This Michael Wolff book is amazing

[pdq]

...or, as suggested by one of the linked pieces, maybe Trump was just throwing some shade on the ex-speaker - Boehner? Never heard of the guy...

[GGD]

Ted King wrote:
Somebody trying to rain on this parade:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...iable.html

A 2004 New Republic profile of Wolff meanwhile noted that “the scenes in his columns aren’t recreated so much as created—springing from Wolff’s imagination rather than from actual knowledge of events.” The same piece quoted an editor who worked with Wolff as saying “his great gift is the appearance of intimate access. He is adroit at making the reader think that he has spent hours and days with his subject, when in fact he may have spent no time at all.” A 1998 article about Wolff’s book Burn Rate surfaced Wednesday by writer Brad Plumer notes that several of the subjects of the book say Wolff “invented or changed quotes” that were attributed to them.

There's more. As always, we should be cautious about things like this, especially in the initial stages - but, to be honest, I don't want to because it feels so much better to think this is all 100% true.

Has Bannon complained that Wolff “invented or changed quotes” that were attributed to him?

[mrbigstuff]

Bwahahahaha.

[gabester]

With respect to the Boehner "Who's that"... Didn't the dotard also deny knowing Samuel L Jackson but the latter produced a picture of the two of them and an third man golfing together?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/stat...58?lang=en

Actually looks like it was Orlando Jones who produced a pic on that thread...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYBCc29UEAA_v8E.jpg

[Ombligo]

(EDIT: after posting this, I decided to make it into it's own thread - http://forums.macresource.com/read.php?2,2208609)

Trumps lawyers have issued a cease-and-desist order to Bannon.

His lawyers said Mr Bannon had broken his employment agreement by speaking to Wolff about Mr Trump and his family, "disclosing confidential information" and "making disparaging statements and in some cases outright defamatory statements to Mr Wolff about Mr Trump, his family members, and the Company", the letter said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42563443

I doubt it will make any difference. Being an elected public official essentially means open season on commentary. It is almost impossible to quiet a critic of the president. You can even make openly false claims like being born in Kenya.

However, some news sources like WaPo are urging restraint in believing Wolff. It referred to the author as a "provocateur and media polemicist", and said his reporting had been questioned before. I wonder if the Trumpeteers will refer to that report as Fake News?

[Ted King]

Does anyone know who's side Fox News is coming down on about this? I suspect that they will go with Trump - as will probably most Republicans and their media echo chamber.

[Ted King]

GGD wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
Somebody trying to rain on this parade:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018...iable.html

A 2004 New Republic profile of Wolff meanwhile noted that “the scenes in his columns aren’t recreated so much as created—springing from Wolff’s imagination rather than from actual knowledge of events.” The same piece quoted an editor who worked with Wolff as saying “his great gift is the appearance of intimate access. He is adroit at making the reader think that he has spent hours and days with his subject, when in fact he may have spent no time at all.” A 1998 article about Wolff’s book Burn Rate surfaced Wednesday by writer Brad Plumer notes that several of the subjects of the book say Wolff “invented or changed quotes” that were attributed to them.

There's more. As always, we should be cautious about things like this, especially in the initial stages - but, to be honest, I don't want to because it feels so much better to think this is all 100% true.

Has Bannon complained that Wolff “invented or changed quotes” that were attributed to him?
Not that I know of, but it could be there are some things that Bannon thinks are inaccurate but for strategic reasons - like not having his renunciation of some parts make it easier for people to dismiss all parts - doesn't want to say so. But the book also has quotes and observations about other people that do not come via Bannon.

Wolff is a journalist but what the Slate article is suggesting is that he may not follow standard journalistic practices as well as he should in his "tell all" books. Here is a tweet from Katy Tur of MSNBC where she questions some of Wolff's journalistic practices with respect to this book:

https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/94...wsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fdonald-trump-steve-bannon-michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-audio-recording-770431

This in no way implies that the whole book should be thrown out as unreliable, but I think it does mean that it might be best to not automatically assume that any particular claim in the book is true. A BBC report this morning cites former British PM as rejecting a claim made in the book:

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has described a claim about him as "absurd" and "a complete fabrication". The Times newspaper reported that the book says Mr Blair had shared a "juicy rumour" with Mr Trump's son-in-law that the UK government had his campaign under surveillance.

With respect to any one claim in the book, it is wise to reserve final judgment for a while but that doesn't mean the whole narrative should be summarily dismissed.

[sekker]

In the end, I bet the strangest parts of the book will turn out to be 100% correct.

However, those are not necessarily about the Treasoners that's now in the WH.

[$tevie]

It would seem that if there are lies in the book, they are not Wolff's lies but lies from his interviewees:
Lordy, There Are Tapes! Michael Wolff Has 'Dozens' Of Recordings
https://crooksandliars.com/2018/01/lordy...-wolff-has
I also seems that Wolff has an obnoxious personality, which means he and Bannon probably hit it off right away. :-)