Trump creates his own laugh tracks: brings stooges to CIA speech to applaud and chuckle

Of course Presidents try to manipulate their images, but really, do they have to generate “laugh tracks” like the canned chuckles that accompanied the t.v. shows of my youth? What Tr*mp did at his CIA speech the other day is equivalent to what the producers did to the talking horse “Mister Ed.” He brought his own laugh track: a bunch of flaks and stooges charged with making him look good.

Here’s Donald Tr*mp’s speech at the CIA, delivered while standing in front of a wall naming all the CIA agents killed in the line of duty. As I’ve pointed out before, there was applause and laughter where it shouldn’t have been—unless all the CIA employees are toadies or Trumpies. Now, as the evidence has come out bit by bit, we know that that laughter and applause was engineered by Tr*mp and his team. First, the speech, though you’ve probably heard it or heard about it:

And then the fallout. It started with a piece by author and comedian Sarah Cooper,  “This is psychological warfare“, in which she recounts tales of people who were there, asserting that the applause and laughs came from Trump stooges:


Cooper then quotes an article from Newsweek suggesting the existences of these plants:

But Trump’s seemingly warm reception might have been somewhat manufactured. The Washington Post’s longtime CIA watcher, Greg Miller, tweeted Saturday that the audience was “a self-selected bunch: CIA employees who signed up to come in on a Saturday to see the new POTUS. Mostly Trump voters.” A pool reporter selected to witness the closed event indicated “the cheering and clapping was not from the CIA staffers but people who accompanied Trump,” according to The Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler. He later clarified on Twitter that it was “unclear who the people on the side were. But the folks in the front apparently did not react until the end.”

Brennan deplored the rally-style event, according to his former deputy chief of staff Nick Shapiro. Brennan “is deeply saddened and angered at Donald Trump’s despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of CIA’s Memorial Wall of Agency heroes,” Shapiro said in a statement provided to Newsweek.  “Trump should be ashamed of himself.”

But now we have greater certainty, from CBS News as well as PoliticusUSAthat there was indeed a group of people brought by Trump to the CIA, a group whose job was to stand in the front and applaud the Dear Leader at appropriate times, as well as to laugh at his dimwitted humor.


Authorities [“US government sources”] are also pushing back against the perception that the CIA workforce was cheering for the president. They say the first three rows in front of the president were largely made up of supporters of Mr. Trump’s campaign.

An official with knowledge of the make-up of the crowd says that there were about 40 people who’d been invited by the Trump, Mike Pence and Rep. Mike Pompeo teams. The Trump team expected Rep. Pompeo, R-Kansas, to be sworn in during the event as the next CIA director, but the vote to confirm him was delayed on Friday by Senate  Democrats. Also sitting in the first several rows in front of the president was the CIA’s senior leadership, which was not cheering the remarks.

Officials acknowledge that Mr. Trump does have his supporters within the CIA workforce, many of whom were interspersed among the rank and file standing off to the president’s right.

The report adds that Trump’s stooges and his performance, standing in front of a wall of agents who’d sacrificed their lives, simply made the President’s relationship with the CIA worse than ever:

U.S. government sources tell CBS News that there is a sense of unease in the intelligence community after President Trump’s visit to CIA headquarters on Saturday.

An official said the visit “made relations with the intelligence community worse” and described the visit as “uncomfortable.”

At PoliticusUSA, Sarah Jones concludes:

While Trump supporters have used his Saturday visit to the CIA as proof that everyone who matters loves the new President, in reality his visit did more damage than good.

Trump needed to repair relations with the CIA after spending his time on the trail undermining the intelligence community, but instead he offended them in numerous ways to the degree that they are now confirming to the press that he brought his own cheering audience.

The real point here isn’t just that Donald Trump is very insecure, but more importantly that he tried to mislead the public into seeing the CIA as a partisan agency that wholly supported his very divisive campaign and now presidency. By doing that, Trump is working toward his larger goal of undermining the American voters’ trust in our government and media.

h/t: Matthew Cobb

View story at


  1. BobTerrace
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    A combination of a book and a movie:

    1984 comes to Idiocracy.

  2. Merilee
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Despicable! WEIT’s “lunacy” category is going to get very full very quickly.

  3. BJ
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    This is till only the first week of his presidency. I wonder how long this stuff can go on before nearly everyone but the most ardent supporters in both the government and citizenry despises him.

  4. eric
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    [Trump] tried to mislead the public into seeing the CIA as a partisan agency that wholly supported his very divisive campaign and now presidency.

    The thing that boggles my mind is that none of this was necessary to gain CIA support. He could’ve gone to the CIA on Monday, called an “all hands” in one of their larger meeting rooms, in front of a much bigger crowd, and it’s likely that he would’ve gotten support from most of the agency’s people anyway. He’s the President; they know their role is to provide him with good information. They would loyally do that. No laugh track needed. No public coverage needed. No standing in front of their wall needed.

    Instead, doing it the way he hid, he was basically using them as a backdrop for his own PR rather than talking to them. I fully agree with the original article; he made things worse with the IC, not better.

    • GBJames
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

      “His own PR” is all there is to President Smallhands.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

      Not that I like the CIA, but Trump was being really dumb if he thought he could get away with that in front of a CIA audience.

      Could you think of a better way to ensure that your little deception would be leaked to the press?


  5. GBJames
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:15 pm | Permalink


    • Posted January 23, 2017 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

      What does “sub” mean? I see it everywhere and there doesn’t seem to be a consensus.

      • Mark Reaume
        Posted January 23, 2017 at 6:38 pm | Permalink


        If you want to get email notifications for each comment but don’t have anything to say at the moment on the topic.

      • rickflick
        Posted January 23, 2017 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

        You also have to check the little box below the text window:

        Notify me of new comments via email

        • rickflick
          Posted January 23, 2017 at 8:23 pm | Permalink


  6. nickswearsky
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    I presume the State of the Union address will have a laugh track.

    • Mark Reaume
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

      I wonder if there will be an equivalent democratic Joe Wilson “You Lie!” event at the SOTU.

      • nickswearsky
        Posted January 24, 2017 at 7:54 am | Permalink

        I had the same thought.

      • Diane G.
        Posted January 25, 2017 at 1:24 am | Permalink

        I certainly hope not. I wouldn’t like to see Democrats sink to the same level of rudeness. (Not that I think either party has the corner on decency and manners.)

    • eric
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

      Those will be interesting, since the audience is basically already set – a joint session of Congress plus the Supremes, plus 24 invited guests, with a few Congressional members asked to not attend in case someone nukes the Capitol.

      Actually it will be interesting from two angles; whether Trump will try and do something to manipulate the size and composition of the audience, and whether the Congressional Dems will do something unprecedented (like not stand or not clap).

      Okay, now you’ve got me curious and looking forward to a State of the Union address. That’s annoying. 🙂

  7. nickswearsky
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    Dance! You monkeys, I said DANCE!

    • BobTerrace
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

      yes, massa, I gets right on dat.

  8. busterggi
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    There isn’t a mirror big enough to reflect the real Trump as far as he is concerned.

    • BobTerrace
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

      But the reality is that any mirror will do because the real T rump doesn’t exist – just smoke and mirrors and a YUGE narcissistic ego.

  9. DrBrydon
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    Ah, yes, the bally-ho boys. They come right after the yes-men when planning meetings.

  10. veroxitatis
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    This is tragic. I feel for all right thinking Americans.
    At 70 years of age I have seen many PMs and Presidents come and go. My interest in current affairs and politics is long standing. I was a Young Liberal (UK precursor to the Liberal Democrats) for a few years from the mid 60s. But earlier than that I recall appreciating the concerns of my parents as they and I listened to radio broadcasts about the Suez adventure in 1956. And for my own part, I recall the worry of the Missile Crisis in 1962 as we watched developments on TV. I disagreed with US policy in Vietnam and South East Asia and marched on the US Embassy in ’67. I was no fan of Thatcherism in the 80s. I often cringed in face of some utterances by Blair. I found Bush jun’s pseudo folksiness stomach churning. But I never felt that Johnson or the others mentioned were not serious politicians. Likewise for the whole lot from Eden to May and Eisenhower to Obama. I never felt that they were in it for themselves. I never felt that any of them were buffoons.
    But this is a whole new ball game. It is beyond belief that the US has come to this.

    • Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

      I believe it was Obama that said that while he had serious policy disagreements with McCain and Romney, he never thought they were unfit to serve. As awful as Shrub was, the man was overall honorable. Until this clown Trump.

      • eric
        Posted January 23, 2017 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

        Honorable? He dragged the entire country into war most likely just to kill one person, because that person tried to kill his dad. That’s not honorable. But yes I agree than in comparison to Trump, it’s looking like we’ll remember Bush II fondly.

    • somer
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 8:24 pm | Permalink


  11. Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    The State of the Union should be a real hoot. Wonder if anybody will yell out “You lie”. Of course, to be accurate that happen every thirty seconds.

    • Posted January 24, 2017 at 8:01 am | Permalink

      Drumpfenführer has Liarrhea.

  12. Posted January 23, 2017 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on Scotties Toy Box and commented:
    Great post. This clearly shows how insecure the new President is. This also shows he has every intention to lie to the American people. HE is willing to mislead, divide, and use the government agencies for his own advantage. Oh I have no doubt he will have an “Enemy’s List”. HE seems to have no trouble using the agencies of the government to go after his enemies. We need to support the press to keep up on his activities and to investigate him. Hugs

  13. Kevin
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    The Orange Chaos Monkey is just living his dream. I think someone needs to unplug him from the Matrix IV: The POTUS Reality Show.

  14. Roger
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    I couldn’t watch all of it because the speech was too stupid. What an incredibly stupid speech. What the hell were people thinking with this guy?

  15. Reginald Selkirk
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    We do not know who these people are.”

    Ah c’mon, you’re the CIA. Surely you can find out.

    • Sshort
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 5:28 pm | Permalink


    • eric
      Posted January 24, 2017 at 9:15 am | Permalink

      Perhaps half the crowd was thinking “we know who they are; the Russians. We told you that. You then very publicly threw us under the bus.”

  16. Ken Kukec
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    I’m trying hard not always to assume or expect the worst from Trump (despite his dismal past-performance charts). But no matter how low the expectation bar gets set, Le Grande Orange somehow manages to Limbo below it.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

      El Douche.

      • Merilee
        Posted January 23, 2017 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

        Trevor Noah did a song about Cheeto Benito a few days ago rhyming excuuuuuses with douches and Ted Cruuuuzes

      • Sshort
        Posted January 24, 2017 at 3:10 am | Permalink

        Ha! A hit, a veritable hit! Touché again!

  17. Posted January 23, 2017 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Drumpf is attempting to politicize the CIA.

    For his own self-preservation, this has to be the absolute stupidist thing he has ever done in his entire life.

    He might as well grab one of those exploding cigars meant for Castro, forcefully shove it up his own netherbits, and light ‘er up.

    I’ve been predicting a lot recently that Drumpf will rule America for the rest of his life.

    An actuarial will note that that’s unlikely to be for more than another decade or so.

    …but, since his coronation, he’s been doing everything conceivable to foment civil unrest at the fastest pace possible — unrest on a scale much more massive than the Rodney King riots, and of the same tenor as we most recently saw with the Arab Spring. Even more significant, that unrest is now, clearly, not going to exclude the parts of the executive branch that actually does the executing.

    On the one hand, that’s in no small part terrifying. Many people are going to have an awful lot of very bad days, to put it mildly. Nobody is going to be happy under martial law.

    On the other, it greatly diminishes Drumpf’s life expectancy and increases the chances that we’ll rebound with a sorely chastened Right and an again-thriving Republic. The then-Axis of WWII, now our dearest friends, had to suffer the devastation of WWII to get to the place of peace and prosperity they now enjoy. With luck, we’ll get over our Drumpf much quicker than their Hirohito, Mussolini, and Hitler — and with considerably less devastation and chaos.

    …I fervently hope…because the other too-depressingly likely alternative is that Drumpf is, instead, our Stalin….



    • Posted January 24, 2017 at 7:29 am | Permalink

      I think a chastened Right is a forlorn hope (as much as I’d like to see it to). The Right seems impervious to correction.

      Which is the basic tenet of “rightness”: I already have all the answers, stop bothering me with that data.

    • darrelle
      Posted January 24, 2017 at 7:36 am | Permalink

      One encouraging point is that Trump is a moron compared to Stalin. Well, compared to anyone. I don’t think he has the cognitive or emotional abilities to pull off anything remotely like what Stalin did. Unless others use him as a figure head.

      I can’t count the number of times I’ve read or listened to people over the past 12 months speculating how Trump might be some sort of genius. That all his comments and behavior were carefully calculated to win the White House and that once he won he would “veer to the center,” and or suddenly start doing sane intelligent things. I never saw it. I think those people were wishing, not trying to predict. I’ve always thought him to be a juvenile, narcissistic, immoral, moronic asshole with an impoverished vocabulary. Just as he has portrayed himself. I think his tenure so far is excellent support for my view.

      • Posted January 25, 2017 at 8:09 am | Permalink

        T-minus 1456 days, Drumpfenreich.

  18. tubby
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    In defense of the ‘self-selected’ CIA staff who came in, it’s better that they were allowed to choose whether or not to attend rather than a group be ordered to view Trump’s petting show.

  19. Ken Kukec
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    This is how public appearances work for a caudillo-style head-of-state. What he needs now is a Lavrentiy-Beria-like henchman to snuff the first fool to stop cheering, and a fancy, Napoleonic military uniform.

    Let’s hope our constitutional checks-and-balances hold the line on any attempt to impose a caudillo form of government.

    • Mark R.
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, like Trujillo, he might start naming mountains after himself, or the capital…Washington District of Trump.

      Comparing him to a caudillo-style head-of-state is a scary comparison, but not a hyperbolic one.

      • Mark R.
        Posted January 23, 2017 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

        I typed the closing tag…damn italics.

    • bric
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

      You mean like this?

    • bric
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

      And apparently this is a Thing

      • Diane G.
        Posted January 23, 2017 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

        Apparently so, and the FFRF is right on it:

        • darrelle
          Posted January 24, 2017 at 7:42 am | Permalink

          Well, Dan Barker certainly didn’t waste any words beating around the bush or trying to sugar coat anything. I love it.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted January 23, 2017 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

        What was that last vestige of a scoundrel again?

  20. Posted January 23, 2017 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    This was posted in the comments section of the Chicago Tribune (not by me).

    “Trumplethinskin will report the facts as he sees fit. Never mind what recorded statements and videos show as fact.

    Ringling may be closing, but this circus will air for 4 years”

    Trumplethinskin. I like that one.

  21. peter
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    This might be true, but the issue I have with this type of journalism is that it is all based on anonymous sources. How credible are these sources and do they have any ulterior motives making these statements

    The problem now is how can these reports be properly verified, especially since we have seen so much biased reporting lately on both sides of the spectrum.

    It is very difficult to discern the truth under these circumstances and therefore being objectively honesty means that we need rate this report plausible but unverified, even if we wished it to be true based on your own political position.

    • Posted January 23, 2017 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

      I believe that good newspapers and networks have ways of verifying these anonymous sources (I have been one); they don’t want their names revealed but they will often verify to a news organization privately that yes, they did give that information. I don’t think any reporter can simply report something as coming from an anonymous source without letting their superiors know who those sources were.

  22. bric
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    ‘Hiring people to applaud dramatic performances was common in classical times. For example, when the Emperor Nero acted, he had his performance greeted by an encomium chanted by five thousand of his soldiers.

    This inspired the 16th-century French poet Jean Daurat to develop the modern claque. Buying a number of tickets for a performance of one of his plays, he gave them away in return for a promise of applause. In 1820 claques underwent serious systematization when an agency in Paris opened to manage and supply claqueurs.

    By 1830 the claque had become an institution. The manager of a theatre or opera house was able to send an order for any number of claqueurs. These were usually under a chef de claque (leader of applause), who judged where the efforts of the claqueurs were needed and to initiate the demonstration of approval.’
    – Wikipedia

    so yet another sobriquet – President Claque

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

      People had professional mourners in Ancient Rome as well and you typically got all your clients (freed slaves, etc) to follow you around and laugh at your jokes, applaud you speeches etc.

      I’m told there are parts of the world where this is still a thing. I didn’t realize this included America.

      • bric
        Posted January 24, 2017 at 3:31 am | Permalink

        O tempora! O mores!

  23. Diane G.
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 5:18 pm | Permalink


  24. David Coxill
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    I remember reading about Stalin ,people were shit scared to be seen to be the first to stop clapping when he gave a speech ,so the applause was limited to 11 minutes .

    • bric
      Posted January 24, 2017 at 3:38 am | Permalink

      There is a story (in Shostakovich’s memoir) that Stalin heard Maria Yudina play Mozart’s Piano Concerto 23 on the radio, and told his staff he would like the recording. Rather than tell Stalin Ms Yudina had not actually recorded the piece she and an orchestra were taken to a studio and produced a single record overnight for the General Secretary.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted January 24, 2017 at 6:24 am | Permalink

        It would seem, then, that Stalin was not so uncultured as people commonly like to portray him…


        • Merilee
          Posted January 24, 2017 at 9:09 am | Permalink

          Wasn’t Stalin, in fact, a poet?

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted January 24, 2017 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

            Now I never knew that!


            • Merilee
              Posted January 25, 2017 at 10:16 am | Permalink

              from Wiki: Before he became a Bolshevik revolutionary and the leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin was a promising poet.

  25. Lars
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    I believe that Mr. Ed, in addition to bringing canned laughter to his performances, also lip-synched his dialogue.

    • Posted January 23, 2017 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

      Straight from the horse’s mouth!


    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted January 23, 2017 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

      And he never ever blamed his band for screw ups! That horse was a no “nay-sayer” 😹

      • Merilee
        Posted January 23, 2017 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

        Diana’s on a roll, neigh, gallop🐴🐾🐾🐾🐾

  26. Ken Kukec
    Posted January 23, 2017 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    To combine a couple signs seen at the Women’s March:

    Super-callous, fragile-ego, extra-braggadocious
    Even just the sound of Trump
    Is something quite atrocious.

    • Jonathan Wallace
      Posted January 24, 2017 at 4:13 am | Permalink


    • Posted January 24, 2017 at 7:09 am | Permalink

      Good one. That top line is my favorite from the marches.

    • eric
      Posted January 24, 2017 at 9:30 am | Permalink

      If you wear an orange toupe you’ll always look precocious,
      Super-callous, fragile-ego, extra-braggadocious!

      Un-diddle-little-little unlittle lies, un-diddle-little-little unlittle lies…


  27. aljones909
    Posted January 24, 2017 at 5:08 am | Permalink

    Laughter tracks – surely one of the great crimes against humanity. Every inane utterance greeted with guffaws of laughter. When the BBC showed the original “MASH” TV series there was no laughter track. A great show. I recently saw an episode on a satellite channel. Ruined by fake laughter.

  28. Posted January 24, 2017 at 6:58 am | Permalink

    New meme. My one yesterday missed the mark.

    Der Drupfenführer has Liarrhea!

    Pass it on.

  29. Posted January 24, 2017 at 7:16 am | Permalink


    I heard Sean Spicer’s comments from yesterday on NPR this morning.

    He’s whining about der Drumpfenführer’s hurt feelings as the excuse for his Liarrhea! These guys are pathetic bumpkins!

    And this comment from Spicer is priceless: “I have never lied,” Spicer said, adding, “If you lose the respect and trust of the press corps you’ve got nothing.”

    Well, Seany-boy, I guess you got bupkis!

  30. DaveP
    Posted January 24, 2017 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    One minor comment – I don’t think there are any names on that wall, but each star represents a CIA agent that died in the line of duty protecting the USA, many of whose names are still secret. The total lack of reverence or respect to bring in a “laugh track” of supporters while he stands there and harangues the press is appalling to me. What’s next – Standing on the tomb of the unknowns at Arlington?

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted January 24, 2017 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

      Yes, all the while complaining about how the press doesn’t respect his views on history.

  31. Mike
    Posted January 24, 2017 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Next we’ll be hearing about the Holes in One ,and the fact he doesn’t defecate and he was born of a Virgin, etc etc etc

  32. peepuk
    Posted January 24, 2017 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    He’s is trying to trump Putin.

  33. Posted January 24, 2017 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Who was the “Mike” he was talking to on his right? He was never pictured or identified that I know and was in the wings or something. Pompeo? Or someone else?

  34. Robert Bate
    Posted January 24, 2017 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    I like the term “Chuckle Stooges”

  35. JohnnieCanuck
    Posted January 24, 2017 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    Having just read Andrew Coyne’s column for the National Post Taking Lies to a Whole New Level, I came to a new realisation about the way Trump followers seem to swallow his lies whole.

    In the article he provides an interesting quote.

    There may be other purposes to be achieved. As Garry Kasparov, the Russian chess master and dissident, has observed, “obvious lies serve a purpose for an administration. They watch who challenges them and who loyally repeats them.”

    They are a way of testing allegiance, or indeed of cementing it: having crossed the line that just weeks before, in a public forum, he had vowed never to cross, Spicer is now wholly Trump’s boy. Whatever qualms he might once have held about such conduct, he cannot raise them now, even to himself, without confronting his own hypocrisy.

    That’s when it occurred to me that this is like a religious sect’s credo. As a sign of your commitment to the group, you must accept and also declare your belief in several impossible things. Virgin births, resurrections, purple elephants and intergalactic DC-8s are all signs of a True Believer.

    Trump is taking a page out of religions’ playbooks. He may or may not be intellectual, but he is cunning.

  36. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted January 24, 2017 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Which religion does the purple elephants?

    I’ll have what they’re smoking!


    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted January 24, 2017 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

      … that was a reply to Johnnie Canuck of course…

      I hate WordPress!


  37. Posted January 24, 2017 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    I haven’t the time to read through all the comments on this and previous comnent sections on Alternative Facts, but please note that Spicer has revealed himself again. In Monday’s press conference, he cited the enthusiastic applause of CIA staff at the meeting with Trump. Surely he must have known that Trump had brought his own cheering section. He also attempted to reframe the attendance estimates for the inauguration by including online views. One reporter challenged him by citing the record Reagan held, and Spicer said that there was no Youtube and internet around then. Surely he knows that there have been these things when Obama was first inaugurated. It’s very disturbing because there is no commitment to telling the truth.

%d bloggers like this: