White House threatens Woodward: You will regret this

Veteran journalist Bob Woodward, the man behind one of the most famous pieces of investigative reporting the world has ever seen, is now saying he has been threatened by a senior White House staffer after reporting (correctly) that President Obama is responsible for the impending sequestration.

“I can’t believe they would go after Woodward,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “Remember when I was on Fox, and I said, ‘Who is going to be the next Woodward and Bernstein?’ Turns out, it’s Woodward – except he still refuses to really take a bow.”

During an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Wednesday, Woodward explained that the President is displaying a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time” for citing looming budget cuts as his reason for not deploying an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf.

Woodward went on to do an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN later that afternoon, in which he explained the White House is not happy with his characterization of President Obama. Below is an excerpt from the interview:

BLITZER:  Take this behind-the-scenes a little bit, the allegations being hurled against you right now.

WOODWARD:  Well, I mean.

BLITZER:  You're used to this kind of stuff.

WOODWARD:  I am.

BLITZER: Share with our viewers what is going on between you and the White House.

WOODWARD: They're not happy at all and some people kind of said, ‘Look we don't see eye to eye on this.’ They never really said though – afterwards, they said, ‘This is factually wrong,’ and it was said to me in an e-mail by a top White House…

BLITZER:  What was said?

WOODWARD:  It was said very clearly, ‘you will regret doing this.’

BLITZER:  Who said that?

WOODWARD: Well, I'm not going to say.

BLITZER:  Was it a senior person?

WOODWARD:  It was a very senior.  It makes me feel very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, ‘you’re going to regret doing something that you believe in, even though we don’t look at it that way, you look at it that way.’ I think if Barack Obama knew that was part of the communication strategy - let's hope it's not a strategy…

“He hopes it was not a strategy? What do you think, Bob, they've been doing to Fox and people like me,” Glenn asked. “Five boycotts. Five. It's never happened before, in the history of America. This is the guy who found the enemy's list from Nixon. This is the guy who exposed - he should know better than that. I contend he does. Either that or I don't know even know. He's got to know better than that. He’s not a fool.”

POLTICO later identified the senior White House staffer as Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling. It seems as though Woodward and Sperling had a conversation that became very heated, and, in an attempt to smooth things over, Sperling sent Woodward an email in which the “you will regret” this language appeared. You can see the entire email HERE.

While the White House has since come and said that “no threat was intended,” Glenn sees an eerie parallel between what is being said about Woodward in the wake of his comments and what Glenn has dealt with in the past.

“Hang on a second. If they are employing the tactic they have employed on us several times, here's how it happens,” Glenn said. “Look at the names, and see if you can find this pattern so far. You’ll have administration officials. You’ll have Center for American Progress. And you will have George Soros. It won't go any deeper than that yet. But then you'll also have sympathy groups – religious groups and sympathy groups will come out against him. So who do you have so far?”

Stu went on to report that the Administration has commented, in addition to damning articles in The Nation and Huffington Post. Meanwhile, Neera Tanden, president of Center for American Progress, tweeted, “My amateur advice: stop cooperating with Woodward in the first place.”

“Attention Bob Woodward: they're already starting to make you regret,” Glenn concluded. “The White House comes out and says, ‘We’re sorry he read it that way.’ But they're beginning to smear him. They're beginning to make him look like an old man, out of touch, and they are signaling the end of his career. This is the way they do it. They don't come out and whack you in an alley.”

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.