"There were so many others I could have appointed, and everyone wanted me to"

Michael Wolff on President Trump and Justice Kavanaugh.

|

Business Insider has published an excerpt from Michael Wolff's forthcoming book, Landslide: The Final Days of the Trump Presidency. Apparently, President Trump was unhappy that none of his Justices ruled in his favor in the election litigation. And, he was especially upset at Justice Kavanaugh:

"There were so many others I could have appointed, and everyone wanted me to," Trump said at the time, according to Wolff's book "Landslide: The Final Days of the Trump Presidency."

Yes, there were so many others. Indeed, there were two lists that didn't even include Kavanaugh's name!

Wolff goes on:

"Where would he be without me?" Trump said, according to the book. "I saved his life. He wouldn't even be in a law firm. Who would have had him? Nobody. Totally disgraced. Only I saved him."

I'm still curious what Justice Kennedy tried to tell President Trump at the White House.

NEXT: Some Potentially Racially Offensive Terms Can't Be Trademarked—Because They're Too Common, Not Because They're Racially Offensive

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Kavanaugh, an Ivy indoctrinated scumbag lawyer, even grew up inside the Beltway. None of those people are even human beings, let alone loyal.

    1. Kavanaugh is loyal to George Wu Bush and the Bush family.

  2. I’m pretty sure where Kav would be without Trump is on the DC Circuit and be fairly anonymous so that he wouldn’t have had those allegations even come out let alone them being such a national story.

    How did you save his life again?

    1. George Wu Bush saved Kavanaugh—he called Collins personally and urged her to support him. ACB and Roberts and Kavanaugh are Bush loyalists and their goal is to make sure George P Bush becomes president one day.

    2. Are you actually trying to refute the words that come out of Donald Trump’s mouth with facts?

      That’s like trying to use the sound barrier to refute Santa Claus.

      Or mammalian reproductive physiology to refute the Easter Bunny.

    3. I think the idea is that after he was nominated and then skewered, Trump could have just dumped his nomination, he probably would be assumed guilty and pressured to resign, never getting another good job again. Trump is likely referring to his continued support as “saving” Kav., rather than abandoning him midstream, which was entirely within his prerogative.

      1. Except that he had a lifetime appointment, and no reason at all to resign from it.

      2. Right. Many were calling for him to drop the nomination and choose someone else.

  3. I consider most of these Trump “insider” books to be 99% fiction. Don’t believe a single word published and why should we given the track record of his critics?

  4. Who has the better track record for accuracy, Trump’s critics or Trump?

    1. (That was directed to Jimmy. Why it didn’t nest I have no idea.)

    2. In terms of anonymous accusations? I’d say Trump is doing pretty good there. I’ve yet to recall any of these anonymously sourced ‘news’ accounts actually proven.

      1. Come on, Brett. I lost count how many times Trump himself did a doubling down confessional 180, throwing his defenders under the bus.

        1. Yep. There was always the two step:

          Trump: X.
          Trump’s critics: Oh my god; he said X. He’s awful.
          Trumpkins: He never said X.
          Trump’s critics: I mean, he did; it’s on video.
          Trumpkins: Okay, he said X, but you’re taking him too seriously and literally. He didn’t mean it.
          Trump: Actually, I meant every word of it.

    3. Seems most Trump critics who are later “fact checked” are either proven false or just plain old inconclusive. I’m trying to think of one instance where an “insider” account was at least 50% accurate.

      People always accused Trump or lying, but those were same people who were doing most of the lying.

      1. Remember when Adam Schiff was telling the public that US intelligence was telling Congress about the proof of Trump’s Russian collusion in secure briefings? And figures in the intelligence community like Clapper were agreeing with him?

        And when the hearings were declassified, it turned out to be total bullshit?

        Yeah, Trump is not obsessively honest, to put things mildly. He’s hardly an outlier in Washington, in that regard. And, in particular, his enemies have a pretty big honesty problem, too.

        1. The Wall Street editorial that Brett links to cites a few statements by Adam Schiff. One of these was made on CNN on Dec. 10, 2017; I’ve reproduced it below. The editorial then asserts that, “None of this was true, and Mr. Schiff knew it.” You might expect this assertion to be backed up by evidence. Instead the editorial quotes bits of testimony by people who had worked in the Obama Administration talking about what they knew at the time. That doesn’t tell us what Adam Schiff knew a year later. Shiff makes a series of factual claims in the passage quoted below, and the editorial doesn’t provide a shred of evidence that a single one of them is wrong.

          Brett claims that Trump is not alone in his dishonesty, and his link does actually support that claim. It provides evidence that the WSJ editorial board, like Trump, is dishonest.

          ———————————

          I think you have to look at the pattern and the chronology.

          You have, in late April, the Russians approaching the Trump campaign and saying, we have stolen Hillary Clinton e-mails. You have only weeks later the Russians making another approach to the campaign, this time at the highest levels, offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. The campaign was already on notice that they have e-mails.

          You then have the message going back from the campaign to the Russians, basically, we would love to have your help, we would love to play ball, but we are really disappointed in what you gave us.

          And only days later, Julian Assange announces he’s received stolen e-mails, which we know now came from the Russians. And the Russians themselves start publishing the e-mails through these cut-outs.

          You then have Trump Jr. in private, secret communication with WikiLeaks.

          So, we have all these facts in chronology. [To believe that all this was innocent,] you would have to be believe that these were all isolated incidents, not connected to each other. It just doesn’t make rational sense.

          Now, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt will be Mueller’s question to answer.

          Did the Russians communicate to the campaign that the way they were going to deliver the help they offered, and that the campaign accepted, was not by handing the e-mails directly over to the campaign, but by publishing them?

          That will be up to Mueller, and we continue to try to fill in all of the missing pieces. But we do know this. The Russians offered help. The campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help. And the president made full use of that help.

          And that’s pretty damming, whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not.

    4. “Who has the better track record for accuracy, Trump’s critics or Trump?”

      Very little accuracy to be found there.

    5. Hint: it is not the Orange Clown

  5. I’m with Jimmy: Absent time stamped recordings or on the record, under oath testimony by people known to be there, I’m going to treat this as the work of fiction it likely is.

    1. Pointers on evidentiary standards from birthers, QAnoners, Trump followers, and ‘stolen election’ nuts — always a treat.

    2. Kavanaugh and ACB stabbed Trump in the back after they helped George Wu Bush steal an election and lie us into the dumbest war in history.

      1. W did not steal the election. Gore lost fair and square because he lost his home state

        1. Sort of like Trump did?

    3. Yeah, because these quotes are SOOOO out of character for Trump, right?

      It isn’t fiction just because it makes your hero look like the transactional dipshit he is.

      1. Yeah, because these quotes are SOOOO out of character for Trump, right?
        How have you determined President Trumps Character?
        Read and listen to everything the propaganda purveyors put into the public sphere?
        Admit it, very few know President Trump well enough to pass such a broad judgement. President Trump has conducted him self in exemplary fashion in the White House.

        1. So what do you think about Biden’s Character? Harris’? Obama’s?

          Indeed, I seem to recall from past posting you think liberals in general have a character problem.

          IOW, no special pleading, dude.

          1. Sarcasto, reduced to what-aboutism.
            My post is clear. What is used to make the judgement? Depending on a media that has devolved into the Democrat Party propaganda arm, leads to all sorts of subtle attitudinal shifts. Declaring a person with different political agenda just on of those shifts.

            1. Yeah, my issue is not with the public’s ability to truly understand Trump’s character. The ridiculousness of that argument goes without saying, IMO.

              It is not whattaboutism to point out double standards within a particular posters’ posting. I don’t know if you’ve fooled yourself or are in bad faith, but either way it would behoove you to deconflict your defense of Trump with you condemnation of Democrats you also don’t know.

    4. Anytime you say “I’m with Jimmy” you should immediately recognize that you’re clearly wrong.

      1. Or it is an excellent slogan. I’ve already started printing t-shirts. Let me know if anyone is interested.

  6. Of the long list of ways in which Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his utter unfitness for the presidency, his willingness to literally tear the country apart for his own personal aggrandizement has to be at the top. If he actually cared about the country, he would see the harm he’s doing and stop. But no, all he cares about is himself.

    1. If he could literally tear the country apart I’m not sure why the media was so obsessed with his tiny hands.

      1. He was willing to do so. He was powerless to do so.

  7. Another example of why the Orange Clown is pathetic and a cancer on US politics

  8. Kavanaugh was a poor choice, but after what the Democrats tried to do, no way could we let them get away with it.

    Bastards

    1. Are the Democrats bastards because they gave Christine Blasey Ford a platform to lie, or did you conclude she lied because you were already certain the Democrats are bastards?

Please to post comments