Woodward book coming out.
Could get interesting.

Woodward book coming out.
Could get interesting.

Mattis calls Woodward's reporting on him 'fiction'

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/405056-mattis-calls-woodwards-reporting-on-him-fiction

Defense Secretary James Mattis on Tuesday pushed back against a passage concerning him in journalist Bob Woodward’s forthcoming book, calling it “fiction” and “a product of someone's rich imagination."

“The contemptuous words about the President attributed to me in Woodward's book were never uttered by me or in my presence,” Mattis said in a statement. “While I generally enjoy reading fiction, this is a uniquely Washington brand of literature, and his anonymous sources do not lend credibility.”

TRUMP SAYS BOB WOODWARD HAS ‘A LOT OF CREDIBILITY PROBLEMS’

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/04/trump-woodward-credibility-problems/

President Donald Trump addressed newly released excerpts from Bob Woodward’s book on his administration, denying some specific allegations and accusing the author of credibility issues, in an exclusive Oval Office interview with The Daily Caller.

“It’s just another bad book. He’s had a lot of credibility problems,” Trump declared, adding, “I probably would have preferred to speak to him, but maybe not. I think it probably wouldn’t have made a difference in the book. He wanted to write the book a certain way.”

The president pointed to a newly released statement from White House chief of staff John Kelly, who denied making disparaging remarks about his boss.

“The idea I ever called the President an idiot is not true,” Kelly said. “As I stated back in May and still firmly stand behind: ‘I spend more time with the President than anyone else, and we have an incredibly candid and strong relationship. He always knows where I stand, and he and I both know this story is total BS. I’m committed to the President, his agenda, and our country.  This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump and distract from the administration’s many successes.”

Mattis calls Woodward's reporting on him 'fiction'

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/405056-mattis-calls-woodwards-reporting-on-him-fiction

Defense Secretary James Mattis on Tuesday pushed back against a passage concerning him in journalist Bob Woodward’s forthcoming book, calling it “fiction” and “a product of someone's rich imagination."

“The contemptuous words about the President attributed to me in Woodward's book were never uttered by me or in my presence,” Mattis said in a statement. “While I generally enjoy reading fiction, this is a uniquely Washington brand of literature, and his anonymous sources do not lend credibility.”

TRUMP SAYS BOB WOODWARD HAS ‘A LOT OF CREDIBILITY PROBLEMS’

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/04/trump-woodward-credibility-problems/

President Donald Trump addressed newly released excerpts from Bob Woodward’s book on his administration, denying some specific allegations and accusing the author of credibility issues, in an exclusive Oval Office interview with The Daily Caller.

“It’s just another bad book. He’s had a lot of credibility problems,” Trump declared, adding, “I probably would have preferred to speak to him, but maybe not. I think it probably wouldn’t have made a difference in the book. He wanted to write the book a certain way.”

The president pointed to a newly released statement from White House chief of staff John Kelly, who denied making disparaging remarks about his boss.

“The idea I ever called the President an idiot is not true,” Kelly said. “As I stated back in May and still firmly stand behind: ‘I spend more time with the President than anyone else, and we have an incredibly candid and strong relationship. He always knows where I stand, and he and I both know this story is total BS. I’m committed to the President, his agenda, and our country.  This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump and distract from the administration’s many successes.”

I'm not surprised that people he mentioned is attacking the book. Either he is making stuff up or what he is saying is accurate and they don't want to admit they said those things due to fear of losing job or violating the NDA.

Bob Woodward obviously has some credibility to his name so I think that gives some weight to what he writes but it doesn't make it canon either.

Woodward tried to interview Trump but Trump claimed he never got the request, though did end up saying a senator informed him of the request.

I don't know if Woodward is telling the truth or not. Will have to wait to see if anything comes up that would definitively catch him in a lie or prove him right. Either way I wouldn't be particularly surprised.

My apologies, I don't know how that word got there. I meant Trump, not you. I corrected my statement.

I'm not surprised that people he mentioned is attacking the book. Either he is making stuff up or what he is saying is accurate and they don't want to admit they said those things due to fear of losing job or violating the NDA.

Bob Woodward obviously has some credibility to his name so I think that gives some weight to what he writes but it doesn't make it canon either.

Woodward tried to interview Trump but Trump claimed he never got the request, though did end up saying a senator informed him of the request.

I don't know if Woodward is telling the truth or not. Will have to wait to see if anything comes up that would definitively catch him in a lie or prove him right. Either way I wouldn't be particularly surprised.

Just to be fair, to prove that Woodward is not a "Dem operative", here I list the books he wrote critical of the administration in office from 2009 until 2017:

Just to be fair, to prove that Woodward is not a "Dem operative", here I list the books he wrote critical of the administration in office from 2009 until 2017:

Then your google-fu needs some work. He wrote Obama's wars and the price of politics.

But even if you prove that Woodward has a bias, so what? That doesn't prove he is lying or that we can't trust what he wrote.

Then your google-fu needs some work. He wrote Obama's wars and the price of politics.

But even if you prove that Woodward has a bias, so what? That doesn't prove he is lying or that we can't trust what he wrote.

I don't think you understand how bias works.

If you like chocolate better than strawberry, and you're asked to judge an ice cream making contest, there's no way you can be fair.  Your bias is going to favor your preference.

Even if you really tried to be fair, the mere fact that you're partial to chocolate should disqualify you as a judge.  Appearance of bias or impropriety is enough to taint your decision.

Woodward only knew about Nixon through an anonymous source, "Deep Throat".

Woodward is trying to recapture that glory and make money on another book, once again using an anonymous source -- only this time to smear the reputation of Trump, not publicize actual crimes..

If you think he's doing this for the good of the nation, forget it.

Washington is losing their shit over this because it is Bob fucking Woodward. There’s been several books released with similar allegations but Bob is the top dog.

I don't think you understand how bias works.

If you like chocolate better than strawberry, and you're asked to judge an ice cream making contest, there's no way you can be fair.  Your bias is going to favor your preference.

Even if you really tried to be fair, the mere fact that you're partial to chocolate should disqualify you as a judge.  Appearance of bias or impropriety is enough to taint your decision.

Woodward only knew about Nixon through an anonymous source, "Deep Throat".

Woodward is trying to recapture that glory and make money on another book, once again using an anonymous source -- only this time to smear the reputation of Trump, not publicize actual crimes..

If you think he's doing this for the good of the nation, forget it.

Yet somehow we entrust the power to judge upon human beings.

Does bias affect us in ways that aren't always obvious? Sure, absolutely. Can a professional recognize bias and minimize it? Yes.

So if indeed Woodward has a bias towards democrats then we might see it sneak into his journalism. A choice of words that isn't neutral, choosing one story over another, etc. But that is not what is at issue here. Woodward is writing that people informed him that this person said this or that about Trump. That is not an issue for a subtle bias you are talking about.

Woodward has written lots of books, I see no reason to believe your assertion that he is only writing a book to make money off of smearing Trump. Woodward has a reputation stemming back from the report on Nixon, if he were be found to have made up things his career would be ruined. Do you think he would risk it all to tell made up stories? Possible but I would bet against it. Which is more likely, Woodward is a liar/crappy journalist, or Trump, a man known to say lots of stupid stuff, has staffers that complain about Trump?

Now to consider all possibilities, yes it is possible that Woodward is making up stuff. It is also possible he isn't vetting his "sources". I don't understand why you are so quick to try and discredit Woodward. Is that your bias coming into play?

Washington is losing their shit over this because it is Bob fucking Woodward. There’s been several books released with similar allegations but Bob is the top dog.

Well it lends credence to the allegations.

Yet somehow we entrust the power to judge upon human beings.

Does bias affect us in ways that aren't always obvious? Sure, absolutely. Can a professional recognize bias and minimize it? Yes.

So if indeed Woodward has a bias towards democrats then we might see it sneak into his journalism. A choice of words that isn't neutral, choosing one story over another, etc. But that is not what is at issue here. Woodward is writing that people informed him that this person said this or that about Trump. That is not an issue for a subtle bias you are talking about.

Woodward has written lots of books, I see no reason to believe your assertion that he is only writing a book to make money off of smearing Trump. Woodward has a reputation stemming back from the report on Nixon, if he were be found to have made up things his career would be ruined. Do you think he would risk it all to tell made up stories? Possible but I would bet against it. Which is more likely, Woodward is a liar/crappy journalist, or Trump, a man known to say lots of stupid stuff, has staffers that complain about Trump?

Now to consider all possibilities, yes it is possible that Woodward is making up stuff. It is also possible he isn't vetting his "sources". I don't understand why you are so quick to try and discredit Woodward. Is that your bias coming into play?

And judges are expected to recuse themselves when a conflict -- demonstrable or not -- exists.  Failure to do so may be the basis for appeal.

Your lack of understanding of bias and the judicial system is appalling, especially considering you've had law classes.

Then your google-fu needs some work. He wrote Obama's wars and the price of politics.

But even if you prove that Woodward has a bias, so what? That doesn't prove he is lying or that we can't trust what he wrote.

I don't use google. Or facebook. Or twitter. Etc. And my startpage and duckduckgo skills are just fine.

I guess your reading skills need some work. First of all I wrote "critical" of that Obama administration. Second, "Obama's Wars" is not critical of Obama. If anything it makes Obama out to be some sort of long-suffering genius who must suffer the slings and arrows of ignorant and insistent military and intelligence personnel who are incapable of accepting their leader's genius nature. Third, "The Price of Politics" isn't really about Obama at all and certainly not critical of him nor his administration.

So my original post remains valid: "Just to be fair, to prove that Woodward is not a "Dem operative", here I list the books he wrote critical of the administration in office from 2009 until 2017:                                                                                           "



It's likely that it's just a coincidence that he found nothing to be critical of in the Obama administration... you know, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, Gruber intentional lies re Obamacare, pallets of cash to Iran, etc. etc. etc. Maybe Woodward was busy doing other things... like writing a book about what a military genius Obama was... and stuff.

And nothing "proves" that he is telling the truth or that anyone can trust anything he wrote.

you know, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, Gruber intentional lies re Obamacare, pallets of cash to Iran, etc. etc. etc

That's a book I'd like to read...probably too many facts though.

But in the court of public opinion this Woodward book might turn some shit up though.
Right. Wrong. Indifferent.

Interesting opinion piece this morning from Facebook:

http://fbnewscycle.com/trump-just-replied-to-the-nyts-treasonous-op-ed-by-playing-his-trump-card-suggesting-hes-going-to-expose-their-crimes-via-declassification/1/

You don’t need a FB account to read this as it is on their website.

I imagine that one of Trump's impulses is to fire one person a day until they discover those responsible for the op-ed. Better to fire ten innocent people than to let the guilty stay employed in the administration.

I do wonder how the NYT made the decision that this wasn't a joke and decided to publish.

I imagine that one of Trump's impulses is to fire one person a day until they discover those responsible for the op-ed. Better to fire ten innocent people than to let the guilty stay employed in the administration.

I do wonder how the NYT made the decision that this wasn't a joke and decided to publish.

I think this anonymous op-ed was published as political warfare designed cause chaos inside the Trump Whitehouse. And it is working. It really doesn’t matter if it is true or not because the bottom line is Trump was voted in to do a job and so far I think he is doing a good job. If all of this op-ed is true then I say bring on more. Because that means it is what it takes to get everything done that has been accomplished in such a short time. So let’s hear more about how disfunctional the Trump Whitehouse is. It’s working IMHO.

I think this anonymous op-ed was published as political warfare designed cause chaos inside the Trump Whitehouse. And it is working. It really doesn’t matter if it is true or not because the bottom line is Trump was voted in to do a job and so far I think he is doing a good job. If all of this op-ed is true then I say bring on more. Because that means it is what it takes to get everything done that has been accomplished in such a short time. So let’s hear more about how disfunctional the Trump Whitehouse is. It’s working IMHO.

The author admitted to actively interfering in the the President's efforts to enact his agenda -- the agenda the majority of electoral college voters affirmed.

Trying to work toward stopping a legally elected President while pretending to work for the White House is called sedition.  It's a crime.

This person is taking a tax-payer-funded salary and is working in opposition of their position's scope and purpose.

Jail time is in order.

The author admitted to actively interfering in the the President's efforts to enact his agenda -- the agenda the majority of electoral college voters affirmed.

Trying to work toward stopping a legally elected President while pretending to work for the White House is called sedition.  It's a crime.

This person is taking a tax-payer-funded salary and is working in opposition of their position's scope and purpose.

Jail time is in order.

While I agree with that, it takes a firm AG to do something about it. Which unfortunately is something we don’t have at this time. One of biggest complaints I have about Trump is Jeff Sessions. There is a rumor that Sessions will be gone after the election. They already have some sort of rule that they can put a temporary person in place immediately until the new AG can be confirmed. They need someone with a firm hand who is willing to take on the Democrats face to face without worrying about their political career.

I will note that on Tucker Carlson’s show last night he said that he had a good idea who the author might be. And he had contacted the Whitehouse to try and confirm. He stated that until they know for sure they will not release the name.

but Bob is the top dog.

To democrats, maybe.

A leftist hack to most of the rest.

One person's take:

After reviewing a weird CNN report on the backstory (https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/05/media/new-york-times-resistance-oped-jim-dao/index.html) of the anonymous op-ed, it becomes more clear the entire construct of the New York Times publication was a manufactured political operation between like-minded allies in DC politics and media.

An anonymous person worked with another anonymous person, who acted as an anonymous go-between, between the second anonymous person and the media. In essence, there is no originating official; it’s all made up.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/09/06/vice-president-mike-pence-discusses-anonymous-op-ed/

* * * * *

I also read 1. that there are over 100 Obama-era holdover that still work in the White House, and 2. the New York Times (and other media) has a history of identifying very low level government employees as "high level" (https://townhall.com/columnists/phelimmcaleer/2018/09/06/relax-president-trump-new-york-times-has-history-of-exaggerating-seniority-of-anonymous-officials-n2516340). (Except when it suits their needs to do the opposite, e.g. referring to #4 person at the DOJ, the highest ranked non-appointee, Bruce Ohr, as "low level".)