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

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Cozy Bear

Cozy Bear, classified as advanced persistent threat APT29, is a Russian hacker group believed to be associated with Russian intelligence. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has suggested that it may be associated with either the Russian Federal Security Service(FSB) or Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR).[2] The group was given other nicknames by other cybersecurity firms, including Office Monkeys, CozyCar,[3] The Dukes (by Volexity), and CozyDuke[4][5] (by F-Secure).

Fancy Bear

Fancy Bear (also known as APT28, Pawn Storm, Sofacy Group, Sednit and STRONTIUM) is a cyber espionage group. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has said with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence agency GRU.[2]Security firms SecureWorks,[3] ThreatConnect,[4] and Fireeye's Mandiant[5] have also said the group is sponsored by the Russian government.

These are the hackers. Identified


But just ignore anything you don't like.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Did you alert the mods? Alert them if you think it should be moved. No guarantee they will but I guarantee they won't if they're not told about it.

Are you blind? Bigfatfurrytexan is right here in this thread. Looks like it is not considered a hoax. What a shame.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Well looks like not even most of the MSM is buying his BS. That backfired rather quickly. Michael Wolff’s spotty record raises questions about Trump tell-all

The author, for example, claims that Mr. Trump did not know who former House speaker John Boehner was when former Fox News honcho Roger Ailes suggested him as a potential chief of staff.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Boehner played golf together as recently as 2013, and the president has tweeted about the Ohio Republican dozens of times.

But other anecdotes in the book have held up so far.

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has yet to deny calling Donald Trump Jr. “treasonous” and “unpatriotic,” or Ivanka Trump “dumb as a brick.”

So the only stuff that holds up so far are things that are essentially gossipy insults.

I mean, if people think Trump is beneath the office, i can't fault them for that. What I can fault them for is turning a circus into a complete farce. Trump may be bad...his detractors are seemingly just as bad, if not worse. Which is a shame, as it turns any complaint they may have into pure hypocrisy. They are derailing his presidency as much as he is.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Oh come on now....identified by who?

That information has been shown to be as suspect as this Wolff nonsense.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I didn't read it yet.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yeah Crowd Strike the pillars of thruth. That's why they refused to show the infected servers to the FBI. You crack me up.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: matafuchs

It doesn't say that. He says the anecdotes presented by some parties are untrue but he left them so the reader could form an accurate opinion of the individuals. .
Probably anything trump says lol.

They lied...He just let them.

I have not yet read the book....but does he differentiate the lies? Or is he purveying in gossip?

I mean, its a book and not the newspaper (although newspapers are quoting it as actual news rather than calling it what it is: a promo of someones book). And he gave the cursory disclaimer in the foreward. So its not like he has some moral obligation to not print total BS (and Trump has never shied away from being a tabloid darling). But from the perspective of an actual citizen living in this country, its hard for me to reconcile someone putting out a book about our president (as loathesome as he may be) that is full of admittedly unsubstantial claims with no differentiation between what is corroborated and what is suspect.

Essentially, it feels like a CIA op, where there is just enough truth to be believable...but otherwise knowingly filled with crap.

There's been enough of a hullabaloo that I'm considering buying it and reading it (it should last me for part of a plane trip next week.) I suspect he'll say something about the person that indicates when he thinks someone is not telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" because that will make the book more interesting and compelling.

To be fair, the idea that he's interviewing people that he thinks are lying to him makes the book quite compelling to me. Anyone who's done interviewing can often tell when someone's suddenly uncomfortable about things or when everyone tells one story while someone else suddenly tells an entirely different version that is at odds with the overall flow. A good reporter will do some probing into those areas to see the more likely direction of the truth.

Plus, we can see where truths lie in comparing them with events and reports. I find, for instance, the thread that Melania didn't want to be First Lady has a ring of truth for me because of her body language, her trying to stay out of the spotlight (she's done nothing except lurk in New York for six months (I don't blame her), redecorate the White House, and attend one conference as far as I can remember ... and appear in public with Trump sometimes.) This is not the energetic forward motion of a Jackie Kennedy or a Lady Bird Johnson. These are not the actions of someone stepping into a powerful role on the global stage.

Anyway, as I said, I'm thinking I will buy this one to read on the plane. If I do, I'll do a book review of it just for grins.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Well this is him speaking in his own words.

He is pretty adiment that his account is a true as it can be.

Also the author is not saying he made it up he is saying that he believes at times those he was interviewing didn’t tell him the truth and it’s for the reader to decide what to believe of their claims.

To me reading the article and the OP it’s sounds like a attempt to twist things to try to discredit this book. Actually this entire OP is very misleading, even reading through the arrival it does not say that Wolff has admitted that it’s mostly untrue. So I’d say if anything belongs in the Hoax bin it’s probably this

More of the right grasping at straws to run to the Defense of trum and actually I am almost starting to pity them.

To be clear: it is factually incorrect to claim that Wolff has said that the contents of this book are “mostly untrue”.

Sure individuals might want to believe the the contents of the book are untrue but it is factually incorrect to claim that Wolff has said that this book is “mostly untrue”as the OP has said....it is “fake news”

Actually, it's the opposite. I didn't vote for Trump, but when someone doubts the credibility of their sources then their motive is quite obviously something other than the truth. But eat up his spin all you want, while claiming some imaginary intellectual high ground because of your... feelings. I hope you never serve on a jury.

Would love the op to show where the guy said it is mostly false.
Why is this still here? maybe just get the op to change the title? seeing it is a falsehood.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: testingtesting

The OP post is the one that should be in the hoax bin! After I looked into what the OP said( and I did) it's pure fabrication and wishful thinking.

Why hasn’t this been hoaxed, the title is false and the entire OP is just spun in such a way to pretend that it’s true.

Deny ignorance......lol

I find it truly astounding how you can somehow consistently project some kind of pseudo authority over other members on this site, as if you have the moral high-ground or even the credibility -- or that you even care about denying ignorance. I know all the flags you receive from your threads can give you a false sense of importance, but maybe you need to take a step back and reevaluate the things you type before hitting the send button. It's not a good look. But I know, who even cares what Trump supporters think of you as long as you have the entire left behind you, right? Plus we are all stoopid to boot and you're all superior intellectuals.

But for the sake of not going off-topic, if this belongs in the HOAX, all your threads belong in the LOL.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Russia had two goals. Either one if accomplished was fine with them.

Their goals were to get trump elected AND cripple Clinton's presidency if she won.
Either outcome was good for them.
Obviously trump getting elected was better for getting sanctions lifted.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Can you show me where the author said it was mostly not true?.

a reply to: Byrd

I intend on reading it too (assuming time will allow). But im very interested in hearing your thoughts when you are done.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

The title of the OP is false.

That is the only reason I asked the question and I am not the only one asking.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Well looks like not even most of the MSM is buying his BS. That backfired rather quickly. Michael Wolff’s spotty record raises questions about Trump tell-all

The author, for example, claims that Mr. Trump did not know who former House speaker John Boehner was when former Fox News honcho Roger Ailes suggested him as a potential chief of staff.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Boehner played golf together as recently as 2013, and the president has tweeted about the Ohio Republican dozens of times.

But other anecdotes in the book have held up so far.

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has yet to deny calling Donald Trump Jr. “treasonous” and “unpatriotic,” or Ivanka Trump “dumb as a brick.”

So the only stuff that holds up so far are things that are essentially gossipy insults.

I mean, if people think Trump is beneath the office, i can't fault them for that. What I can fault them for is turning a circus into a complete farce. Trump may be bad...his detractors are seemingly just as bad, if not worse. Which is a shame, as it turns any complaint they may have into pure hypocrisy. They are derailing his presidency as much as he is.

For me, the one thing that destroys that narrative of Wolff being unreliable is the source article itself. There aren't any links to other sources... the links there are to advertising and stories on their own site. Even an article about an old complaint in 1998 can turn up a confirmation copy (or evidence of something similar) in the Internet archives with a simple link... yet this wasn't done.

Do I believe he's a genius and a paragon? No...but I'm not seeing any solid evidence of complete mendacity, either. And I am seeing evidence (as shown in the OP) of misinterpreting the written word.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Byrd

I intend on reading it too (assuming time will allow). But im very interested in hearing your thoughts when you are done.

What we should do is collude on a thread -- since we're both fairly reasonable people with different political views -- and a title and give BOTH our views on it. I think it would be interesting for ATS, and it would be interesting for us... if the idea interests you, that is.



Oh yeah... and we're BOTH Texans. So that would make it totally awesome, you know.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

According to you guys the FBI James Comey and Bob Mueller are the leakers.
Now it's Bannon?
Okay

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Perfectenemy

Russia had two goals. Either one if accomplished was fine with them.

Their goals were to get trump elected AND cripple Clinton's presidency if she won.
Either outcome was good for them.
Obviously trump getting elected was better for getting sanctions lifted.

Yeah how is that working out for the russians since Trump authorized a weapons deal with the Ukraine. Can you see the errors in your way of thinking?

Double post

a reply to: pavil

No he was setting up an entertainment venue based on his coming in second.
He didn't want to be president. He just wanted the airtime so he could use it later in his new venture.
He defrauded the American people who voted for him. He used you.