usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Is it that hard to say "no comment?"
What is wrong with Sara Sanders that, upon being asked a question for which she, the WH, Trump, etc. doesn't want to disclose details, she can't just say something to the effect of "no comment?"
The reality of life in political Washington, and especially in the WH and OEB, mid-level staffers talk. Some of the talk about things because they're told to. Some do it to lay a foundation for post-governmental career purposes. Some talk for social purposes -- social networking, developing rapport, etc. Others still do it for philosophical reasons. Whatever the reason(s), the fact remains people are talking, and for the most part, federal D.C.s "grapevine" is fairly reliable.
Of course, "grapevines" aren't unique to the federal government. Any sufficiently large enough organization has them. So, unless one lived under a rock or in a cave, so to speak, or is a flat-out misanthrope, one should know that and know how they work. They work pretty much the same way everywhere, though in D.C. the "grapevine" tends to be more about policy than about people, but the basic process is the same.
Despite her being "to the political manor born," Sanders, as WH Press Sec., comports herself as though she's not a social person, yet she grew up not around, in, politics, so one'd think she's super savvy to the "grapevine." Time and time again, however, she's been made a liar.
How does that happen? Is she not plugged-into the "grapevine?" She's the Press Sec., so she's definitely plugged into the official line. When she's not with Trump or her boss, does she wear earplugs and blinders?
To wit...
In any case, what's astounding is that Sanders apparently has no problem with going out there every day saying "whatever" and knowing she's going to be made a liar at some point. She should just say "no comment" and be done.
Notes:
What is wrong with Sara Sanders that, upon being asked a question for which she, the WH, Trump, etc. doesn't want to disclose details, she can't just say something to the effect of "no comment?"
The reality of life in political Washington, and especially in the WH and OEB, mid-level staffers talk. Some of the talk about things because they're told to. Some do it to lay a foundation for post-governmental career purposes. Some talk for social purposes -- social networking, developing rapport, etc. Others still do it for philosophical reasons. Whatever the reason(s), the fact remains people are talking, and for the most part, federal D.C.s "grapevine" is fairly reliable.
Of course, "grapevines" aren't unique to the federal government. Any sufficiently large enough organization has them. So, unless one lived under a rock or in a cave, so to speak, or is a flat-out misanthrope, one should know that and know how they work. They work pretty much the same way everywhere, though in D.C. the "grapevine" tends to be more about policy than about people, but the basic process is the same.
Despite her being "to the political manor born," Sanders, as WH Press Sec., comports herself as though she's not a social person, yet she grew up not around, in, politics, so one'd think she's super savvy to the "grapevine." Time and time again, however, she's been made a liar.
How does that happen? Is she not plugged-into the "grapevine?" She's the Press Sec., so she's definitely plugged into the official line. When she's not with Trump or her boss, does she wear earplugs and blinders?
To wit...
- March 15 -- "Just spoke to @POTUS and Gen. H.R. McMaster - contrary to reports they have a good working relationship and there are no changes at the NSC."
March 16 -- Sanders says rumors of McMaster's departure are not true.
March 23 -- McMaster leaves.
People for months have been saying McMasters' on his way out the WH door, mainly because of his views on Iran, which, quite frankly, given Trump's campaign rhetoric about Iran and given McMaster's dissertation/book -- oops, forgot, Trump doesn't read -- Lord only knows why he was installed in the first place. [1] Sanders had to know WH staffers were communicating that. From day-one of her being the Press Sec, would it have been so hard for her to say "no comment" with regard to top-level staffing changes? - Jan 23 -- "As chief of staff Kelly has said himself, as the president has stated, they both plan on being here for the long haul and doing it together."
John Kelly is another top level WH staffer who's been rumored to be on his way out. We'll see, now won't we...What's the "grapevine" saying?- Trump remarking on Kelly --> "I've got another nut job here who thinks he’s running things."
From what I can hear, the only reason Tillerson, McMaster and Kelly's tenure is as long as it was/is is that Trump can't find people who want to work for him. Trump's publicly said folks are "beating down the door" work in his WH, which, true to form for Trump, means the exact opposite.
In any case, what's astounding is that Sanders apparently has no problem with going out there every day saying "whatever" and knowing she's going to be made a liar at some point. She should just say "no comment" and be done.
Notes:
- What did Trump think McMaster, a three-star general, was going to do? Suddenly change his mindset about Iran merely because Trump -- the only "Know-Nothing" to ever be POTUS...who knew it'd take 120 years to happen? --
