Read on Twitter
Hypothetically, when should Woodward have released this information?
There are three motives for revealing this inside information:
1. To protect public health
2. To get a dangerous man out of officce
3. To boost book sales
1. To protect public health
2. To get a dangerous man out of officce
3. To boost book sales
Regarding item 1, information was coming out already at that point. All Woodward could add is "Trump knows". So there was really no health-protecting piece of information that factors in here at all. So we eliminate 1.
Item 2.
In February there was no big pile of bodies. Revealing Trump's knowledge would have no effect. Even in light of Trump's later statements, there's no way Woodward could know that Trump hadn't received new information.
In February there was no big pile of bodies. Revealing Trump's knowledge would have no effect. Even in light of Trump's later statements, there's no way Woodward could know that Trump hadn't received new information.
And once bodies were piling up, initially they were piling up all over the country equally. It wouldn't be until other countries flattened their curves and we didn't that this was actually damning information regarding Trump's handling.
However, we knew Trump was impeached and it failed. By mid summer it was pretty obvious there'd be no new impeachments, and Trump's only exit would be through elections.
By this analysis, I would have sat on the information until October, perhaps (but it's a guess).
By this analysis, I would have sat on the information until October, perhaps (but it's a guess).
Item 3. To boost book sales, this is the time to release this information. Right before your book comes out. But don't be too harsh on Woodward here. His book release date was likely set months ago.
Going back to item 2, he probably could not have changed the release date to maximize political impact, and there's ethical issues there in any case.
I think the only criticizable window for releasing this information earlier is an ethical one that he should have released it say in mid summer. But the pragmatic reality is that this will have a greater chance of protecting our country now than it would have then.
Note: above where I talk about bodies piling up all over the country equally, I meant all over the _world_. In other words, U.S. was bad, but so was Italy and others.
Some answers here are focusing on when Trump was dismissing it or calling it a hoax. You need to back to what the world looked like when he said these things.
In late February, China had thousands of deaths, Italy cases were soaring.
We already knew.
In late February, China had thousands of deaths, Italy cases were soaring.
We already knew.
Anyone paying attention knew that it wasn't going to go away. Anyone who was paying attention knew it wasn't a hoax. Yet despite all the evidence, we let Trump lead us here.
A three-week old statement from Trump to Woodward about what Xi told him would have been ignored.
A three-week old statement from Trump to Woodward about what Xi told him would have been ignored.
It would be trivial for Trump to dismiss. "Our experts don't trust Xi". "That was three weeks ago and we've learned a lot since then."
And the press would have been complicit with such statements as they always are.
No. Difference.
And the press would have been complicit with such statements as they always are.
No. Difference.
I can't emphasize this enough. We have known since February that Trump was lying to us about COVID. All this does is confirm that Trump knew better than what he told us, that he knew his words to us were lies.
Although to be honest, I'm not even sure it does that. I believe the truth or falsity of words may literally not enter into Trump's processing. He says things that will impress people or motivate people depending on his own desires. To Trump, that's all words are.
