>>My 2 cents on the Atlantic piece. Do I believe he could have said most or even all the things that have been claimed? Yes.

That's the thing: belief that he "would" say that or "might" say that is different from he "did" say that. The first two are opinions whose veracity depends on source and audience prejudice. The third is news, that reasonably should sway an audience.

The Atlantic seeks to present its version as the third category... except that their version is contradicted by copious official documentation that's easily publicly accessible, and now by every person actually present in the meeting, including Kelly via proxy and even Bolton... yet the Atlantic insists on another 4 anonymous first-hand sources.

Perhaps they were hiding behind the drapes?

Something to check: they say Trump didn't want to attend in the rain because it might muss his hair... yet the next day he attended another event in the teeming rain. With plenty of public sources, a balanced reporter might have mentioned the official documentation or subsequent event in the rain. QED.

Two predictions: 1) When the inevitable Trump "wolf" is uncovered, millions of eyes will roll "here we go again"; and 2) after the election, a dedicated effort will be made to overturn Sullivan vs NYT.