Jake Tapper

Well done, Mr. Jake Tapper! An excellent political thriller! A pretty sharp look at Washington politics of 1950s - yes, in a fiction format, but substantiated by numerous facts. I am really impressed - I respect Jake Tapper as a journalist and newsman; he now surprised me as a good fiction writer as well. Quite witty, even with dark humor - describing McCarthy era ("you go through more bestsellers than a McCarthy bonfire"), and depicting "social chameleons" of Washington who often fear "bad show more ink" from reporters; nice cameos of real life characters - like LBJ, President Eisenhower, the Kennedy brothers, and some others. The idea and history of the actual Hellfire Club was an eyeopener for me. I thought denouement of the novel was a little weaker than the acceleration of events leading to it, but all in all - a top notch political thriller. show less

If you had eyes and followed politics in the last cycle none of this will shock you. It's a ticktock of decline that, in spite of the foreword saying it's not going to be an exposé of incompetence, really strikes no other note in the telling. The "revelations" amount to finger-pointing; you'd think we get to know who knew what, when and how they lied. Except nobody wants to be more explicit than handwaving to the "inner circle", and fewer still want to go on the record. What really stands show more out is that Tapper wants you to look only at Biden's "politburo" and refuses to see the media as accomplices in the coverup he's painting. They were just hapless and naive, it was perfectly normal to not question the most media reclusive president in modern times or the paper thin excuses they issued when he bungled and stumbled. That the most central figures and key quotes are all unattributed, shows an ongoing hesitancy and political toll in speaking out, and people are still covering their own asses first and foremost. The most outspoken people in this book already had a break with the Biden and Dem machine.

If you were thinking they had to have known, the answer is largely yes, and the fig leaf of ignorance is Biden being increasingly bunkered even from staff access. But the ongoing story of ignorance in the book is just hard to take at every level when anyone with sense could see them herding him starting even during his presidential run, let alone campaign. The real question the book does not address is a soul searching why the supposed fourth estate swallowed paper thin excuses. Why is it now so obvious to for instance say he signalled being a transitional one-term president, when the media fell over themselves to split verbal hairs to signal boost "he never said that"? At the fever pitch post debate disaster we're to believe that even Biden himself just didn't know the polling was bad! Nobody told him the real numbers, which is why he had embarrassing factually fraught moments and an insistence of staying in the fight until it was far too late. The worst the book would have you believe about him is that the man was too stubborn, but even then it was for the cause, so he's not really to blame either.

There's an air of "Lying for Jesus" in the handful of justifications given - think of the cause, think of the danger of a Trump presidency! Don't question, don't contradict, don't expose clear lies for being lies - because, what "dark forces" are you aiding by caring about the truth at a time like this? As lackluster as the soulsearching is, the real whopper is knowing that if he'd squeaked by (maybe by just staying sequestered throughout) all this lying to the people in general and base in particular would have been seen as entirely justified. It took repeatedly falling on his face, sometimes literally, for this to unravel - and bizarrely the book seems to hold that while being unfit to run again, at no point was the presidency itself compromised by the same man who couldn't string coherent sentences together and who got confused enough to not recognize friends and staff. Is the book really exposing a coverup or just creating another? show less

[3.75] As a journalist and communications professor for the past four decades, I’ve avoided sharing my political views in public settings. Attempting to review this book while still following this rule will be challenging, but here it goes.

First, a disclaimer. The thoughts I share should not be misconstrued as an endorsement or condemnation of Biden’s policies. Likewise, my thoughts should not be misconstrued as an endorsement or condemnation of Trump’s policies.

Examining “Original show more Sin” through a journalistic periscope leads me to conclude that Tapper and Thompson have delivered a well-researched and highly readable piece of enterprise reporting — a disturbing expose that surfaced at least a year too late.

I’ve read other reviews suggesting that the authors relied on “thin evidence” to reach two conclusions: Biden was in a state of alarming cognitive decline — and that his condition was doggedly covered up by staffers, relatives and political allies. I’m not sure how much more evidence these readers would need. The authors interviewed about 200 sources and documented dozens of instances — some previously reported — to bolster their premise. True, many sources would not speak on record, a fact that can understandably fuel skepticism about accuracy and agendas. But the facts laid out in this well-organized tome make a compelling case to back up the subtitle’s contention: Biden and his minions made a “disastrous choice” to run again.

The book chronicles the White House “groupthink” that clearly seeped into some quarters of Capitol Hill — and in many media circles.

And herein lies my biggest criticism with book. Tapper and Thompson should have devoted more time and energy into probing the contention that the media was complicit in what the authors have branded a “cover-up." Is it really enough to merely state that “Nobody would talk to us until after the election”? I think not.

The book makes a believable assertion that dozens of powerful policymakers, opinion leaders and elected honchos made deliberate and deceptive decisions to hide the "bridge president’s” cognitive woes. True, there are other instances in American history where voters were kept in the dark about ailments impairing presidents (think JFK and FDR). But as the tired saying goes, “two wrongs do not make a right.”

Rep. Susan Wild of Pennsylvania — a Democrat — asked a telling question as many members of her party debated whether Biden should remain on the ticket: how does one slam Donald Trump for “lying” when an airtight case could be made that power brokers in the Democratic Party lied to the American people about the cognitive condition of the world’s most powerful leader? Wild has a point. show less

An outstanding, heartbreaking book that provides a great deal of backstory and years-long runup to the incidents described in Clinton Romesha’s outstanding Red Platoon, which I also read recently. The short sightedness and bullheadedness of the Army’s decision to build and maintain COP Keating are fully laid bare, the flesh and blood soldiers who fought and died there are portrayed honestly and in three dimensions, and in all, this is a must-read account of the strategic absurdities and show more tactical heroism that seems to characterize much of the United States involvement in Afghanistan. Highest recommendation. show less