Erick Erickson says at least one source in the Washington Post story is pro-Trump

[mystery-ak]

Erick Erickson says at least one source in the Washington Post story is pro-Trump
by Kyle Feldscher | May 16, 2017, 10:50 AM

Conservative commentator Erick Erickson wrote Tuesday he knows one of the Washington Post's sources that revealed President Trump discussed classified information with the Russians.

Erickson didn't reveal the name of the source in his post on The Resurgent, but said the source is solidly pro-Trump. But, because the president won't take any criticism, the source was forced to go to the media.

more
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/erick-erickson-says-at-least-one-source-in-the-washington-post-story-is-pro-trump/article/2623199

[FreeReign]

A "pro Trump" source would go to the Washington Post?

[jedidah]

Erick Erickson says at least one source in the Washington Post story is pro-Trump
by Kyle Feldscher | May 16, 2017, 10:50 AM
. . . .the source was forced to go to the media.

more
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/erick-erickson-says-at-least-one-source-in-the-washington-post-story-is-pro-trump/article/2623199

Seriously?  "Forced??"

Nope.  "Chose."

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Good thing Erick Erickson himself is such a staunch supporter of Trump itself, so he can be trusted when he reports this kind of thing.....

[beandog]

Erickson is full of it and just wants to be part of the story.  No pro-Trump person would go to the Compost.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Good thing Erick Erickson himself is such a staunch supporter of Trump itself, so he can be trusted when he reports this kind of thing.....

Erickson is a founder of the NT movement.



He served as the editor-in-chief and the CEO of RedState and was a political contributor for CNN, now he's just a lost, angry little boy.

[anubias]

Erickson is full of it and just wants to be part of the story.  No pro-Trump person would go to the Compost.

Erik Erikson has always been a joke that wanted to be relevant.  It didn't start with Trump.

[txradioguy]

So...anybody want to talk about the actual story or just do this:



Anytime Erickson's name is mentioned?

Seems to be the knee jerk pavlovian response requiring no thought or effort that some here fall back on anytime the news isn't all fluffy and gooey about Trump.

Just sayin...

[Silver Pines]

So...anybody want to talk about the actual story or just do this:



Anytime Erickson's name is mentioned?

Seems to be the knee jerk pavlovian response requiring no thought or effort that some here fall back on anytime the news isn't all fluffy and gooey about Trump.

Just sayin...

@txradioguy

Lol, it's just like I said earlier when I mentioned this story. I said it would be dismissed out of hand because Erick Erickson, liar, traitor, NeverTrumper, blah, blah, blah.

If they read the article they might find out why this person considered himself "forced."

But it's all lies, so...

[txradioguy]

If they read the article they might find out why this person considered himself "forced."

But it's all lies, so...

@CatherineofAragon

...so they assume the position

[ArneFufkin]

So...anybody want to talk about the actual story or just do this:



Anytime Erickson's name is mentioned?

Seems to be the knee jerk pavlovian response requiring no thought or effort that some here fall back on anytime the news isn't all fluffy and gooey about Trump.

Just sayin...

There is nothing in the linked article - or his original post at someplace called The Resurgent - that provides even a scintilla of new, authentic information that would resurrect the thoroughly debunked WaPo report.   Erickson just provides more anonymous source innuendo and baloney.

It's Erickson being a self-serving douche.  His usual state of being.

There are a lot of knee-jerk, Pavlovian responses around this place -  but overwhelmingly they emanate from the Never Trump bitter-enders here.   Sad.™

[txradioguy]

There is nothing in the linked article - or his original post at someplace called The Resurgent - that provides even a scintilla of new, authentic information that would resurrect the thoroughly debunked WaPo report.   Erickson just provides more anonymous source innuendo and baloney.

It's Erickson being a self-serving douche.  His usual state of being.

There are a lot of knee-jerk, Pavlovian responses around this place -  but overwhelmingly they emanate from the Never Trump bitter-enders here.   Sad.™

Sooo that's a no from you on discussing the article...got it.

[txradioguy]

Seriously?  "Forced??"

Nope.  "Chose."

Well if as Erickson says, this person and others on the Trump staff saw he was heading down a wrong path...tried to talk to him about it and give him their expert advice and he still refused to see the error he was about to make...isn't' that kinda being forced to seek other ways to keep your boss from taking a misstep?

Trump's been influenced by what's said about him in the media before...seems to be the only way he changes his mind one way or another.

[ABX]

.... What sets this story apart for me, at least, is that I know one of the sources. And the source is solidly supportive of President Trump, or at least has been and was during Campaign 2016. But the President will not take any internal criticism, no matter how politely it is given. He does not want advice, cannot be corrected, and is too insecure to see any constructive feedback as anything other than an attack.

So some of the sources are left with no other option but to go to the media, leak the story, and hope that the intense blowback gives the President a swift kick in the butt. Perhaps then he will recognize he screwed up. The President cares vastly more about what the press says than what his advisers say. That is a real problem and one his advisers are having to recognize and use, even if it causes messy stories to get outside the White House perimeter......

http://theresurgent.com/i-know-one-of-the-sources/

[Right_in_Virginia]

Again with the Erick Erickson nonsense?   We didn't believe it the first time. 

[ABX]

So...anybody want to talk about the actual story or just do this:



Anytime Erickson's name is mentioned?

Seems to be the knee jerk pavlovian response requiring no thought or effort that some here fall back on anytime the news isn't all fluffy and gooey about Trump.

Just sayin...

It is funny, Erick used to be praised and lauded by the right, up until the point he didn't support Trump. He didn't change, the cult of personality won out over values.

What's even funnier is I bet many who complain converse with Eric on certain political forums on a regular basis and don't even realize it. How he hasn't gotten zotted yet is beyond me. (I'll need to look him up again but I bet he is playing it safe there).

[DiogenesLamp]

Erick Erickson says at least one source in the Washington Post story is pro-Trump

I have disliked and distrusted Erick Erickson since the first time I have ever heard his name. 


A man has to be a moron simpleton to incorporate and identify with a  liberal propaganda tactic meant to elect Bill Clinton.   


"Red State"   is the product of a fool.   


Since then,  Erick Erickson has given me ample reasons to reaffirm my perception of him as a fool. 

[mystery-ak]

Well if as Erickson says, this person and others on the Trump staff saw he was heading down a wrong path...tried to talk to him about it and give him their expert advice and he still refused to see the error he was about to make...isn't' that kinda being forced to seek other ways to keep your boss from taking a misstep?

I call BS...you wouldn't go to the WaPo....

[Idaho_Cowboy]

So name names. This anonymous source either doesn't exist or is really stupid. There were only so many people in the room.

[DiogenesLamp]

Good thing Erick Erickson himself is such a staunch supporter of Trump itself, so he can be trusted when he reports this kind of thing.....

Thank you.    That is one of many reasons why I think Erick Erickson is a deceitful fool. 

[DiogenesLamp]

So...anybody want to talk about the actual story or just do this:



Anytime Erickson's name is mentioned?

I'm good with that.    The man burned his bridges to me a long time ago.   He was *ALWAYS*   on the wrong side of everything,  near as I can tell.   Nowadays one of the best proofs that you are doing the right  thing is if Erick Erickson doesn't like it. 


He's like Jennifer Rubin.    He's useful as a reverse barometer. 

[geronl]

  He was *ALWAYS*   on the wrong side of everything,  near as I can tell.   Nowadays one of the best proofs that you are doing the right  thing is if Erick Erickson doesn't like it. 

Since he's conservative that would mean...

[DiogenesLamp]

It is funny, Erick used to be praised and lauded by the right, up until the point he didn't support Trump. He didn't change, the cult of personality won out over values.

I've disliked Erick Erickson since the first time I heard he had incorporated the Liberal Propaganda tactic of coloring Republicans "RED" into a "conservative"  website.   


"What an imbecile." I thought.  Now it will be even harder to set the record straight.   He has singlehandedly damaged the conservative movement long term and as a result,  obfuscated the crimes of the Communists.   He has lost us ground in the arena where it matters most;   "Symbolism."   



And then he went down from there.   

What's even funnier is I bet many who complain converse with Eric on certain political forums on a regular basis and don't even realize it. How he hasn't gotten zotted yet is beyond me. (I'll need to look him up again but I bet he is playing it safe there).

I would very much like an opportunity to tell him what I think of him and what he has done.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Since he's conservative that would mean...

He *CALLS*  himself a conservative,   but he has always appeared to me to be the same sort of "conservative"  as Jennifer Rubin or Kathleen Parker.   


He certainly hasn't done anything (of which I am aware)  that I regard as "conservative",   my recollection is that he went out of his way alienating real conservatives in an effort to defend Barack Obama's legitimacy,   even to the extent of banning contrary opinions from his website.   


Defend Barack Obama?   Not Conservative.     Banning freedom of speech?   Not Conservative.   

[beandog]

Since he's conservative that would mean...

Lots of people call themselves conservative doesn't mean they are.  Ever heard of Paul Ryan, Joe Scarborough, Mitch McConnell, etc. etc.