Trump Is So Bad at Deals That the Book He Tried to Kill Is Coming Out Early

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Southern Guardian

He's already counterpunched with opening another investigation into Hillary AND as an extra bonus they want to bring criminal charges against wait for it...Christopher Steele.
Pathetic political move that will go nowhere.

Any chance Hillary and the Clintons could be criminals? Do you feel an investigations into her and the clinton foundation may reveal criminal activity if done thorough and accurate? I know you once defended her and felt sure she would be 'madam president'. Just wondered if you still think highly of her or if in fact you agree that the Clinton's really should be investigated further, despite the timing of such an investigation?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Halo restored.

I'm still thinking about that beach-halo as well. The legs, man. The legs!

She’s a great deal more than legs...at least I hope so.

*swoon*

a reply to: MotherMayEye

What? Let me and Les agree on something at least. Each to his own halo of her but still... agreement.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MotherMayEye

But my other question...if someone doesn't deny scathing claims published about them, at all...can we assume they are true?

Good question. Didn't happen in this case so what is the point?

BTW. Disclaimers are normal. He would have to do the same if stories all came directly from Trump instead of his staff, friends, and family. He said he has dozens of hours of recorded interviews.

What was the point of the cease and desist order again?

I think when the cease & desist order was written, the media was presenting the book as something the author (and contributors) were standing behind as fact.

Now that it's come to light that there is actually a disclaimer from the author saying he stands behind none of it and doesn't claim any of it is true, then there's no libel issue.

It wouldn't surprise me if no libel suit goes forward now. But I don't think that's a good reason to assume any of it is true.

As to the other question I had...no, it doesn't apply to this situation. But it applies to the last president and the media didn't report on it, let alone oversaturate the news with stories about it.

I just wondered if you assumed non-action/non-denials were admissions of guilt in general.

This is a dumb thread. A REALLY dumb thread. About a subject that's been beaten into the ground until it's just a stain.

Those who hate Trump will gobble up this tripe. Whatever. Some people read the National Enquirer. It's cheaper and more entertaining.

You should be thrilled, they've already knocked off $9.01 off the price.

Like I said in another thread, this rag will be on the discount rack for 99 cents in about 6 months. But spend your money and enjoy the gossip.

As far as a 'deal', the title of this thread is misleading and dumb. Trump has no power to kill a book deal.....and as long as there are deluded, sour-grapes lefties out there desperate to get the hardback edition, they'll print it. It's called Capitalism, something that Trump was not involved in, but if he's smart, he'll sue for defamation and libel.

Enjoy your crap sandwich.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You got something wrong. It isn't that doesn't stand behind what he wrote as he said he does stand behind it so to speak. The stories in the book are from those he interviewed. If they didn't tell the truth that would be an issue with Trumps staff, friends, and family. Good thing he made records.

As far as non-action/non-denials as admissions of guilt normally and historically the presidency does not lower themselves to denying petty lies. As Trumps fans say he is not a normal president we can only look at his past behavior. He has probably signed more libel suits than many lawyers.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well-played sir.

A drink for your efforts.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You got something wrong. It isn't that doesn't stand behind what he wrote as he said he does stand behind it so to speak. The stories in the book are from those he interviewed. If they didn't tell the truth that would be an issue with Trumps staff, friends, and family. Good thing he made records.

As far as non-action/non-denials as admissions of guilt normally and historically the presidency does not lower themselves to denying petty lies. As Trumps fans say he is not a normal president we can only look at his past behavior. He has probably signed more libel suits than many lawyers.

Well, the claims I was referring to about Obama are not petty. They are very, very serious. They involve the murder of Donald Young.

And this is Wolff's disclaimer:

"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. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

"Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."

He doesn't claim any of it is true and only goes so far to say that he "believes" some things are true. That is enough to render a libel complaint worthless. As long as he only says he "believes" some things are true but doesn't claim they are actually true, then it would be virtually impossible for Trump to prove he didn't really believe they were true.

Wolff does not claim any of it is true. I don't expect Trump to move forward with a libel complaint now.

Also, keep in mind that I did not vote for Trump and I don't like that this book has given me the urge to defend him. But, it's pretty obnoxious that this book got so much attention from the media when other worthy first hand accounts were buried by the press.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Which are you questioning? First, you said he doesn't stand behind it which isn't true. He does stand behind what he wrote.

Now you bring up the issue if the stories are true. That isn't a question of the writer it is a question of the integrity of those he interviewed.

To quote myself.

The stories in the book are from those he interviewed. If they didn't tell the truth that would be an issue with Trumps staff, friends, and family. Good thing he made records.

So Trump's "no give-away" policies are labeled as "no ability to negotiate".

a reply to: Grimpachi

There is a difference between saying something is true and saying you only believe something is true but it may not be.

ETA: A libel case hinges on that difference, too.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If Bannon told him that Trump locks himself in the bedroom with his cell phone eating cheeseburgers watching three TVs with different news channels by 6pm every night during the first week of his presidency and Wolff accurately wrote about it. Then you have every right to question if Bannon is telling the truth.

BTW that is in the book. Not sure if it was Bannon who said it though.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If Bannon told him that Trump locks himself in the bedroom with his cell phone eating cheeseburgers watching three TVs with different news channels by 6pm every night during the first week of his presidency and Wolff accurately wrote about it. Then you have every right to question if Bannon is telling the truth.

BTW that is in the book.

Oh, well who cares what Bannon said. No one believes anything from that turd.

Half of America think he's a white supremacist, untrustworthy, and worse than Trump, the other half think he's a slob, traitor, and untrustworthy.

ETA: Either way, anyone who claims to believe him is clearly dishonest, too.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

ETA: Either way, anyone who claims to believe him is clearly dishonest, too.

Trump once trusted him, but now he doesn't. What does that say?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Nothing to me.

I'm not sure I understand the truth about why Trump had someone like Bannon in his circle. Nothing good was ever going to come from him. That was always obvious to me.

Why is everyone so butthurt about this book, there really isn't anything too surprising in it. The hamburger-eating and Ivanka mocking his hair are quaint details but it's not really relevant whether they are true or not, I'm sure every president has his own quirks. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be published, at least I thought it was interesting.

On the other we already know about the horrible infighting, Trumps personality, and how shocked everyone was when he won. I just don't see what's so new, I haven't read most of it but what I've seen sounds totally in character. I think some people might be suffering from confirmation bias here.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Too much fun.

a reply to: tadaman

Billionaire. Check.

How do you know? Have you seen his tax returns?

President. Check.

That he is - He won the Electoral College.

Donald Trump has lost popular vote by greater margin than any US President

Celebrity. Check.

Yep. And there are many more celebrities in Hollywood.

Author. Check.

That's questionable in the least. Maybe a contributor.

'Art Of The Deal' Co-Author: Trump's Not Crazy Like A Fox, 'He's Just Crazy'

And the list just goes on.

Oh he has a long list alright.

Popular vote don't determine president. Trump won 30 states. How many states did Hillary win? Oh right. 20. California is a big state, but every state has 2 senators, even Wyoming.

a reply to: Cutepants

It's not the content of the book, for me. I could not care less about what I've heard about the claims made in the book.

It's the oversaturation in the news about this book that bothers me. I haven't seen anything like it since 'Unfit for Command,' in 2004. And I personally think the author of that book, Jerome Corsi, is a disinfo agent.

I need more balance in the media. I don't vote for Republicans and Democrats as a very strict rule, but that does not mean I am ok with obvious media bias intended to lead people around by their noses.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xtrozero

If you don't like Trump you must be an illegal?
Very rational thought process.

I guess the 70+% of eligible voters who didn't vote for him or at all must/might be Illegal.

Did you read his comment as to why I asked him if he was an illegal alien? He basically said he is a working Spick (his word) that didn't pay taxes, so I ask if he is an illegal alien..

I'm just trying to see where he is coming from...doesn't pay taxes, but works and hates Trump...

I think the OP is confused.

Why is the media trying to conflate Michael Wolff's book with Steve Bannon? Why are so many people falling for it? This should be put into the LOL forum.