He used to have interesting points to make – a long, long time ago.

He’s been pushing this “Master Persuader” notion about Trump which doesn’t even hold water. Also note, he thinks people are “meat puppets”, so they can be led to anything by a persuasive person (i.e. think of a pied piper using words where people can only helplessly have a Pavlovian response).

Bottom Line: Adams has been a major Trump apologist / admirer even though he “disavows” Trump for being too “scary”. Adams says he doesn’t vote, nor align himself with any political party because doing so “would make me bias and less credible”, but is “purely interested” in Trump’s “persuasion skills”.

BUT, scanning his blog posts, it is clear he very much likes Trump.

That “one party down, one to go” is well aligned with the Trumpsters’ idea of what it is all about to them.

That Adams says so, says much about him that he won’t even admit to himself it seems.

He is one of a number of bloggers and others in conservative media I’ve come across that are VERY defensive for Trump, but deny they outright are supporting him.

It is time for them to get off the pot and give up their BS “observer” status. (looking at you Limbaugh)

“The more things I know, the more I know that I am ignorant of” vs the regular translation which is “what I know is that I know nothing”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

The Socratic method and dialogue were designed to test and question Authority. Thus Socrates motivated his students, like Plato, and others to question all kinds of Authority on what wisdom and knowledge is, not merely swallow what you are told. Which, of course, also included questioning Socrates.

I doubt very much that Cegielski herself wrote that headline, which is erroneous and does not match the way she describes herself in the article. Headlines for articles, by the way, are usually not written by the author of the article, so I doubt she wrote the headline.

With that out of the way, these are the claims she makes about her relation to the Trump campaign:

(1) She says that a year ago—which would make it around March, 2015—she sat in Trump Tower, having been “recruited” in some unspecified capacity for her PR and public policy expertise, “being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count.” So she alleges she was recruited as a PR advisor or consultant or potential advisor or consultant of some sort early on (before Trump declared his candidacy), perhaps only as passive listener, perhaps for only that one session, perhaps even unpaid. That’s all she says about that.

(2) She says that last summer (2015) she became the “Communications Director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC.” PACs are not directly under the aegis of the candidates and are in fact by law not allowed to be in communication with them. She does not allege that at that point she was in any communication anymore with Trump or with his people. That had happened earlier.

(3) She writes that in October she agreed with others in the PAC to close it in order to underline Trump’s message that he was free of PACs and being beholden to moneyed supporters. So the PAC only operated for a couple of months.

At no point does she say that while she was in the PAC she had any communications with or was employed by the Trump camp. The communications from the Trump camp on which she bases her statements about Trump’s original intent occurred before that, about a year ago, at some sort of meeting she seems to have attended and for which she says she was “recruited.”

She therefore is speaking of two positions. The first was as some sort of PR person not even necessarily working for Trump, but being privy to some meeting and consultation with the Trump people. The second was her later involvement with the PAC. In the first capacity she was somewhat privy to the Trump camp’s statements about what he was thinking. In her second capacity she was not privy to anything they were saying or thinking except their public statements, but she was still watching him, evaluating him, reacting to him, and trying to promote him.

She never says she was his top strategist, or any sort of strategist except in her capacity as a PAC employee, which was not directly under his campaign but “supporting” it. That certainly is true. She does not say she was his “communications manager.” She does not say she worked for him at all, except to “support” him in her work for the PAC as communications director of that.

You need to do your own fact-checking, because she never said she worked for him, never said she was his top strategist or anything of the sort (that’s the headline, and as a writer, I must say that I personally have been harmed by headlines editors have written that imply things I never said in my article). What does SHE actually say? Here are some quotes:

(a) she said that a year ago she was “recruited” as PR expert to sit “in Trump Tower being told” the goals of the Trump campaign at that time. She never alleges she was hired by him.

(b) she says that “Last summer, I signed on as the Communications Director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC.” No one is disputing that she held that position.

(c) she later says that she “was recruited to help the candidate succeed, and initially very much wanted him to do so.” (no doubt true of her position at the PAC)

(d) she says she was “one of his biggest advocates and supporters” (nothing contradicts that assertion, either)

(e) she mentions that the Trump campaign’s “internal slogan” was “Let Trump be Trump.” She does not say how she learned that, but from the rest of the article it seems pretty clear that she either heard it from someone second-hand while she worked for the PAC, or she heard it at that initial meeting in Trump Tower a year ago. I repeat that she never alleges she was employed by Trump or had any other dealings with his people other than her attendance at that initial Trump Tower meeting a year ago. It’s the headline that implies that, and it is very very likely that headline was not written by her and did not have her approval. If my own experience is any indication, she most likely was not even informed of it until she saw it published (as I said, I have had that happen to me).

(f) she writes about Trump that she “helped prop him up.” That was certainly true when she worked for the pro-Trump PAC.

The Trump campaign has said she never worked for them. But Cegielski never said she did.

Your gratuitous remarks:

I never thought I’d see you jump on something like this without fact-checking it, Neo. That’s unworthy of you.

…are actually unworthy of YOU.

Now, it’s certainly possible that Cegielski was never in attendance at any Trump Tower meeting a year ago, and that she’s lying about that. But even the Trump people have never said she was not at such a meeting. Nothing in her article (except the headline, which I’ve already explained I don’t take as something she herself wrote) is contradicted by anything the Trump people have said, nor is it contradicted by anything in her resume.

THIS IS A FRAUD, people.

This woman claimed she worked for Trump: Never did work for him. Never on his staff. She also lied about being a top strategist for him. No, she wasn’t ANY kind of strategist.

The PAC she worked for closed down, and Trump had nothing to do with it.

“The woman that wrote the Trump story. What is her name? Stephanie Cegielski, a little research. She never worked for the Trump campaign. She worked for a distant PAC. She portrayed herself as… Well, it’s titled, “Open Letter to Trump Voters From His Top Strategist Turned Defector.”

She never was his top strategist. She was never close to the campaign. She was never part of it — and even the leftist Snopes.com fact-checked it and came to that conclusion.”

[Limbaugh, with pertinent links at his site:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/03/29/debunked_claim_trump_never_wanted_to_win_like_perot_in_92

And CNN is axe-grindingly partisan for their own reasons.

Wow. I never thought I’d see you jump on something like this without fact-checking it, Neo. That’s unworthy of you.

Funny, I’ve always thought it was Barack Hussein who never really expected to win, that he campaigned purely for material reasons and then LO! found he’d hit the jackpot, caught the brass ring.

&&&&&

Famously gay David Geffen hypercharged Barry’s campaign — as did Oprah Winfrey.

Hence we have the first mulatto, gay president.

&&&

Barry has been outed by many gays — the ultimate ‘tell’ being how many flamingly gay ‘pals’ that Barry is ALWAYS hanging out with — as in transporting around the globe on Air Force One.

In keeping with the gay lifestyle, there have been many.

In Trump’s case it is not a brass ring. It is steel with a bit of rope attached. All that matters is who holds the rope. For bho the rope was slack, the first ‘black’ president was the holy grail.. In the 2016 general, should the donald win the nomination, the msm and dnc will pull with all their might on the rope.

Trump as the nominee equals 100 or so votes in the Electoral College. Its called a landslide.

The msm is not shilling… its a matter of enough rope. The donald thinks he is leading the msm by the nose. It ain’t so. He is the one with ring in the nose. If he reaches the general the msm will hank on the rope attached to the ring. Trust me as an old farm boy, this is how you lead an old bull to the slaughterhouse.