicted what he was saying in public at the time. That's more than enough on it's own.

The argument about outcomes can still be made, but the contradiction makes it something that is in the public's interest by itself.

[JPhillips]

The hardest working man in Presidenting.

Trump goes through all the TV he watches: "I watched Lou Dobbs last night, Sean Hannity last night, Tucker last night, Laura, I watched Fox & Friends in the morning" pic.twitter.com/NpnFwXA909

— Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) September 10, 2020