VANITY FAIR’S HIT PIECE

What’s the frickin’ deal with Susie Wiles? Deja vu 2016?

By An Old Piece Of Leather

American Thinker

A few days back, Vanity Fair magazine published a two-part interview with President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, which was conducted by documentary filmmaker and journalist Chris Whipple. He also profiled Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other key Trump officials.

The part of the piece that caused waves was Wiles’s unflattering epithets to describe President Trump, JD Vance, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, and Elon Musk. 

The articles contained unflattering close-up photos of Wiles, Rubio, and Trump advisor Stephen Miller and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. If Wes Anderson made a horror picture, the still images would look like these. The worst among the images belongs to Susie Wiles, who looks startled, followed closely by the extreme close-up of Karoline Leavitt. This is clearly a hit job.

The goal is twofold: first, to sow seeds of division among the White House staff and to present them pictorially as weird, odd, ugly, and grotesque. They are hoping that readers will be revolted by what they see as much as what they read.

Wiles blasted the piece as a “ disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history,” she claimed that crucial context from her remarks was omitted. She also added that “the Trump White House has already accomplished more in eleven months than any other President has accomplished in eight years, and that is due to the unmatched leadership and vision of President Trump, for whom I have been honored to work for the better part of a decade.”

President Trump and others in his cabinet sided with Susie Wiles while they slammed Vanity Fair.

So what does one make of this?

We first state the very obvious about outlets such as Vanity Fair and the mainstream media in general. Some people wrongly think that the mainstream media is biased towards the Democrats. But the word ‘bias’ is insufficient to describe the dynamic between the mainstream media and the Democrats; it implies they are disparate entities, and somehow the party is influencing the mainstream media or that the media has a preference for the Democrats. In reality, the lines are so blurred that the mainstream media is the propaganda wing or the PR agency for the Democrats.

There is total synchronicity between the utterances of the Democrats and the media personnel. The late great Rush Limbaugh frequently played montages of various media ‘pundits’ across various media outlets, not only having identical opinions but also identical phraseology for any given event. It was almost as if a wordsmith in the Democrat party supplied these terms and the media willingly and loyally parroted them without any question.

Words such as ‘collusion’ or ‘insurrection’ weren’t part of common parlance. But the terms were also chosen because they evoke revulsion. ‘Collusion’ seems like nefarious, shady agents conspiring in the basement. ‘Insurrection’ paints a picture of an unruly, violent uprising. Both terms have an undercurrent of treason. These terms were used over and over again, such that even their targets used them while refuting the allegations.

Once upon a time, the media strived to conceal their bias, but that’s no longer the case; now they are proud propagandists who think their function is to advance the Democrat agenda.

They are sanctimonious and have convinced themselves that they are the sole custodians of virtue, and those who do not agree with their worldview are ignorant, bigoted, anachronistic, and dangerous. They loathe their opponents.

The media have consistently and viciously opposed the Republicans since the days of Nixon.

But with President Trump, the malevolence was amplified because his election and reelection made them aware of their absolute impotence. Once, they could sway opinions. They could elevate certain politicians and destroy those they despised. They couldn’t do this to Trump. They led campaigns against Trump, but he triumphed quite emphatically during his election.

Hence, when they cover Trump, it isn’t just as a critics or an opponents but as spiteful haters.

In their conversations in their ‘news’ rooms, during their editorial meetings, and on their private chats, you can be certain they deride and ridicule their dissenters, particularly Trump supporters, whom they regard as sub-human.

They used terms like ‘flyover country’ to demean Trump’s base. Hillary Clinton said the quiet part aloud when she claimed that Trump supporters belong in the basket of deplorables. Obama also held similar opinions about Midwesterners. Hillary and Obama would seem like saints compared to the viciousness of the current mainstream media, perhaps because the ‘woke’ mob has taken over.

They may boast about diversity, but that is merely for genetically driven attributes such as race, skin color, sexuality, nationality, or religion, but the real and most important variety of diversity, the diversity of opinion, is not only unwelcome, it is forbidden.

Also part of this echo chamber is the loyal consumer base that pays to have their biases confirmed and for their daily dose of hate against their opponents. They are no longer obliged to be fair. In fact, if they drift even slightly towards fairness, their consumers revolt and they capitulate.

This has been the case for almost a decade.

No matter what President Trump achieves, they will find a way to spin it and cover it negatively. President Trump knows this, his supporters know it, and so do the people who work for him.

Despite the media’s obvious nefariousness, irrelevance, and lack of reach, there is an erroneous and inexplicable perception that they possess the pizzazz factor and the authority, which causes the Trump White House to grant them access.

“What? Vanity Fair wants to do a profile? Wow. That should be momentous. Give them what they want. Maybe they will put us on the cover,” is what must have been the reaction to the offer of an interview from Vanity Fair.

It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

It was insane of Susie Wiles and others in the White House to think that she would be treated objectively by Vanity Unfair. It was obvious that they would strip context from her remarks and misrepresent her. It was obvious that they must have taken pictures from afar with their high-definition camera, and the editors cropped them for the close-ups and chose the worst.

If the White House did allow a piece in Vanity Fair, they should have done so under the condition that they had full approval of the content, which includes the photos. But even that would elevate Vanity Fair and grant them a position of power where they can sit in judgment of the Trump White House.

This piece will obviously have no impact on the way Trump is perceived by his supporters. But still, the energy and time wasted to refute the mendaciousness of the piece was needless, and worst, it remains a part of the record. Irrespective of what they said in public, this will cause a divide or at least some slight suspicion among staffers in Trump’s White House. 

This is a needless and avoidable own goal.

Ironically, it was Susie Wiles who was supposed to instill discipline in the Trump White House, restrict unauthorized access, and plug leaks. Wiles may have been successful thus far in preventing unauthorized leaks, but this seeming lapse in judgment sullied her achievement.  It’s impossible to know if this were purposeful, but it seems odd that a veteran such as Wiles would not comprehend that this was a major faux pas.

Wiles and others should have granted access to some of the right-leaning websites, maybe Breitbart or American Thinker or Townhall or the Daily Caller, or the NY Post could have been given an interview. It would have boosted their profile of the outlet, and her opinions and photos would have been covered fairly. Sadly, Wiles went to the NY Post only when things went wrong with the Vanity Fair piece.

There was a similar occurrence last year, when Time Magazine made President Trump their 2024 Person of the Year. President Trump gave them access and an interview. He appeared at their event and posted about the ‘achievement’ on Truth Social. In return, they published the interview, but preceding the transcript of the interview is a link to a page that fact-checks President Trump’s utterances. Time magazine failed to apply the same standards to Obama or Biden and his bumbling deputy when they were Persons of the Year.

This unfairness isn’t an anomaly, but their standard when covering President Trump and his officials.

It’s time the Right stops looking towards liberal outfits for approval, which is the equivalent of looking for support from haters.

The famous quote we learned in school reads “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”.

The fault of this unfair hit job lies with those who allowed access and gave interviews, not with the venomous scorpions whose irrepressible instincts are to sting those they disagree with.

Somebody needs to be reprimanded for a disgraceful mistake.

Image: White House

My opinion: Susie Wiles is a dedicated Bush family Mafia participant and RINO.

I haven’t read anything about her that would justify having any trust in her at all.

I trust her as far as I could throw her.

God will punish our enemies. We will arrange the meetings.

NCSWIH

anoldpieceofleather