> The source is a paper run by an ex-News Corp employee.
So someone who's used to being owned by a billionaire and pushing their agenda, and good at it, and presumably doing the same thing now under another billionaire? What point were you trying to make?
My point, while admittedly weak, was that the WP is not as institutionally anti-Trump as is often bandied about. Though I now realize that was a useless thing to raise in this context.
So someone who's used to being owned by a billionaire and pushing their agenda, and good at it, and presumably doing the same thing now under another billionaire? What point were you trying to make?