Micheal Wolff, author of new Trump book, says it is mostly untrue

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Can you provide a quote from the author in which he said the book is "mostly untrue"?

What is needed is someone to start a fact check thread on this book. Cite all the people who said that the book lied about them. And also all the verifiable lies based on what we know to be true.

a reply to: matafuchs

Silly reply from you. Next.

You aren't introverts spokesman are you, because you keep responding to my question for him.

This is what I asked the guy, ok,

For a train wreck of a thread it's got a # load of flags, why do you think that is?

It was a # question to him not to you. Capish?

a reply to: carewemust

Yes it all should be checked hopefully with tapes but the fact is the author did not say it is "mostly untrue".

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: matafuchs

Most of it very well could be untrue. Which also leaves the possibility that some of it is true.

I think I'll wait and see what can be proven to be true/false until I go much further on this issue.

Buhahahaha... what a convenient way to try to claim "but some of it might be true"... Of course for people like you lies equal to "some truths"...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So it is 100% lies? in your opinion.

originally posted by: introvert

Do you have a source for that claim?

I don't think I've seen anyone call him a hero.

Let's see...

Sanders...

Sanders: 'Michael Wolff Made Up a Lot of Stories to Try to Sell Books'

Here is the answer from Anna Wintour about the claim Wolff made that she asked President Trump to make her ambassador to the UK...

Anna Wintour denies claim in explosive Trump book she asked to be made US ambassador to UK

And here, directly form "thinkprogress"...

...
Host Howie Kurtz appeared to be skeptical of Wolff’s reporting, noting that Murdoch “is not exactly shy about meddling with the journalistic operations of his properties.” But Wolff countered that Ailes is the one who is actually contractually in charge at Fox News and that Murdoch is “scared of him.”
...

Wolff: Murdoch brought in Obama to criticize Ailes for Fox’s coverage.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So it is 100% lies? in your opinion.

So lies equals to truth in your opinion?... BTW, how do you know the lies from, exaggerations?... If an author is willing to publish lies, the rest of his/her claims are exaggerations and not truth... Lies don't equal to "some truths"...

Wolff is rat of a reporter but he was in the ultimate rats nest, with unparalleled access to the fools and clowns in the White House.
He played them all superbly and like rats do when exposed to daylight, they’re running for cover.

originally posted by: Yabby
Wolff is rat of a reporter but he was in the ultimate rats nest, with unparalleled access to the fools and clowns in the White House.
He played them all superbly and like rats do when exposed to daylight, they’re running for cover.

You mean to say he was there during the Obama admin?

If people put this much energy in impeaching any of the last 4 presidents they wouldn't have lasted a year. How Trump manages to survive amidst all the autistic screeching is beyond me...

The author strikes me as just another triggered academic.

originally posted by: matafuchs
You just want to blame Trump. Well if you think they were lies Wolffy WTF print it?

'Cause then they where lies told by some of the most powerful and important people in the nation. It's not his job to cover for them, it's to shed light on them. Also, you have to have some basic respect for the people you interview and write about, right? Just because you think someone is lying doesn't mean you can just ignore what they say and write your own version. His book is based on what people have said! He can't invent the truth in his head, he has try to compile it from what people said and what he can read. A challenge in this white house. If he just explained his version of what he thinks is true then the book would be worthless. Why should we listen to him over anyone else? The challenge is to go through all the material he had and present it in a readable way that gives insight; show, not tell!

a reply to: matafuchs

Believing something to be true is making up bull# in real life? Your life must be very strange. I'm not gonna repeat myself, I'm just surprised you keep putting those words in his mouth. Everyone can go read his real statement and decide for themselves what the truth... Oops, sorry, I forgot that's not kosher, I guess! Never mind then, continue to provide you truth to us please.

Besides OP's claims, some users have linked statements saying he is inaccurate. Like that vogue editor. Who knows? Making a fact checking thread sounds like a good idea. She certainly has the right to defend herself, and it remains to be seen if someone can actually discredit this book.

a reply to: Yabby

Ha, maybe it takes a rat to gain the trust of rats.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Wolf's own words from the 10th page of the prologue:

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue."

I could care less if any of it is true or not. What I really like is continually pointing out what bad liars you hyperventilating liberals are.

Might want to go back and edit your lie.

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Wolf's own words from the 10th page of the prologue:

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue."

"BADLY untrue"? What would be "GOODLY untrue"? Author Wolff is not only a nutjub, but an ignorant nutjob.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Wolf's own words from the 10th page of the prologue:

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue."

"BADLY untrue"? What would be "GOODLY untrue"? Author Wolff is not only a nutjub, but an ignorant nutjob.

Baldly untrue ffs not badly.
For those missing the point Wolff is essentially saying, “yeah a lot of them were bull#ters and liars but I recorded it all so the rest of the world could see what a bunch of incompetent snakes they are”.
It’s not that difficult.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Barack Obama and Tony Blair have both said Wolfe made up the stuff in the books about them. Of course the libs are conveniently ignoring that Obama has called their hero-of-the-moment a liar.

I do like "Sloppy Steve." Sorry, but to me Bannon always looks like he's recovering from a night of heavy drinking.

is ]

Do you have any source for this statement?

It is entertaining to see Trump's all night/day through anything defense team tell us that the man who had been their hero at the beginning of the week, Steve Bannon, is now sloppy Steve, because, well because, that's why.

He said bad things about Trump.

Grow up, please. Trump is such an insecure little whining "loser" that he can't take some unemployed wanna-be (which he always was) tantrum against him?

Trump hears that his White House is in tatters. Hello, people. How many of his original team is left after just ONE year? And his Secretary of State and Attorney General are looking to be out, soon.

What a baby.

And yet through all the whining and all the hysterics, the "always Trumpers, and do they mean always" will toss aside even comments from their hero! Just a week ago! I read the comments here for two years lavishing Bannon as the real brain behind the real movement, but now he's sloppy Steve, all bc little short fingered, not very rich Trump takes criticism worse than my 10 year old.

Oh, and the author is merely pointing out that the White House staff was at each others' throats and he'd hear 2 different version of the same event, one of which can't be true.

That makes it such that the author admits it's mostly fiction. Actually, the stories the White House staff make up against each other make it obvious that liars are infesting the building.

a reply to: Blender5L

If I made a mistake in interpreting your response I am sorry....and it's capisce.

a reply to: Scrubdog

Grow up, please. Trump is such an insecure little whining "loser"

Loser...No....he was the WINNER. He WON the ability to sit in the most powerful seat in the world. You need to grow up and maybe open those eyes a bit through the haze of Trump hate.

How can Trump not realise that the more he insults or mocks Bannon the more it reflects badly on him. However awful/ incompetent he believes Bannon to be it makes his judgement equally poor. He was one of the most important figures in both his campaign and his early presidency- he hasn't diminished in knowledge, intuition and intelligence that much in a matter of months so why did Trump hire this person?

Presumably for the same reason he interacts with anyone: he used him to be beneficial at the time. His involvement gave people an immediate understanding of the general approach Trump would have so he immediately got the vote of all those who liked Breitbart. Now he's in the position Bannon is redundant- he's no longer of use to Trump so he gets rid of him. Now he's of no use he will criticise him as to diminish any bad things Bannon now has to say about Trump's presidency.

Surely no one thought he was there for political dialogue or actual political ideas? He was a useful tool to use and then throw away as are most of Trump's interactions it seems.

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


I could care less if any of it is true or not. What I really like is continually pointing out what bad liars you hyperventilating liberals are.

Might want to go back and edit your lie.

You could care less? So you do care about it?!
I'm not seriously having a go by the way, that's just one which always irritates me when people say it wrong.

But on that point, Trump is a court determined liar and is consistently inconsistent with his statements. Bannon is a good example: he often says one thing and then the opposite later on but fails to tell us the logic or rationale behind his change. I don't understand how people can trust in that? He should have to explain the reasoning behind these changes- I don't understand how people let him get away with such disdain and disrespect to the electorate by (apparently correctly) assuming he doesn't have to explain to the public.

a reply to: Outlier13

Why are you calling OtherSideOfTheCoin a liar? Your quote only supports what has been said. It's obvious that many accounts of Trump's presidency are false and many are contradictory. I feel like most threads these days are about trying to hash out what is lies and what is truth when it comes to Trump. Why shouldn't Wolff admit this? That doesn't mean he's saying his book doesn't paint a truthful picture of both lies and factual events. Have you even read the prologue?

I don't know how much truth there is in this book but looks like many trumpeters are so afraid to find out they need an excuse to ignore it.

a reply to: carewemust

I don't want to be petty, I misread stuff all the time, but I've got to say this post getting stars is so typical of ATS. He's an ignorant nutjob, never mind what he actually wrote; what we feel he wrote is what matters!

Nobody has thought of the contradiction in criticizing Bannon on one hand because of what he is suppose to have said in the book, yet also saying the book is false.

Then why denounce Bannon if the book is false

You can’t say the book is false and also denounce Bannon at the same time

If you denounce Bannon then your basically saying the book is true.

Trumps twisted thinking is spreading like a disease