The Washington Post has the biggest and best news in politics.
The Post has a long tradition of breaking stories.
But there is one important distinction.
We have to be very careful to avoid overstating the importance of a story to the reader.
For instance, a story about President Donald Trump’s latest tweets may be worth covering because of the way it affects his agenda.
But a story that reveals a political operative working on behalf of the Russian government to undermine our democracy could be of little consequence.
But stories that do not seem to impact the president in any significant way, but nevertheless serve as a useful reminder of what a president is actually doing are also of interest.
That’s because those stories can be used to create the impression that Trump is doing something dangerous, and can help generate the kind of public outrage that could lead him to act.
That was certainly the case with the revelations about Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
If the story didn’t provide evidence that Manafort had done anything illegal, then there would be little point in covering it.
But the fact that Manafort was a major political figure in the 2016 election and that the investigation was moving in the direction of his political opposition, along with the revelation that he had ties to Russian oligarchs and the president’s personal attorney, Robert Kelner, and the media were providing a great deal of coverage, created the impression, even to the president himself, that Manafort’s activities were being investigated.
This is not an uncommon practice for the Post, as we all know.
There is a special section on its website called “The Times Picks.”
It gives readers an insight into the news that is most important to them.
It’s not a news website.
It has a newsroom that focuses on the most important stories of the day, and that focus includes the biggest stories of a given day.
But as we saw with Trump, the news on this page has a tremendous impact on the public, and it’s not just about Trump.
This site’s newsroom also has a special page called “News Picks,” and it gives readers the chance to find out how the major stories of our day are shaping up, with an emphasis on how they affect the people they cover.
For the Trump story, the article had the same effect as if it had just been a regular story, which is to say, it gave the impression of having some major news.
The fact that it didn’t have a major news story on it, however, was a problem.
That made it difficult to read.
So, when a story has a major story, it has to be of great interest.
It should be interesting.
It must provide a strong case for why that story is of major interest.
And, as a result, readers who do not care about the president will find the information useful.
There are a couple of other problems that arise when a Trump story doesn’t have the major story.
One is that the Times picks article can be confusing.
When it describes the news it’s picking up from the Times, for instance, it will mention stories about other outlets, like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and Reuters.
If it is a Trump scoop, the headline may say that it’s “Trump News,” or “Trump’s Trump news,” or some other similar variation.
In other words, the Times picked article may not give readers a clear idea of what the story is about.
There might be other stories that are mentioned in the article, but that’s not clear, and readers might think that there are no major stories about Trump at all.
In this case, the story does not have a clear story, but it’s still worth reading.
The other problem with the Times Picks article is that, for the most part, the stories do not mention the president at all, except in passing.
There’s no story that says that Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, is being investigated by the Justice Department.
There isn’t even a story explaining what that investigation is about, which may be relevant to the Trump administration’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the election.
Instead, it’s just a summary of what Manafort did during the 2016 campaign, which could be very useful.
And readers may not have heard about Manafort, because the Trump White House has avoided mentioning him, despite a slew of revelations about Manafort and the Russia investigation.
But because the stories about Manafort are not linked to Trump, they do not necessarily make sense.
This leaves readers to make their own judgments about what stories are important and worth covering.
In the case of Trump’s tweets, there are two ways that a Trump tweet could affect the president: the way the tweet was worded, or the way its content was interpreted.
Words matter When a word or phrase is used in a tweet, it can have significant impact on its meaning.
A good example of this is Trump’s tweet about the judge who recently ruled in his favor, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel.
The judge is a Hispanic