Way I heard it, it wasn’t Trump who wasn’t aware that they needed to supply the staff, it was Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, who asked how many people would be staying on. What’s alarming about that at this late date is that he was on the transition team and should not only know that, but should already at least have a list of people.
I would be surprised too. I figured some of them were career government employees like those who run most of Washington regardless of who is president.
There’s a difference between that specific subset of people who work at the White House and all the people who work at the White House… The president will need to appoint his own personal staff. That’s why they’re, you know, personal. It’s not like he needs to start interviewing gardeners…
Thank you @muttrox! Or maybe I shouldn’t thank you since I started reading the book late last night using the “look inside” feature on amazon.com and it kept me absorbed until 2 AM. I’m ordering my own copy and one as a Christmas gift as well.
Assuming that the story was properly sourced, two groups of people were at the meeting, Trump people and Obama people. Since the story is not flattering to Trump there would be no reason for his people to leak it. Therefore it must have been the Obama people.
If that is what is meant by ‘planting’ and ‘leaking’, then there is no reason not to believe it. Unless there’s more to it, Jim’s post was a cheap shot based on nothing.
Not sureif it was really acrimonious but in late 1992 “American Heritage” magazine (can’t find it on their website) that in a briefing John Kennedy did not pay attention to what Dwight Eisenhower said. Eisenhower didn’t admonish him. Several months later after the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy asked Eisenhower for advice. Eisenhower said he said nothing about Kennedy’s behavior the first time since he won the election. But this time since he was asking for help, he better make sure he listened. When people propose something, find out what information it is based on, how reliable is it, what could go wrong, what the plan is if it goes wrong, etc. JFK listened and a couple years later rejected proposals about Laos since they couldn’t answer Ike’s questions.
The magazine noted that President-elect Clinton requested reprints to hand out to his staff.
The election of 1800 was acrimonious, with partisan newspapers slinging mud from both sides. It was the last election in which the candidate with the most votes became President & #2 became his VP. A feud between John Adams & Alexander Hamilton split the Federalists; the top two remaining candidates were Thomas Jefferson & Aaron Burr.
From Wikipedia–which seems pretty accurate in this case. John Adams left for Massachusetts in a snit & did not attend TJ’s inauguration.
The election of 1824 also ended up in the House. Andrew Jackson led in the voting but Henry Clay threw his votes to John Quincy Adams, who became President. The younger Adams had a brilliant diplomatic history but was not accustomed to the hurly burly of politics in the impending Age of Jackson. Again from Wikipedia (hey, I just listened to a fine JQA biography–but it’s hard to cut & paste the spoken word and this part of the entry looks OK to me.)
JQA went on to serve nine terms in the House of Representatives. He *did *learn the political game quite well. (The biography made me quite fond of the prickly fellow–who makes the incoming regime look even worse.)
Thanks for that Bridget Burke. I’m interested also in the Hoover/Roosevelt transition. I know they were cool towards each other. I don’t know of any problems in the hand-over. Were there?
That logic is unassailable. Since any positive stories would only be leaked by the beneficiary and should not be believed for that reason, and any negative stories would only be leaked by the other side and should not be believed for that reason, your logic proves one should never believe anything. Makes sense to me.