Madeleine Westerhout - What's the deal?

[Anonymous]

How do we even know the statements attributed to her are legit? Couldn’t a reporter simply claim she (or anyone) had said anything? Was it recorded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read one small blurb that I can't find now about how she was trying to expand her role in the WH which annoyed the more experienced staff. So no one is really sorry to see her go. The WPo Reporter who leaked is in some serious doo-doo though methinks

Methinks you’re a moron. The reporter is just fine.

Methinks you probably have ethical standards in line with those of the reporter.

This administration has no ethics so what's your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read one small blurb that I can't find now about how she was trying to expand her role in the WH which annoyed the more experienced staff. So no one is really sorry to see her go. The WPo Reporter who leaked is in some serious doo-doo though methinks

Methinks you’re a moron. The reporter is just fine.

Methinks you probably have ethical standards in line with those of the reporter.

This administration has no ethics so what's your point?

If you're the PP calling people morons and defending sleazy reporter tactics (quoting gossipy info shared by a young woman who'd been drinking) as "journalism," then your ethical standards for journalists are noted. Trump's ethics or lack of them are well documented on DCUM threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read one small blurb that I can't find now about how she was trying to expand her role in the WH which annoyed the more experienced staff. So no one is really sorry to see her go. The WPo Reporter who leaked is in some serious doo-doo though methinks

Methinks you’re a moron. The reporter is just fine.

Methinks you probably have ethical standards in line with those of the reporter.

This administration has no ethics so what's your point?

If you're the PP calling people morons and defending sleazy reporter tactics (quoting gossipy info shared by a young woman who'd been drinking) as "journalism," then your ethical standards for journalists are noted. Trump's ethics or lack of them are well documented on DCUM threads.

that "young woman" had one of the most important jobs in the wh. you have to trust people who work at that level to have good judgment and discretion - and she had neither. but sure it's reporters' jobs to protect "young women" from blabbing their mouths off to journalists.

only the best people!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read one small blurb that I can't find now about how she was trying to expand her role in the WH which annoyed the more experienced staff. So no one is really sorry to see her go. The WPo Reporter who leaked is in some serious doo-doo though methinks

Methinks you’re a moron. The reporter is just fine.

Methinks you probably have ethical standards in line with those of the reporter.

This administration has no ethics so what's your point?

If you're the PP calling people morons and defending sleazy reporter tactics (quoting gossipy info shared by a young woman who'd been drinking) as "journalism," then your ethical standards for journalists are noted. Trump's ethics or lack of them are well documented on DCUM threads.

that "young woman" had one of the most important jobs in the wh. you have to trust people who work at that level to have good judgment and discretion - and she had neither. but sure it's reporters' jobs to protect "young women" from blabbing their mouths off to journalists.

only the best people!

I agree. She didn't have good judgment and discretion. Couldn't agree more. Not right for that position. Still shows the "journalist" to be a sleaze.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read one small blurb that I can't find now about how she was trying to expand her role in the WH which annoyed the more experienced staff. So no one is really sorry to see her go. The WPo Reporter who leaked is in some serious doo-doo though methinks

Methinks you’re a moron. The reporter is just fine.

Methinks you probably have ethical standards in line with those of the reporter.

This administration has no ethics so what's your point?

If you're the PP calling people morons and defending sleazy reporter tactics (quoting gossipy info shared by a young woman who'd been drinking) as "journalism," then your ethical standards for journalists are noted. Trump's ethics or lack of them are well documented on DCUM threads.

that "young woman" had one of the most important jobs in the wh. you have to trust people who work at that level to have good judgment and discretion - and she had neither. but sure it's reporters' jobs to protect "young women" from blabbing their mouths off to journalists.

only the best people!

I agree. She didn't have good judgment and discretion. Couldn't agree more. Not right for that position. Still shows the "journalist" to be a sleaze.

disagree about the journalist being a sleaze. trump shouldn't be protected from people knowing about the vile things he says, when he hires people without discretion or good judgment to keep his secrets.

i do feel badly for tiffany - or i would, if she hadn't gone on that family trip to the uk - but that's a different thread.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't attribute the WaPo journalist as a sleaze, nor any of the other journalists who were present during this incident. I rely on these journalists to report on this type of behavior considering that this woman had a critical role within the WH. This lack of judgement by her is what we need to be aware of as a voting and engaged citizen who wants accountability from our government and elected officials.

[Anonymous]

She was earning $145k of taxpayer money to do this job

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49527707

[Anonymous]

Did any of the journalists who were at the dinner with Westerhout actually report what she told them? I can’t find anything except what came out after she was fired. I also don’t see any of the things that she said about Barron printed anywhere? Does anyone have links?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read one small blurb that I can't find now about how she was trying to expand her role in the WH which annoyed the more experienced staff. So no one is really sorry to see her go. The WPo Reporter who leaked is in some serious doo-doo though methinks

Methinks you’re a moron. The reporter is just fine.

Methinks you probably have ethical standards in line with those of the reporter.

This administration has no ethics so what's your point?

If you're the PP calling people morons and defending sleazy reporter tactics (quoting gossipy info shared by a young woman who'd been drinking) as "journalism," then your ethical standards for journalists are noted. Trump's ethics or lack of them are well documented on DCUM threads.

that "young woman" had one of the most important jobs in the wh. you have to trust people who work at that level to have good judgment and discretion - and she had neither. but sure it's reporters' jobs to protect "young women" from blabbing their mouths off to journalists.

only the best people!

I agree. She didn't have good judgment and discretion. Couldn't agree more. Not right for that position. Still shows the "journalist" to be a sleaze.

disagree about the journalist being a sleaze. trump shouldn't be protected from people knowing about the vile things he says, when he hires people without discretion or good judgment to keep his secrets.

i do feel badly for tiffany - or i would, if she hadn't gone on that family trip to the uk - but that's a different thread.

Thank you. The PP you’re responding to is disingenuous and tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Journalists are not sleazy when they report on these types of stories. This woman was personal assistant to the most powerful man on the planet, her office was next to the oval and had a serious amount of access.

She should know that NOTHING is ever "off the record." Any serious person who interacts with the media knows this. She was stupid and drunk and should have kept her loose lips shut. Now she's rightly out of her job.

This journalist did his job. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Hey, I don't disagree that the journalist was doing his job--that's how they operate. Just another example of their sleazy ethics. Same for those journalists who report for the National Enquirer.

What are you babbling about? There’s no evidence she asked for anything to be off the record. You’re upset that journalists report on this shit show, no more.

Without knowing her relationship to this journalist - sometimes things being "off the record" is assumed especially if lines are crossed and you're socializing. Unless the journalist is a gossip columnist and finds the gossip itself to be a scoop, why would you burn a 25 year old like that just because she forgot to say the magic words? It's not news that she's catty about Tiffany or whatever.

A smart source would not assume that any conversation with a journalist - eve while drink - is off the record, unless you say it is off the record. You're an idiot if you think that your drinking buddy cares about more than they care about a good story. It's not unethical to report about this stuff, either, I don't think. No it's not a NICE story of a story about substantive politics but it's a story about how people inside the WH know what the president's character and relationships are like. That's newsworthy.

signed
former journalist

"former" journalist for a reason.

you'll note that the journalists present did *not* actually print what she said. the story broke in Politico first, and it was about the White House reaction to learning what she said - not because a journalist printed the gossip. no reputable reporter would have burned their source & access for that dreck. It's not a story. the actual story is that someone in the WH wanted Westerholt out, and this is how they did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did any of the journalists who were at the dinner with Westerhout actually report what she told them? I can’t find anything except what came out after she was fired. I also don’t see any of the things that she said about Barron printed anywhere? Does anyone have links?

no, they did not. of course they didn't. they would have burned all their bridges for a gossip column on a subject that is not newsworthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Journalists are not sleazy when they report on these types of stories. This woman was personal assistant to the most powerful man on the planet, her office was next to the oval and had a serious amount of access.

She should know that NOTHING is ever "off the record." Any serious person who interacts with the media knows this. She was stupid and drunk and should have kept her loose lips shut. Now she's rightly out of her job.

This journalist did his job. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Hey, I don't disagree that the journalist was doing his job--that's how they operate. Just another example of their sleazy ethics. Same for those journalists who report for the National Enquirer.

What are you babbling about? There’s no evidence she asked for anything to be off the record. You’re upset that journalists report on this shit show, no more.

Without knowing her relationship to this journalist - sometimes things being "off the record" is assumed especially if lines are crossed and you're socializing. Unless the journalist is a gossip columnist and finds the gossip itself to be a scoop, why would you burn a 25 year old like that just because she forgot to say the magic words? It's not news that she's catty about Tiffany or whatever.

A smart source would not assume that any conversation with a journalist - eve while drink - is off the record, unless you say it is off the record. You're an idiot if you think that your drinking buddy cares about more than they care about a good story. It's not unethical to report about this stuff, either, I don't think. No it's not a NICE story of a story about substantive politics but it's a story about how people inside the WH know what the president's character and relationships are like. That's newsworthy.

signed
former journalist

"former" journalist for a reason.

you'll note that the journalists present did *not* actually print what she said. the story broke in Politico first, and it was about the White House reaction to learning what she said - not because a journalist printed the gossip. no reputable reporter would have burned their source & access for that dreck. It's not a story. the actual story is that someone in the WH wanted Westerholt out, and this is how they did it.

+1 These low level sources of info are not true journalists. So many posters want to dismiss sources like Fox News but then give a guy like this so-called journalist a pass. That's a low bar for journalism and not unlike those who stalk celebrities.

[Anonymous]

Tiffany's response on social media seems to be her rebuttal to Westerhout's drunk drivel. Packs a double punch since the famous Persian poet, Jalal al-Din was a Muslim and may be an indirect kick to daddy's racist nuts.

Quote she posted from 13th-century poet Rumi, "Study me as much as you like, you will never know me. For i differ a hundred ways from what you see me to be. put yourself behind my eyes, and see me as i see myself. Because i have chosen to dwell in a place you cant see"

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/tiffany-trump-instagram-post-respond-madeleine-westerhout

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Journalists are not sleazy when they report on these types of stories. This woman was personal assistant to the most powerful man on the planet, her office was next to the oval and had a serious amount of access.

She should know that NOTHING is ever "off the record." Any serious person who interacts with the media knows this. She was stupid and drunk and should have kept her loose lips shut. Now she's rightly out of her job.

This journalist did his job. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Hey, I don't disagree that the journalist was doing his job--that's how they operate. Just another example of their sleazy ethics. Same for those journalists who report for the National Enquirer.

What are you babbling about? There’s no evidence she asked for anything to be off the record. You’re upset that journalists report on this shit show, no more.

Without knowing her relationship to this journalist - sometimes things being "off the record" is assumed especially if lines are crossed and you're socializing. Unless the journalist is a gossip columnist and finds the gossip itself to be a scoop, why would you burn a 25 year old like that just because she forgot to say the magic words? It's not news that she's catty about Tiffany or whatever.

A smart source would not assume that any conversation with a journalist - eve while drink - is off the record, unless you say it is off the record. You're an idiot if you think that your drinking buddy cares about more than they care about a good story. It's not unethical to report about this stuff, either, I don't think. No it's not a NICE story of a story about substantive politics but it's a story about how people inside the WH know what the president's character and relationships are like. That's newsworthy.

signed
former journalist

"former" journalist for a reason.

you'll note that the journalists present did *not* actually print what she said. the story broke in Politico first, and it was about the White House reaction to learning what she said - not because a journalist printed the gossip. no reputable reporter would have burned their source & access for that dreck. It's not a story. the actual story is that someone in the WH wanted Westerholt out, and this is how they did it.

Why are you so defensive? If you blab unflatteringly about your boss and they find out then you should expect your a$$ to be marched out the door. There's nothing special about Westerhout.