Subject: notes to an ambitious writer
From: "Lea Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
To: "Owens Valerie" <[email-masked]>, "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 19:09:30 -0400

As a (now) television writer this really made me laugh.

It comes from a close and old friend who worked in the last Administration.

L.,
L.

* iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ashley Bommer <[email-masked]>
> Date: August 6, 2017 at 5:40:04 PM EDT
> To: Lea Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Notes
> 
> Below was just forwarded to us. Sunday fun...
> 
> NOTES TO THE WRITERS OF "THE TRUMP SHOW". 
> 
> 1. Many of the names and references are too “on the nose”—-beginning with the name of the titular anti-hero. Webster’s dictionary defines “trump” as “having a rank above the others”—- and while this is certainly clever and clearly Donald’s view of himself, it may be too obvious, even for cable TV.
> 2. Likewise, the use of the word “con” in Kelly Anne Conway’s surname, while amusing, is too on the nose for someone who is written as a pathological liar and snake-oil saleswoman. 
> 3. The name Scarramucci—-referring to the stock clown character in the Commedia Del Arte—- (literally, “little skirmicher”) is likewise too obvious and literal. I also think his story-line is too brief. He’s a great character, can we give him more than the one episode? If not, let's consider a spinoff. "Mooch" is a great title. David Mamet is the obvious showrunner. Let's see if he is available. 
> 4. The name Huckabee-Sanders also rings false. I like the Colonel Sanders Kentucky Fried reference, but "Huckabee" is too redolent of "huckster" and reminds me of Huckleberry Hound. It screams “yokel”, which, of course, she is, but can we be less obvious?
> 5. I think putting both the daughter AND the son-in-law in major policy positions strains credulity. This isn’t South America. Maybe one or the other?
> 6. As much as I enjoy the drama, I think there are too many firings in the first six episodes. I have looked into previous administrations and this level of incompetence, backstabbing and disorder is not believable. Maybe keep Spicey?
> 7. We need to give the POTUS at least ONE legislative victory in the first 6 episodes. After all, he holds both houses of Congress. Surely he could pass SOMETHING. Let’s look for a victory to give the show more veracity and variety.
> 8. Going back to episode 101, I don’t believe the appointments of Omarosa and Rick Perry. It’s funny, but doesn't pass the smell test. Maybe get rid of Perry's glasses? His need to seem intelligent is a bit too desperate. And the name Omarosa screams "reality TV villainess".
> 9. Melania needs a bigger role. Give her some lines for goodness’ sake.
> 10. In episode 103 when the Russians are invited into the Oval Office immediately after the firing of James Comey, I think Trump spilling highly classified information goes too far. Honestly, the idea that Kislyak (whom you have written to be at the center of the collusion scandal) is in the White House at all is unbelievable, but I might buy it if there were a different timeline of events or if Trump did not compromise Israel. I also think the fact that this is the only time we see Trump laughing in the whole series is too obvious.
> 11. The old, conservative war-hero-torture survivor who returns to the Senate floor for a midnight vote on health care is also a bit of a liberal fantasy. Giving him brain cancer is a good idea as it highlights the difference between those who benefit from good health care and those who do not. But perhaps he could be in remission rather than just diagnosed?
> 12. The fact that Kushner’s office building address is the “sign of the beast” (666 5th Avenue!!) is too much. This isn’t “Penny Dreadful”.
> 13. I know it is central to the character, but I still have trouble believing any POTUS would use Twitter in the way he does.
> 14. Cut the “cofeve thing". I just don’t buy it.
> 
> All that said, I think the writers are doing a fine job. I am hooked on the show, and I can’t wait to see what happens...
> 
> (Credit: unknown)
>>=2