Please stop what you are doing, because if you did not see Rachel Maddow's interview with Bob Woodward, you need to DO THAT, because Woodward has things to say to us. He's been writing about presidents going back to Nixon, but in his own words, his new book is different. This time it's a warning.

Maddow introduced the interview by breaking some more news from the book. For instance, this scene when Trump suddenly tweeted something about a secret Ukrainian influence campaign to help Hillary Clinton and hurt Trump -- you know, like the Opposite Day Ukrainian version of what Russia did and continues to do for Trump!

He did tweet that, on July 25, 2017, and he @'ed Sean Hannity in it.

Trouble is, it was Russian propaganda, and it had somehow ended up inside the president's small childish brain. And everybody on Trump's national security team knew it already!

Maddow reports that the very next line in the book was McMaster saying he wasn't sure how much longer he could stay working there in Fucking Crazy Land.

Dwell on that for a second. Trump literally tweets Russian propaganda, and even his own people in the White House know he's doing it, and they can't seem to stop him. (We guess "Anonymous" from the New York Times was off work that day.)

Maddow shared a couple more book excerpts, including a very enticing thing that suggests maybe Donald Trump was in on Michael Flynn's secret conversations about Russian sanctions with the Russian ambassador when they were happening (during the transition, before Flynn was hired and then fired supposedly for lying to Mike Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador), and then introduced Woodward.

The point Bob Woodward wants us to understand is that it's not that Donald Trump is a stupid dumb idiot who doesn't know things. A lot of people don't know things! It's that even now, almost two years into his failed presidency, Trump is completely unwilling or unable to learn new things, even when his own people present him with reality. Woodward is particularly horrified by a conversation we read in the first excerpts that leaked, where Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had to explain to a president who refused to understand that the reason we invest so much in a military presence on the Korean peninsula isn't just for shits and giggles, but rather to literally prevent World War 3. Mattis reportedly came out of that meeting "exasperated and alarmed" that the president is dumber than a fifth grader.

Maddow said that, "as a citizen," she's much more worried about a president that's "wrong in the head" than she is about one who's simply "wrong," and clarified that she wasn't just being a silly goose when she said that. Woodward responded:

WOODWARD: There's a scene in the book where he starts talking about the World Trade Organization. [...] And he said, "This is the worst organization in the world!" And the advisers who were experts say, "No!" And Trump says, "Well, we lose our cases there!" And they bring out the document. "No, we win 85.7 percent of the cases." [...] And Trump says, "No, that's not true!" And they say, "Bring in your trade representative. Call him. Ask him." Trump: "I won't do that! I don't want to!" He closes his mind to the information that makes it possible for the president to weigh arguments and data.

There's one point where he's literally saying, they're saying, "Where did you get these ideas?" "I've had them for 30 years!" That's it. "YOU'RE WRONG!" That's it. If you are the most ardent Trump supporter, that has got to give you pause that the White House and government are being managed this way.

In other words, when Wonkette uses this picture of Trump, we are being SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE, because it really, really is this bad.

And this is how everything is, says Woodward. Trump wakes up on the wrong side of the shitter and decides to do something. He's told by HIS OWN EXPERTS, no, please don't do that. He goes ahead and announces the thing anyway, and then the people in the White House are responsible for walking it back or covering it up or pretending it never happened.

Here's the full interview, which will be removed from YouTube five minutes from now:

We'll end this post with one more little tidbit Maddow shared from the book, of what happened when Donald Trump learned from his former Russia lawyer John Dowd (who seems to be a major source for this book) that his conversations with former White House Russia lawyer Ty Cobb weren't privileged the same way his conversations with Dowd were:

LOL sad! Bet Ty Cobb's been spending a lot of time in Robert Mueller's office like a common Don McGahn!

In summary and in conclusion, the president is a fucking moron, please put him in jail now.


Oh, and buy Bob Woodward's book if you wanna.

Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT NOW, DO IT RIGHT NOW!

Help Wonkette LIVE FOREVER! Seriously, if you can, please hit the nifty donation widget below! Didn't that feel so good?

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Evan Hurst

Evan Hurst is the senior editor of Wonkette, which means he is the boss of you, unless you are Rebecca, who is boss of him. His dog Lula is judging you right now.

Follow him on Twitter RIGHT HERE.

Donate with CC

OOH BOY HOWDY, The Federalist is on fire this week! Just this morning we told you about the hilarious Federalist column where one neo-Nazi's mom and dad are Democrats, ipso facto QED NEO-NAZIS ARE THE REAL LIBERALS, FUCKERS! Is America's dumbest woman whose name doesn't rhyme with Cara Snailin' over there being a total fuckin' Mollie Hemingway right now? Sadly, she blocked us on Twitter, so how could we possibly know? The answer is WE DON'T CARE.

But now we have a gem of the Federalist genre, an article written by a whiny-ass gay quisling conservative, who would like to chew on his blankie and whine about how much harder it is out there for a conservative than it is for a gay person. This is a subject we happen to have some knowledge about, because we are super gay! And we know a lot about conservatives, both firsthand -- being subjected to them every single one of our almost four decades of life -- and also from covering extremist right-wing Christians for a very long time. Particularly the kind that tell young, impressionable, vulnerable gay kids that they need to pray away the gay if they want Jesus to exercise some self control and refrain from sending them to a fiery hell for all eternity.

We clicked on the article with high hopes. See if you can spot why:

Keep reading... Show less
Donate with CC
pic via Glamour Shots, we mean this dude's old website

The House Education and Workforce Committee was all set to have a hearing today all about the horrors that a higher minimum wage would wreak on the economy. Horrors like rich people being slightly less rich. Horrors like business owners claiming they will have to fire people and charge $15 for a McChicken if forced to pay workers a living wage, which they won't actually do because no one will buy a $15 McChicken and they would go out of business if they tried that, and they already don't hire more people than the bare minimum they can get away with. Horrors like poor people not being "motivated" to work harder and get better jobs that do not pay them an amount no human being could possibly live on.

Alas, as Politico reports, it was not to be, as committee members discovered their big witness for the hearing, San Diego State University economist Joseph Sabia (pictured above in a Glamour Shot from his archived website), was kind of a wacko.

Sabia, as it turns out, once had a blog called "No Shades Of Gray," in which he wrote many columns of an extremely homophobic and sexist persuasion. In one of these columns, in 2002, Sabia was very mad about one man's lawsuit against several fast food giants for contributing to his health and obesity problems by failing to disclose the nutritional information of the food they sold. In retrospect, I think most people are now on board with these chains being required to post calorie counts and other nutritional information, but in 2002, Sabia was convinced that requiring them to do this would be an assault on freedom for all Americans everywhere. His response to this was to try and attempt a Jonathan Swift posture and suggest taxing gay sex, which he claimed leads to "disastrous health consequences."

Because sure, that's the same thing, basically.

In gay sex, we have an activity that is clearly leading to disastrous health consequences. What rational person would engage in this sort of activity? There is only one solution - let's tax it.

"Come on, Sabia," you say, "how are you going to enforce these taxes? Are you going to send government officials to peep into everyone's bedroom?"

Eventually. But first we have to mount the assault on Big Gay (no, I am not talking about Rosie O'Donnell). We can tax gay nightclubs, websites, personal ads, sexual paraphernalia, and so forth. Talk about a sin tax!!! We can cripple gay-related industries and get them right where we want them. All gay clubs will have to feature huge, flashing warning signs like "CAUTION: Entering this nightclub may increase your chance of contracting STDs and dying."

Big Gay clearly lures people into trying their "product" without discussing the risks to mind, body, and soul. The average Joe on the street does not understand all of the possible bad outcomes. I can almost hear him now:

"They said '100 percent hotties.' I thought that meant it was fun. I thought gay sex was OK…Now I have all these diseases. Big Gay has wrecked my life."

In the immoral words of Warren G, "Regulators!! Mount up!"


In another 2002 article, classily titled "College Girls: Unpaid Whores," Sabia laments that feminists have led college girls to stop trying to be like the Holy Virgin Mary and instead to aspire to be more like that hussy Ally McBeal.

No, really.

As women have strayed from the church, they have replaced what is holy with what is temporally pleasing. For Catholics, the model woman is Mary, the virgin Mother of God. She is beloved by the faithful for her unflappable devotion to and trust in God, her nurturing of the Son of Man, and her deep love for all humanity.

Today's college girl looks to Ally McBeal, the trollops of Sex in the City, and the floozies on Friends to set their moral compasses.

The sad truth is that college girls are so desperate to find love that they are willing to degrade themselves to get it. But true love can only be understood in the context of the Word of God. Any other notion of "love" is secular and, by definition, limited and finite.

Not only that, but instead of going to college to find a husband, they have boyfriends. Boyfriends they have S-E-X with. And sometimes, not even that. Sometimes they have sex with people just because they want to have sex with people, and not even in exchange for Valentine's Day cards or money!

Additionally, other sex-based relationships have become commonplace. In recent years, a new and disturbing arrangement known as "friends with benefits" has emerged. In this arrangement, men are not even forced to perform the normal duties of boyfriends, i.e. flowers, Valentine's Day cards, rides to the abortion clinic, etc. Instead, girls consider these guys "just friends" whom they happen to screw every now and again. No strings, no attachments, no dinners. Just sex when they feel like it.

This type of arrangement is the next logical step in the direction that young women have drifted in the last few decades. These women have become unpaid whores. At least prostitutes made a buck off of their trade. These women just give it away.

How cute! He was like the ur-incel, basically.

Anyway, following the discovery of the posts, the House Education and Workforce Committee's GOP communications director Kelley McNabb told Politico that "members were uncomfortable moving forward on the hearing." A more optimistic person might think this was a step forward, that maybe those committee members actually thought it was bad to suggest that being gay means being a disease-ridden monster or that college girls are whores, but it's probably more to avoid embarrassment than anything else. Guess they'll have to start from scratch and find a crappy economist who will tell them what they want to hear about the minimum wage but who doesn't have an embarrassing Geocities blog in their past. Good luck with that!


Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Donate with CC

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc