The author of the explosive new Trump book says he can't be sure if parts of it are true

Did you understand the meaning in post #25?
Here it is again:

It's about context, a component of critical thinking.

 

Not a set-up in my view. That was just one year where Trump paid out a lot of money. It was not an example of every year. It was
'See? I pay a lot of taxes.' Means nothing in the scheme of things, and only trumpists bought into it. Maddow is hardly inept. She
knew how much was in that tax statement, so it was no surprise when she opened it. The 20 minutes was spent speculating as to how the document suddenly appeared. Did Trump leak it? Did someone steal it? Was it accurate? Where was the rest of the document? That was the focus, not the amount of money. Frankly, I thought that Trump looked like a fool for thinking he could fool anybody.

 

This book finally explains the true meaning of that phrase..

 

If you watch either CNN or MSNBC or NBC or CBS or ABC you will find that they all issue a caveat that they have not confirmed all the contents.

Journalism ain't dead, but there are a lot of brain dead consumers of their work products.

 

He didn't purposely write lies. Where did you get that from? He wrote what people told him and could not guarantee the accuracy, of course, and that makes perfect sense.

 

Seems the west wing has been infected.

 

Oh FFS, you really don't get it.

 

Hmm. So as "this other guy" I believe that Trump and his admin are geniuses. Okay, let's use something called the search function and find out my actual opinion of Trump and compare it to your "fact":

Hmm. I could go on of course but in the case of Egoboy and his laughable assertion that I think Trump is a genius, I'll just award him four Pinocchios and leave it at that.

 

no it is about writing lies in a book knowing they are lies and not calling the book fiction then thinking some disclaimer excuses you for writing those lies
that disclaimer might keep you out of legal jeopardy but it sure in the hell doesn't give the book or author its lost credibility

 

Mmmmm....good point.

 

he says he knows what was told to him by some were lies but he put it in the book anyways

 

So you don't understand "context" then. OK, got it.

 

The entire book is fiction. It's a novel set in the White House and at best based on a true story. The true story part is Trump's in the White House.

 

Even when he uses his recording of interviews to create the quotes in the book? Yep, he got the name of the restaurant AND the date wrong so naturally what was said is to be dismissed out of hand. Then again somebody claims they didn't say that - perhaps so, but then again, perhaps one such consider that could just as easily have an OMG moment and deny they said it in order to protect themselves from the wrath of donald. I hope trump sues then all wolffe's working papers would be placed in public evidence. What's the bet he'll do what he threatened to do?

Would you apply the same logic to your fearless leader? He constantly lies so nobody can believe anything he has to say.
Yep that works for me.

 

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.

why do I even waste my time giving you the link to the article when you don't even bother to read it before commenting in the thread about the article

 

Oops...not you, dude.... your stuff is pretty well reasoned....TRFjr is where I was pointing.... Mea Culpa... I replied to the wrong post...

 

do you believe anything Trump says because he lies ?
so then you need to explain why do you believe this book when the author says it is full of lies?

 

Does this mean that you don't read books of this type because an interviewee may or may not be accurate? You decide where the truth lies. You are missing out.
Even history books may have different views of the way history unfolds. Don't read them? What do you read?

 

The author did not say it was full of lies. He said that some people may not have told him the truth, but he had no way of knowing.
Get real. Trump lies all the time.

 

Seems to me a certain letter from an attorney has shaken a certain author to the core.

Otherwise, why admit parts of your book could be untrue?

 

There's (sadly) just as many of the brain-dead producing journalism nowadays as well. Maybe I'm only dreaming about times when they actually seemed to care more about the truth. I just don't trust any of them anymore.

Okay, no prob and thanks.

 

Please paste up any "context" you think is important.

 

No I don't read books which the author admits he wrote lies in it
making a mistake or getting fact or two wrong is one thing but outright admitting you wrote lies in the book is another

 

It is always good to see the corrupt bipartisan political class swallowing its own tail.

“On Wednesday, Politico published a blockbuster accusation from Brazile’s new book: that the DNC had “rigged” the 2016 primary election for Hillary Clinton through an agreement that gave Clinton control over key aspects of the DNC, a claim that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., endorsed on CNN. The Clinton camp refused to comment publicly but instead contacted their favorite reporters to publish their response as news.”
THE INTERCEPT, Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That Are False, Glenn Greenwald, November 5 2017.
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05...witter-in-the-last-week-alone-that-are-false/

 

Several of his sources, he says, were definitely lying to him, while some offered accounts that flatly contradicted those of others.

But some were nonetheless included in the vivid account of the West Wing's workings, in a process Wolff describes as "allowing the reader to judge" whether the sources' claims are true.

tell me what part of were "definitely lying to him" do you not understand?

maybe you need a little lesson on the word definitely


definitely

adverb

Without doubt

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/definitely