Hi New here. What does anyone think of the New book trashing Trump. I hate it and believe it be all lies. Some nut job wanting to become famous. Bad try.
Nothing but made up nonsense by someone who never even met the President and was no where near the campaign. That’s ok though. He won’t be making much money off it.
Wolff stated in his book that Trump didn’t want to really become President…For over a year the MSM has been telling the village idiots that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the Presidency, so which one is it, they can’t both be true, but they can both be wrong.
Reminder to politicians. Never piss of Wikileaks.
I think more lies are getting exposed on a daily basis but liberals are so desperate for a win that they will believe and buy anything. Just like that hope and change that they gobbled up for eight years.
Lol, all lies?? No…but perhaps not all true.
Hope and change = maga
I see a libel suit in the near future.
The dude never even interviewed the people he wrote about. That not journalism. It’s fiction.
It is libel!
- n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a “public figure” (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.
See also: defamation libel per se public figure slander
The People’s Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill Publisher Fine Communications
There are people that have corroborated much of it… are you suggesting that he didn’t have this access to people in the WH??
It is truly amazing that dems and so many others will believe this work of fiction. Even after to admitted he verified nothing.
One of the big questions about Wolff’s book is how he could have been privy to certain private conversations between Trump’s advisers and allies. For instance he claims to know what was discussed between Bannon and then-Fox News boss Roger Ailes during a private dinner. It turns out the dinner in question actually consisted of six guests. One of them is a reporter for respected entertainment news outlet The Hollywood Reporter. She’s now confirming that it went down the way the book claims.
I wonder how much she got paid for that bit of fluff… or did she contribute it and jump it up a bit for a piece of the book action? There seem to be a lot of things being said by reporters working for ‘respected’ news outlets… A LOT as we seem to see is dubious at best. He has said more than enough to discredit or at least case doubt on the books contents that people should at best look at it as a work of satire and at worse a hit piece it was intended to be.
I here their are a few more of these things in the pipeline… perhaps they all got together and fabricated… er… exchanged stories…
There are a lot of people/Unnamed sources lacking credibility verifying the fiction/information
But truth means little to the left
Yeah… like Clinton’s dossiers… credible corroboration…
Corroborated with lies and people lacking one ounce of integrity.
NOT TRUE! Wolff and the president did meet and the White House acknowledges this.
“There was one brief conversation that had nothing to do, originally, with the book,” Sanders said at a Jan. 3 White House press briefing. “It was, I think, around five to seven minutes in total since the president has taken office. And that’s the only interaction that he’s had.”