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

Oh come on. Stewart is one of the PF members that actually posts cogent in depth replies. Dissing him paints yourself as not interested in rational discussion.

Usually egg, you're worthy of debate. Straighten up and fly right, bro.

 

TRUMP TOLD HOPE HICKS SHE WAS 'THE BEST PIECE OF TAIL' COREY LEWANDOWSKI WOULD EVER HAVE

 

Does anybody really believe anything that comes out of the media?

 

No.

The 64-year-old author and blogger has given Mr. Trump's allies fodder, particularly with an acknowledgement in the introduction that he could not resolve discrepancies between some accounts in a White House riven by rivalries.

"Many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue," Wolff writes of some accounts. "Those conflicts and that looseness with the truth, if not reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book." He says he "settled on a version of events I believe to be true."

For example, Wolff writes in the book that Mr. Trump didn't know who former House Speaker John Boehner was on election night 2016. Sanders disputes that, pointing to public photos that show the golf enthusiasts had hit the links over the years. Two people close to Boehner confirmed that and said they had spoken before and after the election.

It's trash by the Trump hating author's own admission. Buy it if you want to help this scumbag get rich.

 

the book hasn't even been out for a full day and already many lies have been pointed out

for example this one

WaPo Reporter on Wolff Book Saying He Was at Four Seasons: ‘Never Actually Been There’
https://www.mediaite.com/online/wap...as-at-four-seasons-never-actually-been-there/​

 

You skipped a few posts... we shook hands in posts 191 and 196....

Flying right under the safe skies provided by Air Traffic Safety Officer Trump...

 

Judy Woodruff on PBS treated the book as pure fact. She did not bother to challenge the contents. She called on people who hate Trump and got their view. But she clearly was selling the book.

 

This is my forum ... meaning I avoid other net forums ... but there is on PBS daily, the chat section. This I play a role in. Today Judy Woodruff treated this book by Wolff as nothing more than true. She was essentially selling it to the people who haunt PBS. One poster so hated my guts, he called for my death. By name, he called for me to be killed. Ambrose is the guys last name.

 

When Democrats finally admit that they are not Liberals, i shall smile and say job done.

This term once was the term used for republicans. Nothing changed. Democrats love to steal words.

 

Did Obama ban Wolff from writing a book about him as he would sit on the sofa waiting for the news to walk by?

 

If he couldn't vouch for the accuracy, why did he print it?

 

I don't believe everything in the book. Haven't read it so i can't say. OTOH, I tend to lend a measure of credibility to an author that says UP FRONT - no doubt some people lied to me but this is what they said.

I don't believe some of his more outrageous observations that were made in the excerpt published by nymag, but given the author has tape recordings of the Bannon interview and HOSTED the dinner party with ailes and bannon I give Wolff the nod over trump and his defenders.

And I know trump tells the truth more than he lies. AFterall he's only averaging 5 or so lies or misrepresentations PER DAY and usually has way more to say than that, unless he's playing golf.

 

Send me a copy of the book with the truthful statements highlighted in yellow and the lies blacked out.

 

ROFLMAO so you know the book contains lies but you credit the author because he tells you his non-fiction historical book is full of lies! Isn't THAT rich.

 

So here is my book about the George Washington Presidency. I can tell you its not all true but read it anyway.

Just hilarious the left has swallowed this nonsense hook line and sinker and even defend it.

 

Can you read?

 

Can you perhaps explain the trumpette position that if one thing is a lie then everything is a lie? Do they not possess any discretion circuits? Do they lack the ability to parse, analyse and assess the information as it is presented? Is confirmation bias so high that only one perspective can be entirely correct and another entirely wrong? If so it is the domain of the intellectually stunted.

I realize that sounds arrogant even if its true, and I readily admit it is. SOLELY on intellectual basis, because, after all the measure of man's intellect is NOT the measure of the man.

 

Let's get specific... I've read that nymag stuff 2x and I don't see anything in there that doesn't fall outside the realm of possibility.... which don't you believe??

To me, the most likely is the one SHS mentioned about him not knowing John Boehner.... but on the other hand, he might know the face, but not the name right off the cuff.... He's been out of the epicenter for a few years...

 

Can you explain to me how a non-fiction historical recount book that the author admits contains lies should be take with even a grain of credulity?

 

Obviously, can you have an adult discussion or do you just want to trade insults?

Try again.

ROFLMAO so you know the book contains lies but you credit the author because he tells you his non-fiction historical book is full of lies! Isn't THAT rich.

 

Oh geez he's played golf with Boehner. This nonsense has been exposed for unsubstantiated, unconfirmed gossip.
If you oppose Trump on policy matters then debate policy matters. That you don't like him personaly is a big OH WELL. I don't like him personally but he won the Presidency so now it is about policy.

 

wow.

 

I said "observations" which are the authors interpretations of the body of evidence he acquired and the atmosphere he was allowed to soak up.

Bannon is on tape. the dinner party was at the authors' house.

 

so tell me how will you know what is and isn't a lie in the book if or when you read it?

 

Yeah, and Trump plays golf so rarely that he'll remember the names of all his groups... 1 round in 2013 is all I could find.... The clear implication is that he used to know who John Boehner was, but perhaps doesn't any more?? Again, I doubt that as well, if you had read my post for content, but it's not out of the realm of possibility...

This thread is about the accuracy of the new book.... If/when I want to debate policy, I'll find that thread...