Patterico's Pontifications

1/3/2018

Steve Bannon: Yeah, Breitbart Is Not Really a Legitimate Organization

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:00 am

In a classic “Kinsley gaffe” (accidentally telling the truth), Steve Bannon has apparently told author Michael Wolff that his site Breitbart.com is less “legitimate” than other news organizations.

That may be true of the site under Steve Bannon. It wasn’t the case under Andrew Breitbart. But that’s another story, which I’ll discuss more below.

Here are the details of Bannon’s Freudian slip:

According to the Guardian, Wolff has a book coming out in which Bannon, among other things, terms “treasonous” the meeting between Manafort/Kushner/Trump Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya. (Susan Wright posted about this here.) That’s amusing enough, but in this post I want to focus on what Bannon said about his own organization, Breitbart.com. Here’s the relevant passage from the Guardian:

The meeting was revealed by the New York Times in July last year, prompting Trump Jr to say no consequential material was produced. Soon after, Wolff writes, Bannon remarked mockingly: “The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers.

“Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”

Bannon went on, Wolff writes, to say that if any such meeting had to take place, it should have been set up “in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet with these people”. Any information, he said, could then be “dump[ed] … down to Breitbart or something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication”.

Bannon added: “You never see it, you never know it, because you don’t need to … But that’s the brain trust that they had.”

It’s painful for me to talk about what Breitbart.com has become, because I knew Andrew Breitbart and respected him. When I say “what Breitbart.com has become” I am not talking about its support for Trump; I don’t think for a moment that Andrew would have been anti-Trump. I’m talking about a basic level of honesty.

I’ve told the story before about how Steve Bannon once told his staffers to tell me to “f**k myself” — but it’s worth relating here again in some detail because it’s illustrative of what has happened to the site with Andrew gone:

Back in 2012, Breitbart.com ran a post designed to embarrass Bono from U2. The centerpiece of the post was a video in which ambush artist Jason Mattera confronted “Bono” with some questions about his financial dealings. “Bono” not only denied having anything to do with his own businesses, but even denied being the singer for U2!

Fun story. Just one problem: as Mattera later admitted, he had actually confronted a Bono impersonator, mistakenly thinking it was Bono.

Once it became obvious that the post was garbage, Breitbart.com took it down, with no explanatory note. New York Magazine later asked editor Joel Pollak about it, and Pollak said he could “neither confirm nor deny” that the post had been taken down due to a case of mistaken identity.

I wrote a post criticizing Breitbart.com’s lack of forthrightness in acknowledging their error. As I said:

Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone. But people carefully watch how you handle mistakes.

The right way to do it is to quickly, forthrightly, and thoroughly admit error — to move to correct the error, apologize, and explain how it happened.

The wrong way is to pretend it never happened, and to lawyer it up.

I’ve met and spoken with Joel Pollak, and he seems like a smart man, and I’m sure he has the best interests of Breitbart.com at heart. But this is not how you handle it when you make a mistake. You gotta say: hey, we screwed up. At matters stand now, the biggest mistake in this affair was made, not by Mattera or his editor, but by Pollak.

My criticism did not go over well with Steve Bannon, the executive chairman at Breitbart News. The next day, a Breitbart staffer told me this in a Google chat:

I was told by Bannon — with Larry listening — to tell you, from them
F**k you, go f**k yourself — you’re the enemy and a backstabber
And you’re dead to them
that’s a quote — and I was told to go tell you

(“Larry” is Larry Solov, the co-founder of Breitbart.com.)

So, to sum up, when Breitbart.com made an error, they first tried to pretend it hadn’t happened. Then, when called on it by an honest critic, Steve Bannon declared that critic the “enemy” and told him to go f**k himself.

I have bleeped out the curse words here. I later related the quote to Solov, whom I like, and he didn’t deny that Bannon had said it.

Bannon was upset at me, I suspect, because I was unfavorably comparing how they were handling the situation to the way I believed Andrew would have handled it. Andrew had died about three weeks earlier, and they were very sensitive to criticism that they were messing up the site that was his legacy. I think they felt I was being disloyal.

But my loyalty wasn’t to them. It was to Andrew and what he stood for. I knew in my bones that if Andrew had been at the helm when the site screwed up something like that, he would have acknowledged it openly and would have found a way to laugh at it. I wanted to send the folks at Breitbart a respectful but firm message: that if you screw up, you have to acknowledge it, flat out. And fix it. For the sake of Andrew’s legacy.

That’s how Andrew would have handled it. But it’s not how his site handled that error, or several other errors they have made since.

I hate to be critical of Breitbart.com. I used to write for them occasionally. Andrew once wanted me to be the editor of one of the “Big” sites (Big Journalism) that preceded their consolidation into Breitbart.com. (I couldn’t make the commitment because of my day job.) The site is his legacy, and as far as I know still supports his family.

Andrew would have supported Donald Trump. I believe that firmly. But he would have done so in an honest manner.

Instead, he left behind a site that is run by a guy who, in an unguarded moment, lets slip that he doesn’t really consider it “legitimate.”

And that is truly sad.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

188 Responses to “Steve Bannon: Yeah, Breitbart Is Not Really a Legitimate Organization”

  1. Lol saw this coming – didn’t have to wait long.

    Peter Alexander
    @PeterAlexander
    SIREN: “Steve Bannon was certain that after the (July 2016 Trump Tower) meeting, Trump, Jr. had taken the participants to see his father,” per excerpts from new Michael Wolff book, “Fire & Fury.”
    Trump has claimed he was unaware any meeting with Russians took place.”

    “Drew McCoy
    @_Drew_McCoy_
    Bannon didn’t join the campaign until mid-August of 2016.”

    harkin (8256c3)

  2. legitimate organizations, defined as those who give travel tours to iran, or who spend a year interrogating private citizens about their business transactions (usa today) who pretend pena nieto is not a corrupt hack, in part funded by the cartels

    narciso (d1f714)

  3. the fbi the organization that was running interference for the Clinton foundation, which did their best chief quimby act, every time there was a terrorist attack

    narciso (d1f714)

  4. there’s also the fact, that wolff, the failed tech guru, has misattributed quotes in the past, as in this instance with tom barracks, gabe Sherman’s fan faction

    narciso (d1f714)

  5. Any information, he said, could then be “dump[ed] … down to Breitbart or something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication”

    Let me channel sammy for a moment; I think it not outside the realm of possibility that Bannon was including his org as a “more legit pub”. think for a moment, if his statement was;

    Any information, he said, could then be “dump[ed] … down to [us} or something like that, or maybe some other [4ssh0les]”

    Would you really argue that that Steve was saying that “us” was not really “4ssh0les?” I think you would pounce on that and say he identified hisself.

    It all depends on how you view his grammar.

    felipe (5b25e2)

  6. And via WaPo, it was conservatives’ fault for the IRS stuff under Obama:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scandal-has-overwhelmed-the-irs/2017/12/29/9b80e022-e431-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html?utm_term=.680ce8b0298a

    TO GET something changed in Washington, take the front door: propose a law and get it passed by Congress and signed by the president. Or, take the side doors and back doors through the vast regulatory machinery and executive-branch agencies. All kinds of political forces and special interests have exploited this over the years. Now comes a new example: Conservatives who long sought to restrain the Internal Revenue Service have managed to throw a wrench into an IRS division that is supposed to regulate tax-exempt nonprofits and charities, just at a time when these groups are becoming more partisan and complex.

    In a Dec. 18 article in The Post, reporter Robert O’Harrow Jr. offered a disturbing picture of the besieged Exempt Organizations division of the IRS, which regulates charities and nonprofits such as those allowed under sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) of the tax code. The former may not directly or indirectly support a political candidate, but they are allowed to participate in educational debates about the issues; the latter are social-welfare groups that can be involved in politics only so long as it is not their primary activity. The number of applications from new charities has exploded in recent years, and the law is a bit of a gray zone — vaguely written and hard to enforce.

    There is more than enough blame to go around in this tale. The conservative groups, their allies in Congress and the IRS itself all bear responsibility. It is clear what the result will be. Voters will have less and less knowledge of who is paying for political activity in their democracy, even as many politicians hypocritically claim to favor transparency.

    BfC (5517e8)

  7. I’m old enough to remember when wolff painted w as fredo, in a long running series

    narciso (d1f714)

  8. so when you consider that the head of fusion gps was the boss, of now cnn contributor perez at the journal

    narciso (d1f714)

  9. I’ve never had much of a view on Bannon, as — like most people here I’m guessing — I never heard of the guy prior to him becoming involved with the Trump campaign.

    But as his public profile grew — and continues to grow — he’s exposed himself as a pretty shallow thinker and a one-trick pony.

    I’m a bit guarded about these reports about his comments — because I don’t have much faith in The Guardian as a news source, and I have less faith in Michael Wolff as a writer.

    But the fact that Bannon would choose to give anything to Wolff given his history of partisanship and dishonesty says as much about Bannon as anything he did with regard to Breitbart.com or Roy Moore. He simply has no principles beyond what he deems to be in Steve Bannon’s personal interest.

    I think he’s rapidly working himself out of any claim as a “leader” on the populist right.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  10. perplexed how even a harvardtrash drunk-ass like Mr. Bannon could ever think that calling in the corrupt FBI is ever a good idea

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  11. I’m a bit guarded about these reports about his comments

    the breitbart website’s not batting anything down Mr. shipwreck – they’re running with the guardian story full speed ahead

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  12. I have bleeped out the curse words here.

    Although your co-bloggers have frequently edited themselves in this manner, I don’t recall you doing this in the past. I’m guessing it is to make the piece publishable at RedState.

    It’s a shame. This common practice at so-called reputable sites seems so childish. Like a kid claiming that another said the f-word. Volokh cited this form of censorship at WaPo as the primary reason for his recent move over to Reason.

    Of course, it’s your prerogative to decide what serves you best in getting published as widely as possible, but I jut think it’s unfortunate that adults are choosing to restrict their own speech in this manner.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  13. Andrew would have supported Donald Trump. I believe that firmly.

    it makes me happy to hear you say this I don’t think you ever said this before

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  14. I don’t think the “more legitimate” remark was a “Freudian slip” by Bannon — just another example of accidentally telling the truth despite long-conditioned reflexes to the contrary.

    If you care to, I’d be interested to read a more thorough explanation for your confidence that Andrew Breitbart would have supported Trump. I assume that includes during the GOP primaries. Can you think of specific examples of other Trump supporters who have supported Trump in the honest way you think Andrew Brietbart would have, for purposes of comparison?

    Your past & current writings about Andrew Breitbart seem to me to display affection and at least some degree of admiration. Do you think that would have survived his being a Trump supporter, and if so, how so?

    These are personal questions beyond that which you’ve volunteered; neither I nor anyone else has a right to your answers, and I for one will take no offense whatsoever if you decline to answer.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  15. I just think it’s unfortunate that adults are choosing to restrict their own speech in this manner.

    oh my goodness Mr. Mous we can’t even say the “s” word here (slur*y)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  16. it’s out of character, with what bannon has said in the past, he had reservations about Russia, in the long term, but understood their focus on culture and immigration,

    narciso (d1f714)

  17. I watched and read a lot of Brietbart. He was very antagonistic to the establishment GOP, but I don’t think he would have supported Trump right out of the gate. I think he would have supported Cruz as a true conservative who was also outside the mainstream of the establishment GOP, but would have supported Trump once he became the nominee.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  18. another sign of a legitimate publication:

    https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/948615448265920512

    narciso (d1f714)

  19. =yawn= Surprise: Americans don’t want to be governed; they wish to be entertained.

    “[It was on an] April 22, 2011, appearance on Fox News, where Juan Williams asked Breitbart to analyze the politics of Trump, already considering a bid for president. “Is Donald Trump a conservative?” Williams asked. “Of course he is not a conservative,” Breitbart replied. “He was for Nancy Pelosi before he was against Nancy Pelosi. But this is a message to those candidates who are languishing at 2 percent and 3 percent within the Republican Party who are brand names in Washington, but the rest of the country don’t know. … celebrity is everything in this country. And if these guys don’t learn how to play the media the way that Barack Obama played the media last election cycle and the way that Donald Trump is playing the election cycle, we’re going to probably get a celebrity candidate.” -source, washingtonpost.com

    :-) Told ‘ya.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  20. yes, the right way to do it, is for the campaign to pay fusion to contract a british spy, who hired akmetshin to sort out assets like milan, that’s all kosher,

    narciso (d1f714)

  21. that’s so legit, you had to hide it through a shell, and pack like subprime debt through pigeons like corn and isikoff, so it could be included as an intelligence document,

    narciso (d1f714)

  22. because lord knows, we have everything else buttoned down,

    narciso (d1f714)

  23. Breitbart wasn’t all that honest.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  24. yeah that whole thing was tacky and opportunistic

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  25. but the later part where Mr. Breitbart went after her and her sleazy husband for how they swindled the USDA with Pigford was legit

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  26. The last white guys standing wing of the Dem party, particularly its Oyrish mid-atlantics like Biden and Piss-Leg Matthews are probably hoping that Bannon is in a mood to take his talents to their side. In the recent Vanity Fair article, he made some noises that seemed to presage reaching out to some of the Sanders bloc.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  27. You mean how Glenn beck handled it, like I say dealing with Wolff is as with trapped scorpions before they sting themselves

    narciso (21eb6d)

  28. @25

    No, he was wrong about that as well.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  29. Andrew would have supported Donald Trump. I believe that firmly. But he would have done so in an honest manner.

    Interesting. Think so? On ‘policy’ or the ‘celebrity’ element? See #19. Per his Fox News interview, AB clearly did not believe our Captain was a ‘conservative’ but was certain of the celebrity ingredient.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  30. Even if what this Wolff person wrote is “legitimate” (only maybe), what seems obvious to me about the more legitimate part (which doesn’t mean Breitbart isn’t legit) is he’s referring to a mainstream outlet with actual press credentials.

    I could be wrong, that’s just the way this reasonable person interprets the thing. Seems unreasonable to think he’s calling his own site illegitimate.

    TheBas (8d01aa)

  31. Legitimate organizations accept edited phone and audio transcript that earn the subject a,fatwa from the new black panthers

    narciso (21eb6d)

  32. Steve Bannon has apparently told author Michael Wolff that his site Breitbart.com is less “legitimate” than other news organizations.

    Sorta like Playboy is less ‘legitimate’ as a source for international policy discourse.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  33. Yes, because Breitbart, home of James O’Keefe, would never air a deceptively edited video.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  34. As to the ‘braintrust” thing, I see the situation being more a function of a steep learning curve for people coming from outside the D.C. establishment and being political novices, than a lack of brains. That comment (again, only maybe true) strikes me as being more rooted in spite than fact.

    TheBas (8d01aa)

  35. 32 — you didn’t read the articles?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  36. It is past time for the Mercers to fire Bannon. Let him go over to Infowars where he belongs.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  37. Icarus learned the hard way too.

    crazy (d99a88)

  38. The NYT and WaPo are enjoying this, you know. Concern trolls with major soapboxes.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  39. Yes, because Breitbart, home of James O’Keefe, would never air a deceptively edited video.

    All videos are edited. Are they “deceptively” edited? And if so, does O’Keefe do this more than, say, Morely Safer did on 60 Minutes? Or is CBS News phony journalism?

    It’s possible the answers above are all Yes.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  40. @13. Mr. Feet! “This is your Captain speaking; there’s been no domestic airline fatalities in the past 24 hours!”

    Another banner day logged in Trump’s USA!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  41. it’s so nice to be able to walk around in President Trump’s America and not have to worry about airplanes falling on top you head

    what do you wanna go back to how it was before

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  42. I’d say with the traffic Breitbart gets, their doing just fine. Having listened to Bannon for a couple years every morning most of you are clueless as to his insight of Brexit and his views of American greatness. And I love how Bannon describes Trump’s pompous kids. The people who are on Breitbart are with listening to. If you don’t think so your racist.

    mg (8cbc69)

  43. Breaking- CNN reports fire at Clinton NY home.

    Guess she still hasn’t learned how to bake cookies.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  44. @41. Mr Feet! It’s comforting for America and the world to know our Captain is at ease keeping things all up in the air.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  45. #43 Insurance scam.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  46. he’s like a wizard Mr. DCSCA

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  47. Wow — lots happening today.

    Just up now that Manafort has sued DOJ to invalidate Mueller appointment. As Andy McCarthy has written about extensively, this is not a frivilous claim. The appointment was made pursuant to a DOJ regulation creating “special counsels” — its not a creature created by statute, and if the appointment is not consistent with the regulation, or if the regulation itself is an unconstitutional delegation of executive authority, then Mueller’s investigation could be in jeopardy. It was filed in the DC Circuit — will be very interesting to see which Judge gets assigned. I’m sure there will be an effort made to obtain injunctive relief to preven Mueller from going forward until his authority is established.

    This also calls into question the guilty pleas of Papadopolous and FLynn.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  48. Apparently there’s no accounting for taste– or there’s Hope for us all: the real ‘breitbart news’ here is Lewandowski was Lily-Von-Stumping Hicks.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  49. @46. With a magic wand, Mr. Feet– size doesn’t matter.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  50. Very much so, shopwrecked, who actually signed off on the fisa did they abide by rule 13,

    narciso (21eb6d)

  51. A takedown — to the extent possible — of Wolff’s book is that Trump is an incompentent boob, but that Bannon was the competent genius strategist who arrived just in time at Campaign HQ to put Trump on track to victory.

    One on-the-record source is former Dep. Chief of Staff Katie Walsh. She came from the RNC with Priebus.
    I suspect the Priebus-Trump lunch last week or the week before might have been to give Trump a heads-up on what might be in Wolff’s book, as I suspect a lot of the sources for it are going to be former RNC folks that ended up getting canned in the first year — folks like Spicer who came along with Priebus.

    The fault line in the first six months was Bannon/Priebus v. Kushner, and Kushner is still there. Kelly had no use for Bannon after he took over.

    So this book is likely “revenge of the RNC and Bannon” v. the Trump family.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  52. Narciso — I have no idea what “Rule 13″ you are referring to. Please be more specific.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  53. Ah Walsh she was suspected of being a leaker re various confidential communications, but she was team top man,

    narciso (21eb6d)

  54. The,one where you have to admit any false evidence submitted to the courtm

    narciso (21eb6d)

  55. @51. NBC News reports the WH was generally aware of the book and its contents for weeks but not completely prepared for the excerpt leaks today– apparent NBC got an advanced copy. But it does fit w/t ‘tweet storm’ patterns which seem to flurry out to distract whenever bad news torpedoes in.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  56. *munches popcorn*

    Dave (445e97)

  57. Breaking- CNN reports fire at Clinton NY home.

    Oh, so the Clinton State Department and her campaign did save some printed hard-copy files after all?

    JVW (42615e)

  58. Manafort complaint sets up a VERY INTERESTING question — who defends the appointment of Mueller?

    Trump could direct DOJ to not defend against the complaint. He could leave it to Mueller to defend his own investigation — and deny him any resources beyond what he has now. He has several appellate specialists on his team now.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  59. 54 — Well, I’ve looked at the Crim Proc, Civ Pro, and Appellate Rules — none deal with the subject you are suggesting.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  60. Sorry those particular to fisa, not general , rule 17 refers to the form of the submission.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  61. Arkancide lightening strikes Chappaqua.

    mg (8cbc69)

  62. Old man Mercer already checked out, but his daughter is still riding dirty.

    mg (8cbc69)

  63. mg, you may insist that it’s not the fringe, but well, not sure how much that means.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  64. It’s probably those billing records and the Whitewater memos.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  65. Meanwhile the French are debating a new law criminalizing “fake news”.

    The odd thing is that with all the Clintonistas complaining about fake news, they point at nothing in particular. None of those Wikileaks, etc, were shown to be false, and if they could have been, they would have been.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  66. Kevin, I’m sure you agree I am a true deplorable.

    mg (8cbc69)

  67. @57. She just lost her cookies.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  68. Such perversions of pretzel logic you Whatabouts throughout.

    That is all..

    Carry on..

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  69. Is Alex Jones a bridge too far?

    Trump/Bannon/Jones make up the Holy Trinity for a truly complete cult of misfits. If it’s true that evil is the opposite of good then they are a good representation of the Biblical Wild Beast with complicit Evangelicals taking the role of the Harlot of Babylon.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  70. The Beast (Greek: Θηρίον, Thērion) may refer to one of two beasts described in the Book of Revelation. The first beast comes “out of the sea” and is given authority and power by the dragon. This first beast is initially mentioned in Revelation 11:7 as coming out of the abyss. His appearance is described in detail in Revelation 13:1-10, and some of the mystery behind his appearance is revealed in Revelation 17:7-18. The second beast comes “out of the earth” and directs all peoples of the earth to worship the first beast. The second beast is described in Revelation 13:11-18 and is also referred to as the false prophet. The two beasts are aligned with the dragon in opposition to God. They persecute the “saints” and those who do “not worship the image of the beast [of the sea]” and influence the kings of the earth to gather for the battle of Armageddon.[1] The two beasts are defeated by Christ and are thrown into the lake of fire mentioned in Revelation 19:18-20.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(Revelation)

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  71. It’s hard for me to imagine Steve Bannon using the phrase “more legitimate publication” without a massive and flamboyantly exaggerated set of air quotes around them. His distaste for the parameters of popular “legitimacy” is well-documented.

    I think he was probably being sarcastic, if he used this phrase. Something “lost” in the translation, perhaps – by an opportunistic sh*t-stirrer like Michael Wolff, who is only interested in selling as many copies of his book as possible.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  72. Isn’t weird how Patterico, Hot air, Red State, National Review, and the Weekly Standard hate Bannon and Breitbart much worse then the Left?

    Sorta like how they hated Roy Moore more than Doug Jones, and Trump more than Hillary.

    Yet, they’re “conservative”. Yep.

    rcocean (a72eb2)

  73. Manafort’s complaint is a joke and will be treated as such by the Court. It contains such laugh-out-loud allegations as the following:

    “Early in the process, Mr. Mueller’s investigation diverged from its focus on alleged collusion between the Russian government and President Trump’s campaign toward Mr. Manafort, who served as President Trump’s campaign manager for a few months in 2016.”

    Poor Mr. Manafort! Whatever could he have done to become the target of the mean ole special counsel? Whatever did he ever have to do with President Trump’s campaign, or Russians?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  74. stinkypig clinton is a HUGE colluder

    her and cowardpig war hero John McCain

    they should both be indicted!

    but don’t look for a sleazy fbi slutboy like robert mueller to apply the law equally

    that’s not how the fbi rolls

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  75. You can be “conservative” and not like creeps.

    nk (dbc370)

  76. btw it turns out the reason our alcoholic harvardtrash friend Mr. Bannon is saying all these nutty things is cause he literally lost his mind

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  77. “Here, arguably, was the central issue of the Trump presidency, informing every aspect of Trumpian policy and leadership: He didn’t process information in any conventional sense,” Wolff wrote. “He didn’t read. He didn’t really even skim. Some believed that for all practical purposes he was no more than semi-­literate.”

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  78. And Melania weeps still.

    As John McCormack at The Weekly Standard concluded, “partisanship has made the average Republican more pro-Trump than Steve Bannon.” What’s more, he has no one else to blame but himself. He fed this crocodile, really nurtured it long before Trump even entered politics.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  79. It doesn’t particular ring true, to bannons interests, as outlined in that vatican speech three years ago, or even the Hollywood reporter piece.

    narciso (d1f714)

  80. We reiterate ad-infinitum his idiocy and they triple-down on the schtoopit. Yet we labor on..

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  81. About his method

    https://newrepublic.com/article/67746/wolff-trapped

    Now barracks tells haberman he didn’t those things wolf said

    narciso (d1f714)

  82. @ rcocean, who wrote:

    Isn’t weird how Patterico, Hot air, Red State, National Review, and the Weekly Standard hate Bannon and Breitbart much worse then the Left?

    Sorta like how they hated Roy Moore more than Doug Jones, and Trump more than Hillary.

    Yet, they’re “conservative”. Yep.

    rcocean (a72eb2) — 1/3/2018 @ 4:15 pm

    I name you a liar. I defy you to quote and link a single occasion on which Patterico has expressed a preference for Hillary over Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  83. Now barracks tells haberman he didn’t those things wolf said

    That would be a resume builder for Wolff. Qualifying him as Editor-In-Chief of Breitbart.com.

    nk (dbc370)

  84. narciso (d1f714) — 1/3/2018 @ 4:35 pm

    I know, right? It’s like they aren’t the same man.

    felipe (023cc9)

  85. Is Bannon really nuts to backstab Trump like this? I mean, regardless of how I feel about Trump, he was the best thing that happened to Bannon. Made his name a household word. And now for Bannon to turn into a Judas?

    nk (dbc370)

  86. rcocean (a72eb2) — 1/3/2018 @ 4:15 pm

    It is obvious that you do not know our esteemed host. Fortunately, longtime readers have a keen knowledge, and, perhaps, understanding of the man who owns this site. He has no need to answer the like of you.

    felipe (023cc9)

  87. nk (dbc370) — 1/3/2018 @ 4:55 pm

    Free will, man. Free will – I am always amazed at how it is wielded.

    felipe (023cc9)

  88. Bannon is right about money-laundering being key…as I’ve always said.

    Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating 17 candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican party,” Trump said in the statement.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  89. 86 — Bannon is now all about Bannon, Inc., which begins with Breitbart.com.

    What do you think his book advance is going to be? He’s cultivating an audience for his inside-tell-all book on the left.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  90. A mind lost since birth is no mind at all, Donald.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  91. 89 — neither your nor Bannon could begin to property define what constitutes “money laundering.”

    He’s a close there with his comment as he is with his reference to “treason”.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  92. @86. Who shot J.R.????

    What a show.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  93. Nixon apologists…

    Oh teh treachery! Disloyalty!

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  94. narciso @54 This is Rule 13 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Rules of Procedure. Is this what you were referring to? Maybe Congressional investigators know or are closing in on the answer but as I don’t believe the government has ever released a FISA warrant request I doubt they’ll be forthcoming about what was in it or how shaky, if at all, some or all of it was.

    Rule 13. Correction of Misstatement or Omission; Disclosure of Non-Compliance.
    (a) Correction of Material Facts. If the government discovers that a submission to the Court contained a misstatement or omission of material fact, the government, in writing, must immediately inform the Judge to whom the submission was made of:
    (1) the misstatement or omission;
    (2) any necessary correction;
    (3) the facts and circumstances relevant to the misstatement or omission;
    (4) any modifications the government has made or proposes to make in how it will implement any authority or approval granted by the Court; and
    (5) how the government proposes to dispose of or treat any information obtained
    as a result of the misstatement or omission.
    (b) Disclosure of Non-Compliance. If the government discovers that any authority or approval granted by the Court has been implemented in a manner that did not comply with the Court’s authorization or approval or with applicable law, the government, in writing, must immediately inform the Judge to whom the submission was made of:
    (1) the non-compliance;
    (2) the facts and circumstances relevant to the non-compliance;
    (3) any modifications the government has made or proposes to make in how it will implement any authority or approval granted by the Court; and
    (4) how the government proposes to dispose of or treat any information obtained as a result of the non-compliance.

    Source: Rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

    crazy (d99a88)

  95. 92

    I think it was Potter Stewart who said I know obscenity when I see it

    Maybe your Community Standards are different.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  96. Has Trump started chewing on the Presidential Seal rug in the OA yet?

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  97. Yes those are the ones, so wolff has gone full susskind,

    narciso (d1f714)

  98. Yes, last year, somebody made a list of the types of Trump supporters. One was gold digger. People who saw that they could profit from latching on to Trump.

    nk (dbc370)

  99. During the Sudeten crisis the first signs of madness of the Führer were revealed. In those days, the mere mention of Beneš and the Czechs made him so livid he would lose his self-control completely. People have witnessed him throwing himself to the floor and chewing the carpet out of sheer anger. Those fits of madness gave him the nickname Teppichfresser (carpet-eater) among his enemies. I do not know whether he made a habit of chewing the carpets when he completely lost his temper, or whether the symptom disappeared after the Munich agreement.[*]

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/knowledgeguild.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/did-hitler-chew-the-carpets/amp/

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  100. I’ll ride with Bannon over anyone else in the stupid [republican] party.

    mg (8cbc69)

  101. What do you think his book advance is going to be?

    Thirty 1964 silver half dollars? (They’re the same weight and purity as the 1st century denari.)

    nk (dbc370)

  102. Clinton would be your president if Breitbart didn’t have Bannon.

    mg (8cbc69)

  103. Bannon doesn’t need money. He probably makes enough off of Seinfeld re-runs.

    mg (8cbc69)

  104. Frankly, I think it’s all misdirection and as usual, the dopey democrats fall hook, line and sinker. They’re all p!ssing themselves with glee meanwhile the other shoe prepares to fall on Hitlery and Obummer.

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  105. Have any of you Bannon haters ever listened to him on Breitbart?
    Didn’t think so.

    mg (8cbc69)

  106. Would Elizabeth II be our Queen if Washington had not had Benedict Arnold, you think?

    nk (dbc370)

  107. Merrick: (reading) “Sheriff Bullock would not confirm having met with representatives from the Montana territory to discuss their offer of annexation.” Is this true, Al?

    Al: (Gazing at the telegraph equipment) Did he confirm it to you?

    Merrick: I haven’t spoken to Bullock.

    Al: So, then I guess it ain’t confirmed.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  108. Trump/Bannon/Jones make up the Holy Trinity

    Well Ben/Sanders/Stalin make up the Unholy one. I mean, if we are going to lump people together despite the fact they hate each other, anything goes.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  109. I don’t this g he wee that influential, perhaps the battle of saratoga but otherwise. On another thread I linked an alt history where gen sun liren crushed the rebels in manchuria, hence no 1949 ouster, no aide to who chi Minh, and a whole host of dominoes.

    narciso (d1f714)

  110. @98. ‘Full Susskind.’

    Very nice chip out of the weeds. Well played, sir!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  111. @108. ‘In the end’ got Elton John all the same.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  112. 113/108 That’s a Barney Stinson joke- I’m impressed, Deece.

    urbanleftbehind (87ccb0)

  113. Mike Wolff is the American Pickers guy?

    What the heck does he got to write for a commie Brit paper?

    According to Reynolds Wolff writes President Trump didn’t really want to win. This whole thing he did for a goof. A candid camera bit.

    Beat the crap out of the Dems. Wasn’t even trying.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  114. It is referred here:

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/what-if-china-never-went-communist-hk-author-envisions-an-alternative-history_1832706.html

    I guess this is akin to if kerensky had unleashed kornilov on the Bolsheviks, reeds journalistic career might have been much shorter.

    narciso (d1f714)

  115. @116. Parlor games. What if Marina had just rolled over.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  116. Different fellow, hes kind a dweeb that runs newser.

    Getting back to real news operation cassandras targeted warlock (syidt) Ali fayyad, was not only connected to victor bout ‘lord of war’ but was an employee of the same Ukraine export branch that provided Kim’s boosters that don’t blow up as much (this info was missing from the indictment) but the times actually referred to some of this, in a piece that pretended not to know, the three card Monte involved.

    narciso (d1f714)

  117. 95 — there is a document out there in the blogosphere that appears to be the 90 day re-up on the Carter Page FISA application. Its not captioned, and it is heavily redacted so it is hard to know for sure. It is an order from the FISA court and it recounts in detail a disclsoure by the gov’t that an earlier order had been violated in terms of the minimization standards under Sec. 702. I did not read the whole thing — it was almost 100 pages long. I do not know if it went on to discuss misstatements of fact that might have been made in the earlier application.

    All identifying information about the subject(s) of the order is redacted so its a lot of boilerplate info about the FISA process and the obligations of the gov’t under the statute.

    Otehr than that, I haven’t seen anything along the lines of what you are suggesting.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  118. Bannon did not say Breitbart.com was not legitimate. His words could only be objectively interpreted as saying that there were other publications he considered “more legitimate”, whatever that means.

    dlm (a4eb00)

  119. Trump had better build the wall, flush daca and end chain migration. If not – GTFOH Donald.

    mg (8cbc69)

  120. sarcasm

    mg (8cbc69)

  121. Here is how fisa came about:

    https://t.co/R6oNwI088J

    Odd we deem to be back in the minaret and shamrock days

    narciso (d1f714)

  122. Bannon don’t bother me as much as Miller. Somebody is gonna play the opening couple of verses of this on a blue tooth speaker at his next public appearance, though.

    urbanleftbehind (87ccb0)

  123. Mr. Bannon truly doesn’t seem to understand how trashy he’s behaving, and to what little purpose

    poor man

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  124. pls to compare and contrast the below to gain a new appreciation of what a flagrant ass-maggot president obama was

    What’s Behind The Canadian Rig Count Crash

    Canada’s oil industry has been unable to build new pipelines to get the landlocked oil from Alberta to market. Alberta oil producers are essentially hostage to their buyers in the U.S., and with oil production now bumping up against a ceiling in terms of pipeline capacity, the glut is starting to weigh on WCS prices.

    […]

    And there are no serious pipeline capacity additions expected for about two years at the earliest. The three main proposals—Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Expansion; TransCanada’s Keystone XL; and Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement—all face legal questions and uncertain completion dates.

    New Pipeline Doubles Russian Crude Oil Supply To China

    Russia quietly doubled its crude oil export capacity to China in the new year when it launched a new pipeline, cementing its position as the number one supplier of crude to its Asian neighbor.

    The extension of the East Siberia-Pacific Ocean, or ESPO, oil pipeline between Russia and China started operating on January 1, doubling the export volumes from 15 to 30 million tons annually, or almost 220 million barrels, Xinhua reported. The agency noted that the extension, which was agreed in 2013, would serve China’s Belt and Road initiative for expanding China’s regional influence in Asia.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  125. Do you think it’s a trick? It’s a fair bet that this is going to boost Mr. President’s popularity. Even people who don’t like like him, like him more than Bannon.

    nk (dbc370)

  126. not so much a trick i think he might just have some omarosa penis envy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  127. It’s hard for me to imagine Steve Bannon using the phrase “more legitimate publication” without a massive and flamboyantly exaggerated set of air quotes around them. His distaste for the parameters of popular “legitimacy” is well-documented.

    This is a good opinion and may be right. I wish it had occurred to me this morning. It seems obvious now that I read it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  128. Late breaking news — on the last day given to the FBI and DOJ to produce info re the issues surrounding the Dossier to the House Intel Comm, DAG Rosenstein and FBI Dir. Wray ask for and get a meeting with House Speaker Ryan.

    Ryan has very shaky support as Speaker from the Freedom Caucus, and it is Freedom Caucus members on the House Intel Comm who are the most outspoken.

    Will be interesting to hear the leaks later.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  129. Yes the samizdat press, as I’ve dubbed it, as opposed to the rizzotto press (admittedly there is a comfluct because haberman, checkmates wolff, but that’s an intramural match)

    narciso (d1f714)

  130. and of course the skanky corrupt FBI failed to give the requested information to the intel committee

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  131. Its like cramming for a quiz pikachu, things get missed.

    narciso (d1f714)

  132. Its like they are not even there”

    https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-presses-justice-department-about-classification-comey-memos

    But like Harvey’s invisible six foot rabbit.

    narciso (d1f714)

  133. So question, how did main justice review manaforts matter in 2014, and found it lacking,

    narciso (d1f714)

  134. Worth a look i think:

    http:;/joshblackman.com/blog/2018/01/03/manafort-v-trump-the-wolf-that-didnt-bark

    narciso (d1f714)

  135. 125.Mr. Bannon truly doesn’t seem to understand how trashy he’s behaving…

    Or dressing, Mr. Feet. Clothes do maketh the man.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  136. this is why you should wear nice clothes like President Trump

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  137. When you dial down the ambient noise:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ThomasWictor/status/948749689880367104?p=v

    narciso (d1f714)

  138. Old man Mercer already checked out, but his daughter is still riding dirty.

    Not any more. She quite publicly dumped him today.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  139. Former White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon has reportedly lost the support of billionaire backer Rebekah Mercer after he suggested he might run for president himself.

    A person close to Mercer told The Washington Post that she no longer supports Bannon. According to the report, Mercer was frustrated with Bannon’s strategy in the Alabama Senate Race, and pulled her funding after he told other major conservative donors that Mercer would back Bannon in his own presidential bid.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/media/367367-bannon-loses-support-of-pro-trump-billionaire-backer-over-media-fights

    Kevin M (752a26)

  140. It doesn’t ring true, at all, and wolf has a record of being dodgy, but there s all manner of truth books on remainder tables.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  141. This is a good opinion and may be right. I wish it had occurred to me this morning. It seems obvious now that I read it.

    All you really have to do is substitute “mainstream” or “establishment” for “legitimate” and the quote makes perfect sense coming from Reichsfuhrer Bannon…

    Dave (445e97)


  142. Of course, she is a Socialist, so there’s that. She’s also an outspoken atheist, but that’s hardly worse than being a fake or dangerously heretical “Christian” (like, well, you know).

    But let’s cut to the chase: the ritzy Paris Hôtel de Ville (City Hall), obviously her turf, is now holding a free public exhibition (Dec 20-Feb 17) called “Che in Paris.” Apparently to drum up visitors, Hidalgo tweeted this on Dec 28:

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v6P41u1sYQo/Wk1X4Fgp5ZI/AAAAAAABn4o/pa6PuZ5Mp-UFZyZ5xyoT48amRo75vQ2zQCLcBGAs/s1600/103vsjn.png

    Rev.Hoagie (6bbda7)

  143. I mean if they don’t have the memos how do we there is classified info on them.

    narciso (21eb6d)

  144. And now for Bannon to turn into a Judas?

    Bannon no doubt sees it in exactly the same terms, but with the roles reversed.

    Neither one is a Judas, because neither one is a messiah. They’re just two evil men who’ve finally fallen out with each other.

    Dave (445e97)

  145. It’s not about anything, and hence it has nothing to do with bannon:

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/leon-panetta-obama-should-have-helped-2009-iran-protesters-thats-what-the-u-s-is-all-about/

    narciso (21eb6d)

  146. My vote for Leon Panetta for Congress in 1992 is one of the few times I’ve ever voted *for* someone rather than voting for the least bad available option.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  147. Off-topic, sort of:

    Handing Democrats another victory, Trump pulls the plug on incompetent “Election Fraud” commission

    Dave (445e97)

  148. Populists and evangelical populists thats trump/cruz voters make up two thirds of the republican party while conservative libertarians/ movement conservatives less then 20% with the business community, establishment and rinos the rest. except the 1% who are the neo-cons (who are crawling back to the democrat party) the populist/evangelical majority of republicans will not put up with a small group of rich doners and neo-con artists deciding what the republican party stands for. especially you conservative/libertarian free traders!

    new republican party (d28c41)

  149. the populist/evangelical majority of republicans will not put up with a small group of rich doners and neo-con artists deciding what the republican party stands for

    God forbid that the GOP is taken over by Fifth Avenue billionaires and Goldman-Sachs populists!

    Dave (445e97)

  150. We saw with Roy Moore that populists and evangelical populists are only good for giving safe GOP Senate seats to Democrats. When it’s time for alt.Walmart to stand up and be counted, they turn on their TV and pop open another beer.

    nk (dbc370)

  151. I argued all throughout the campaign that Sean Hannity, Drudge and Breitbart were in the tank for Donald Trump. Later, more Fox personalities and even Rush Limbaugh, to some extent, were pushing Trump. It was never really the fair fight that we thought it was. With the possible exception of Ted Cruz, the media that conservatives typically rely on for news were never going to give Trump’s competitors an even shake. Not even massive fundraising by Bush, Rubio, Cruz and others could counter it.

    I especially remember the Marco Rubio attacks picturing him shrunk to a tiny man in a big chair…. feeding Trump’s narrative. All of the headlines and online polls they produced promoting Trump. I recognize Trump’s populism played well with conservatives too but lets not pretend that conservative outlets were objective. They weren’t.

    noel (b4d580)

  152. Fascists hate Federalism when it conflicts with fascism.

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-sessions-legal-marijuana-policy-20180104-story,amp.html

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  153. Dave:

    Sessions is your man, dude!

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  154. poor sad Jeb didn’t get an even shake srsly?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  155. Conservatives have hitched their wagon to Trump, not Bannon. Steve will likely find out real soon how true that is. In days, he will be the enemy of eighty percent of Republicans.

    Except for his immediate circle, Trump eventually turns on everyone and they are escorted out. Fortunately for Donald, those still working for him always think they will be the exception.

    And Trump’s fans. They will always believe him over them.

    noel (b4d580)

  156. Is there any reason why blood sugar levels should not spike?

    nk (9651fb)

  157. 149, indeed, Aph..although he kind of came up at the same time as Mario Cuomo and was subject to same papist/mob violin playing I think of Dana Carveys old man Bush “Merry-O Ka-Woh-Mo” skit from early 92, the ones where a sleeping 11 year old portrayed Dan Quayle.

    150, Kobach had to go off and tame the prairie and wrest SW Kansas from having it’s own Univusion affiliate, cachet in boxing and lowrider club.

    urbanleftbehind (87ccb0)

  158. Bannon and Piss Matthews are closer than farther.

    urbanleftbehind (87ccb0)

  159. Unless you’re taking a blood test to check to see what they normally are?

    nk (9651fb)

  160. The only path for conservatives is a third Party. Even neverhumps will need chemotherapy.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  161. It’s no coincidence that 1/3 oppose medical marijuana. The ignorance bridges political IF.
    https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/357053-poll-64-percent-of-americans-support-legalizing-marijuana%3famp

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  162. Political ID..

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  163. Did Jeb get fair coverage from Breitbart, Drudge and Sean Hannity? No. He didn’t.

    Should he have done better on his zillion dollar budget. Yes.

    noel (b4d580)

  164. “The only path for conservatives is a third Party.” Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner

    That is spot on. Because Donald is not a conservative. He is a chameleon. A few years ago he was a liberal Dem. Right now, tax cuts and Obamacare repeal. Next year??

    noel (b4d580)

  165. Noel: he’s a Pillsbury dough boy. You have to roll him in flour to find his wet spot

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (421404)

  166. I can feel the “you’re banned” note coming now…but the excesses of pro-Trumpism on the Breitbart site are fully balanced by the equally excessive NeverTrumpism of this site…the difference being that Breitbart doesn’t pretend to be even-handed.

    Bill Saracino (ad0096)

  167. The question was asked.

    Hey who’s up for another round of Bush versus Clinton?

    The answer was a resounding universal [insert expletive] NO!!!

    Only congenitally challenged people (cursed with the name Clinton Bush or Gore) or Limey imports like John Oliver, wanted that to happen.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  168. @138.this is why you should wear nice clothes like President Trump

    Hong Kong suits, Malaysian shirts, French cufflinks, Vietnam shorts, Scottish socks, English belt & shoes, Trump Ties from mainland China, Mr. Feet! He’s a dapper Yankee Doodle Dandy, Mr. Feet; president of the world!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  169. ^ … and a Swiss watch, Mr. Feet!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  170. i think Jeb got the skeptical reception he deserved

    his family’s been a disaster for this country, so fairly or not it was up to him to make a case for why America would elevate another Bush klanster to the presidency

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  171. (he failed to make a case)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  172. @173. Bush bailed on his countrymen, Mr. Feet; began in a Tbf; ended w/lip services on taxes.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  173. Bill passed to finally open up ANWR and now offshore drilling. Energy independence here we come.

    NJRob (b00189)

  174. Energy independence here we come.

    Pffft.

    Where The U.S. Exports Oil And Petroleum Products

    Canada was the destination for nearly 61% of U.S. crude oil exports last year, but it is important to note that we import far more oil from Canada (~3.2 million BPD in 2016). Thus far in 2017, Canada’s share of U.S. exports has plunged to 34%, while China has jumped from a 3.7% share in 2016 to 20% through July of this year. – source, forbes.com, 10/5/2017

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  175. Imports are limited by pipeline capacity.

    We have to flush Obama all the way. Still got his turtle head peaking out of the toilet.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  176. In a massive wave of irony, Bannon — the tireless champion of America First and freeing hardworking white folk from the threat of unfair foreigners — has found a new backer.

    He’s Guo Wengui, who made his fortune in China by developing real estate amid a swamp of corrupt dealings. He tweets a LOT and sues people for libel. He claims to have accepted UAE nationality and renounced his Chinese citizenship, possibly due to him being wanted on corruption charges by Beijing.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/4/drudge-exposes-bannons-new-benefactor/

    So, Bannon is going to run for president backed by a corrupt Chinese developer. Stay tuned.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  177. @179. Mercer me!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  178. Nut job wants more chemical plants in NJ like Toms River Chems. Wash down those chicken nuggets with some acid rain dude.

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (b3d5ab)

  179. For a year or so Bannon told us that Bannon was the smartest guy in the world.

    In two days, he has apparently screwed the pooch so badly he may be done with whatever he inherited or built over the past several years.

    He attacked Trump in a scandalous way and gotten burned by Trump. He dissed his own organization, and hacked off his board so badly he may be ousted from Breitbart. Pretty much everybody now hates the man except for leftists who pretend to like him today but will hate him worse tomorrow.

    Was there an end game here or is the guy nuts and just falling apart before our eyes?

    WarEagle82 (2b3d34)

  180. Yes it doesn’t make sense, he could have pointed out how some of trumps policies have fallen short, instead he conjured up another juliannes bender, aka game change.

    narciso (d1f714)

  181. Bannon can still bring libel suit against Wolff. Dude made the whole thing up. Not one excerpt from his book leaked ahead of publication has survived corroboration.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if none of these pre-publication surrilousness make the final draft. Just a gimmick by the msm to avoid lawsuits while delivering the most outrageous slanders.

    You know, like Ben does.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  182. If you care to, I’d be interested to read a more thorough explanation for your confidence that Andrew Breitbart would have supported Trump. I assume that includes during the GOP primaries. Can you think of specific examples of other Trump supporters who have supported Trump in the honest way you think Andrew Brietbart would have, for purposes of comparison?

    Your past & current writings about Andrew Breitbart seem to me to display affection and at least some degree of admiration. Do you think that would have survived his being a Trump supporter, and if so, how so?

    These are personal questions beyond that which you’ve volunteered; neither I nor anyone else has a right to your answers, and I for one will take no offense whatsoever if you decline to answer.

    I’m always happy to accommodate a request from you, Beldar. I’m going to keep this relatively quick. This is long for a comment, of course, but I could say much more.

    I should start by saying I never felt like I was in Andrew’s inner circle, so other people knew him better than I did. I saw him about once a month and he would call me up every now and then, but I didn’t spend every day with him the way some did. What I offer here is a guess based on what I saw.

    I’m not sure whom Andrew would have supported in the primaries. Take a guy like John Nolte, who was indeed in Andrew’s inner circle and shares many characteristics with Andrew. Nolte is a staunch Trump supporter and a fierce critic of the NeverTrumpers, from the perspective of someone who is a blue-collar rural beer drinkin’ sort of fellow. (I hear Sarah Palin’s voice now: “right wingin’ bitter clingin’ PROUD clingers of our guns and our God and our religions!”) and who did Nolte support in the primaries?

    Marco Rubio.

    So yeah, I can’t tell you whom Andrew would have supported in the primaries. But I feel confident he would have been a staunch Trump supporter once he won the nomination.

    Why do I think that? It’s an intuition in part from just being around him, but it’s supported by some objective facts. Almost all his fellow travelers, the people he was close to — Nolte, Pollak, Larry O’Connor, Alex Marlow, Michael Walsh, James O’Keefe, Adam Baldwin, etc. are Trump supporters to one degree or another, mostly to a significant degree. Why would he be any different?

    What’s more, many of these people are different types of conservatives than I am. They are very very concerned with the cultural aspect of what we have thought of as “conservatism” — particular the part where we treat the left as the main enemy. This type of conservatism attracts a lot of people, and many commenters here subscribe to it. For these people, opposing the left is more important than other things I hold dear, like returning to the vision of the founders or opposing the debt at all costs or limiting the size of government as much as possible. Sure, there is overlap between these principles and “fighting the left” — but fighting the left is the key goal in their eyes. They would rather talk about the Frankfurt School or ACORN or the media or Alinsky or making the left sad than about limited government or the debt.

    Ben Shapiro is an example of someone who has been a Trump critic, and I think Ben and I are more similar in our political outlook.

    Would this have affected my relationship with Andrew had he lived? Maybe. He would probably see me as less of a fellow traveler and lose interest in me. Trump supporters like to call Trump critics “irrelevant” and treat us that way. That might have happened. I’m no longer as close as I was with, say, Ace (whom I would speak with on the phone and see occasionally) or John Nolte (with whom I would share direct messages about the media) or probably a host of others like them with whom I used to be acquainted.

    It is what it is.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  183. I have fewer friends because of Trump but I feel much closer to the ones I have.

    DRJ (15874d)

  184. Friends or acquaintances Drj?

    Close friends is a naturally small group

    Admiral Ben Bunsen Burner (b3d5ab)

  185. 179-Kevin M.
    I think Paul Ryan introduced Wengui to Sir Bannon as he donates to many rinos.

    mg (8cbc69)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5210 secs.