New Trump Book Breaks Trump, Popcorn Shortage Expected

A meme for you:

Apparently Donald Trump is going full on conniption over this new book.

Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolf is the latest, maybe the only so far, tell all of the early days of the Trump White House. It is not available yet (butcan be pre-ordered).

The book is based on hundreds of interviews and considerable time spent in the White House by the author. I’m not sure if this guy is exactly my favorite author, but anybody who can get Trump to explode is worth checking out.

Spread the love

15 thoughts on “New Trump Book Breaks Trump, Popcorn Shortage Expected

  1. Once again, liberals can’t keep their anti-Trump stories straight. We keep getting told about Trump collusion with the Russians(stories that contradict each other but never mind that). Now Greg Laden hypes a book that says Trump never wanted to be President! So why the collusion then? ‘Hey comrade, leak some e-mails so that I only lose by 4.’

    1. So Trump Jr and two or three others from Trump Sr.’s entourage go to meet a Russian operative who promises dirt on Clinton and daddy knows nothing about it and all they talk about is Russian orphans. Only an idiot would believe that , but then again only idiots voted and still support the unstable, narcissistic retard in the White House at the moment. Haven’t followed this blog for quite a while but I’m pretty sure you’re a global warming denier, so that pretty much says it all.

  2. MikeN: a) I’ve not hyped any book in this post. I’ve not even read it. But I do think the whole idea of this book is hilarious. b) there was collusion, there isn’t any doubt about that at this point.

    1. When was the collusion, and for what.

      The more cautious liberals are withholding enthusiasm for this book. Seems Wolff has a reputation for dishonesty, and they don’t want to give Trump ammunition. Gloria Allred almost got Roy Moore elected.

    2. Gloria Allred almost got Roy Moore elected.

      No, she did not. The low life scum who supported him almost got him elected.

  3. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. We found that similar books about Clinton and Obama were full of fact-free crap, as seriously as they were touted by the right. We found that the items in the hit-job book done on Anita Hill were bogus (some so bad that they had her working or visiting places at times when Senate testimony showed her to be elsewhere), but the accusations against Thomas’ actions have had growing support since then. Most of the accusations against the second President Bush asserting intentional dishonesty regarding the invasion of Iraq are bogus — that seems to be simple flat out stupidity. (The accusations that he or his people were involved in September 11 were always asinine.)

    So in this book — I don’t think we’ll have enough information anytime soon to judge one way or another about the claims, unless
    > Some of the people named as sources come forward with evidence and say “Yup, I said that, and here’s proof”
    or
    > The recordings that the author has claimed he made during interviews are aired

    It will be interesting.

    1. Re: Bush

      How you interpret that may depend on whether you mean Bush or the Bush Administration. Certainly there was gut thinking and motivated reasoning all around, and there was a ludicrous vision of the Middle East somehow being magically transformed by the invasion into a happy region of peaceful, America-loving contentment. The war was what was wanted and why, at least in part, the Office of Special Plans was created. (It’s ironic, BTW, that Trump tries to discredit the intelligence community over the war without regard to the OSP — something which people are all too happy to overlook.)

      “The fog of war” a nice euphemism for propaganda IMO.

      Anyway, the book was dicussed on today’s 1A Friday Roundup on NPR. I think it was the domestic hour. It’s worth a listen.

      Short version:
      The journalist who wrote it has a habit of being sloppy when it comes to good practice. And even if it’s only half true, it’s still disturbing. A lot of what it says lines up with what has already been reported more sedately elsewhere.

    2. Anita Hill’s witness was her friend who testified she remembered having these conversations in DC at her apartment. Lots of details were given in her questioning. Then someone pointed out the timeline that Anita Hill wasn’t working for Clarence Thomas yet. Witness asks for a recess and then comes back and her memory is suddenly all fuzzy. The whole thing was a hit job to take down Thomas, and Anita didn’t want to let her friends down. She was told she could do it with just a letter, and it snowballed.

  4. > Some of the people named as sources come forward with evidence and say “Yup, I said that, and here’s proof”

    Ann Coulter has yet to deny the statements attributed to her. The part about Stephen Miller is clearly made up, but it is not clear if it was by the author or by Bannon who the author quoted without checking.

  5. >against the second President Bush asserting intentional dishonesty regarding the invasion of Iraq are bogus — that seems to be simple flat out stupidity.

    I’m not so sure. I think there was a lot of leaking of lies to friendly reporters. Bill Gertz should reveal his sources on everything he got wrong.

    1. Funny how Bannon hasn’t denied saying that the Kushner meeting was treasonous. Clearly he said it, and he’d know.

      You wouldn’t though. So why keep insisting there was no collusion, when even Bannon is calling what went down treason.

      Wake the fuck up and stop placing party before country. It’s treasonous.

    2. Bannon wasn’t part of the campaign yet. So he would have no more reason to know than anyone else. And it was Donald Jr, not Kushner. However, most of Bannon’s attacks were against Kushner, and his ‘apology’ only says nice things about Donald Jr. He says his attack on the meeting was referring to Manafort who should have known better.

      I agree with Bannon, that the meeting should have been done as he suggests.
      However, the existence of this meeting cuts against the collusion narrative. If they were colluding with the Russians to ‘hack the election’ why did they need a British movie producer to set up a meeting with this lawyer?

    3. The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers.

      “Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”

      Bannon’s wriggling but it’s too late. He called it treasonous because it was collaboration with the Russians to influence the course of the election.

      Yes, meant Don Jr, not Kushner. Brain rot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.