Vanity Fair profile piece outrages MAGA, White House officials

For the first time since her introduction as Chief of Staff, Susie Wile is front-page news. Vanity Fair just ran a profile piece on her, and according to Wiles, the article was not exactly framed as the interview was presented.

Now MAGA is upset that the administration allowed her to be interviewed by a liberal outlet, and the White House is screaming that a foul was committed against Wiles.

How Dare You!

When the piece came out, it sounded like Wiles was gossiping at the water cooler about everyone in the administration.

She made a negative comment about Trump, called JD Vance a conspiracy theorist, and took a major shot at Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The Federalist editor-in-chief Mollie Hemingway blasted Wiles, posting, "Genuinely sick to death of people on the right who seek the approval of left-wing media. Or even play with them for a minute. I can’t take it. It’s the saddest fetish.”

California Post opinion editor Joel Pollack piled on, adding, "I don't know why Republicans continue to give privileged access to mainstream media or center-left publications determined to destroy them. Journalists are not your friends, especially from Democrat agenda-driven outlets like the @nytimes and @VanityFair."

Karoline Leavitt

Wiles immediately posted in defense of herself, stating, "Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story. I assume, after reading it, that this was done to paint an overwhelmingly chaotic and negative narrative about the President and our team."

The White House then came out to defend Wiles, with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responding, "This was unfortunately another attempt at fake news by a reporter who was acting disingenuously and really did take the chief’s words out of context.

"But I think most importantly, the bias of omission was ever-present throughout this story. The reporter omitted all of the positive things that Susie and our team said about the president and the inner workings of the White House."

The rest of the team would also rally to her defense, including President Trump.

Sec. of State Marco Rubio

Rubio not only accused author Chris Whipple of using quotes out of context, but he also claimed that Whipple had manipulated some of the images used in the piece.

He responded, “It is obvious to most people that Vanity Fair deliberately manipulated pictures and reported statements without context to try and make the WH team look bad.

“And there is nobody more loyal or committed to President Trump’s mission than Susie Wiles. She is one of the main reasons why we have a team that works together to carry out the President’s promises to the American people.”

The big test was going to see how Trump reacted, as the posted comments about him were less than flattering.

Donald J. Trump

In the piece, Wiles had stated that Trump had an “alcoholic’s personality.” To be honest, when I read that quote, I felt like there was something that was missing, as I am very familiar with the Trump family history and the reason why Trump does not drink.

The president took the comment in stride, responding, "No, she meant that I’m — you see, I don’t drink alcohol. So everybody knows that — but I’ve often said that if I did, I’d have a very good chance of being an alcoholic. I have said that many times about myself, I do. It’s a very possessive personality.

"I’ve said that many times about myself. I’m fortunate I’m not a drinker. If I did, I could very well, because I’ve said that — what’s the word? Not possessive — possessive and addictive type personality. Oh, I’ve said it many times, many times before."

I think Trump and Wiles will be fine, but I really have to question the future of Attorney General Pam Bondi, having stated that she “whiffed” on the Epstein files. Knowing Wiles' history, I don’t see her calling out someone like that to the media. But Wiles did not deny saying it, just that it was taken out of context. I, for one, would love to know what context it was stated.