When was rage first announced

Nobody believes — even people who believe in him somehow believe in him without believing what he says. Trump represents millions of American — close to a majority — who are willing to forgo truth, facts, evidence, science, and reality in return for tax cuts, a conservative Supreme Court, exclusion of immigrants, repression of left-wing protests, rejection of demands to dismantle systemic racism, and the perpetuation of a dominant white male culture.

As long as they can get some or all of these things, they are willing to tolerate, overlook, and forgive anything Trump does or says. Trump himself has understood that from the day he announced his candidacy.

He thanked Tillerson for his service. Following a presidential briefing in late July , at which Coats and representatives of the FBI, CIA, and National Security Agency informed Trump that there was evidence that Russia had placed malware in the election registration system in at least two Florida counties, Trump told Coats to go public with the unclassified portions of the information.

On August 2, Coats and the intelligence chiefs did just that in the White House press briefing room. At the next intelligence briefing, Trump went into rage, chewing out Coats and others. In December in Ottawa, Mattis and the 13 defense ministers of the nations contributing troops in the fight against ISIS in Syria agreed to stay on the ground, support the Kurds, and force the conflict into the Geneva peace process.

On February 7, , Trump asked Coats to state publicly that there was no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russia. Coats refused, explaining that his job was intelligence-gathering, which had nothing to do with criminal investigations.

Coats met with Trump and presented his letter of resignation. Trump denied he had disparaged Coats, told him he was doing a good job, and talked him out of resigning.

Three months later, Coats continued to feel isolated from Trump. He called Mattis for guidance. Mattis admitted that since his resignation he had not spoken out. There may be a time when we have to take collective action. Neither did anything or said anything publicly about Trump. About an hour later, while Coats was playing golf, he was told his chief of staff needed to talk to him urgently and he learned that The New York Times was reporting that Trump had replaced Coats. But what do they say about these three men and the scores of other men and women who willingly enable Trump to carry out his plans and policies until they no longer serve his purpose and are discarded?

Woodward, a daily newspaper reporter at heart, moves from one story to the next, spending little or no time offering any incisive analysis of these enablers. Fortunately, others have. She specifically identifies James Mattis, pointing out that even after he resigned, he has failed to speak out in any notable way. She is not alone. Hare, a Canadian psychologist and professor emeritus of the University of British Columbia, known for his research in psychopathology.

The PCL-R evaluates individuals based on 20 personality traits using a scale of intensity of zero, one, or two, for each factor. Out of a maximum score of 40, anything above 30 is an indication of psychopathy.

Most of the factors appear to chillingly describe Trump: glib and superficial charm, grandiose estimation of self, need for stimulation, pathological lying, cunning and manipulativeness, lack of remorse or guilt, superficial emotional responsiveness, callousness and lack of empathy, parasitic lifestyle, poor behavioral controls, sexual promiscuity, early behavior problems, impulsivity, irresponsibility, failure to accept responsibility for own actions, and many short-term marital relationships.

Readers not bound by the Goldwater rule can rate Trump for themselves. It is both useful and revolting to see an accounting of the grim events unfolding week after week, month after month.

We are all living through this tragedy, but reading the detailed summary is still appalling. Woodward is at his best in fact-checking Trump in real time. Privately, Senator Lindsey Graham discussed the possibility of the deaths of 2. Woodward adds that. On March 31, the White House Coronavirus Task Force released new models predicting , to , deaths nationwide with mitigation measures like social distancing, and 1.

After one lengthy interview, Woodward writes,. I hung up, feeling distressed. To some observers, Woodward was doing just what journalistic book authors are supposed to do when he made that choice. Woodward was just taking full advantage of the format to give his readers the most accurate version of the story he possibly could.

Wemple adds that the track record of those reports makes him doubt that anything Woodward might have reported early would have had a major public health effect. Do those things move the needle? People are saying he should have done this back in March or April or whenever, and I respect that level of scrutiny. There are no hard-and-fast rules for how to decide what reporting should be saved for a book and what should be reported immediately, says Lynn Walsh, chair of the ethics committee for the Society of Professional Journalists.

She notes that accuracy should always come before speed, and a journalist should always make certain to do their due diligence and be sure they are correct on the facts. But once those issues are covered, as they apparently were for Woodward by May, other concerns enter the picture.

Woodward has said that he made Trump no promises about keeping their interviews under wraps until the book came out. Woodward has chosen in the past to immediately break stories he comes across while reporting a book. In , while reporting a book on the Obama White House, he obtained a page Pentagon report saying the US needed more troops in Afghanistan. For Kreizman, that gap is immensely dangerous. In book publishing, the burden of fact-checking falls to the author.

And because fact-checking is laborious and expensive, many of them decide to skip it. Woodward does appear to fact-check his work, and he has already published the tape to back up the most dramatic of the revelations he writes about in Rage. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of his reporting. But it also remains the case that there is nothing intrinsic to the process of publishing a book that would make Rage more reliable than a report that was published in a newspaper.

However, the past few years of book publishing would also have provided a case study in the weaknesses of book-length political reporting. The United States. And there is money in these books. They tend to sell and sell and sell. A Warning has sold more than , copies since it came out in November For most other publishing categories, 17, sales within two weeks is more than respectable. And all of these Trump books sold as well as they did in part because they were able to promise shocking revelations.

A Warning was supposed to be the unfiltered truth coming directly from one of those inner circle staff members. The United States was advertised as the book that would reveal the truth behind what really went down at that impeachment. The public at first greeted these tell-all books with all the glee of a white-hot media frenzy.

But as tell-all followed tell-all, a new question began to emerge. But there were still ethical questions about the book in plenty, because Fire and Fury does not appear to have been particularly well fact-checked.

Egyptian Siamese twins to arrive in Saudi Arabia for potential emergency surgery. King Salman approves granting Saudi citizenship to distinguished individuals. Israeli ambassador to UK flees London university event amid pro-Palestine protests. Before you go. Khota: The Giant Adam - Episode 2. Explore More. Enable Read mode.