Poll

 Do you believe accusations about Trump from the Op-Ed and Woodward's new Book?

Yes
14.3%
No, I think the news media made them up
71.4%
No, I think the news media was tricked
0%
I am unsure whether the claims are true.
14.3%
Total Members Voted
7

Voting closes: December 10, 2018, 11:50:59 PM

Do you believe accusations about Trump from the Op-Ed and Woodward's new Book? (Read 1102 times)

eyeeatingfish

EDIT: I figured the poll part out.

The controversial article in the New York Times recently and Bob Woodward's new book seem to make similar claims about how Trump behaves in the Whitehouse. A previous book made some of the same types of allegations about the president's behavior as well.

So whether you like Trump or not, agree with him or not, do you believe the claims that are being made about Trump? Do you believe the reports about how Trump treats his staff and how many of them secretly have negative opinions about Trump's behavior? Or do you think they were fabricated at some level?

Inspector

I think there is little to some truth in there. But like most or all anonymous sourced books/articles most of it is highly exaggerated. If you want to believe some of what is in his book then he accidentally (or purposely) debunks the MSM’s Russian collusion hoax. Also, it is too much of a coincidence that the NYT op-ed comes out a day after and says almost word for word some of the the same things. So it sounds like it might be just one person trying to make extra money by leaking info and lies. Either way, there are always two sides to everything and a person who only wants to believe one side of anonymous sourced and written things without hearing the other side is a fool. Especially when most of the book and op-ed articles have been debunked already and reliable sources claim that some of these anonymous sourced items are lies.

So do I want to believe anonymous sources about anything? I think I am smarter than to fall for such diatribe. JMHO

changemyoil66

Are all the stories true like in Omorosa's book?

A broken clock is right twice a day reference comes to mind.

I don't think he treats his staff bad, because he knows lawsuits are waiting to happen and that the dems will fund any and all lawsuits.  People may think they're being treated bad (getting fired), but it's because you're not doing your job.  This has been Trumps philosophy for a while now.  Don't do your job, "You're Fired".  Which is what I like about him.  The days of being in a position and doing nothing are over.

punaperson

Let's see. All the accusations could be true. All the accusations could be false. Some accusations could be true. Some accusations could be false.

The only people that "know" whether an accusation is true or false are the people who were present at the incident. We have contradictory claims from some of those claimed to be present compared to the accounts of either "anonymous sources" and/or "disgruntled former employees".

One could extrapolate from previous incidents involving some of those same people/reporters/authors and conclude that they are now continuing that pattern of being correct or being wrong. That would be guesswork, supposition, and assuming that past perfornmance guarantees future results.

Without unedited/unaltered video or audio evidence... none of us will ever know the truth about those reported incidents.

I only know one thing:

TRUMP 2020

Flapp_Jackson

Let's see. All the accusations could be true. All the accusations could be false. Some accusations could be true. Some accusations could be false.

The only people that "know" whether an accusation is true or false are the people who were present at the incident. We have contradictory claims from some of those claimed to be present compared to the accounts of either "anonymous sources" and/or "disgruntled former employees".

One could extrapolate from previous incidents involving some of those same people/reporters/authors and conclude that they are now continuing that pattern of being correct or being wrong. That would be guesswork, supposition, and assuming that past perfornmance guarantees future results.

Without unedited/unaltered video or audio evidence... none of us will ever know the truth about those reported incidents.

I only know one thing:

TRUMP 2020

There have already been people in both Omarosa's and Woodward's books, and in the OpEd, who said the words or actions attributed to them never happened.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

drck1000

Appearance of impropriety.  That's what this is all about.  I haven't read much about what is contained in the book, op-eds, etc.  At least not yet. 

I was listening to a Woodward interview.  I think it was on NPR.  Woodward was asked what he had hoped would come out of the release of the book.  He mentioned something like that it would "start conversations".  That even before the book was released, the speculation on what was in the book was "truly exciting".  That folks were getting energized by the potential fallout from this book and that drove popularity without anyone having even read a word.  That told me quite a bit. . .

Flapp_Jackson

It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

RSN172

It's on the Internet, it's in a published book, so it must be true.  ;D

punaperson

eyeeatingfish

I think there is little to some truth in there. But like most or all anonymous sourced books/articles most of it is highly exaggerated. If you want to believe some of what is in his book then he accidentally (or purposely) debunks the MSM’s Russian collusion hoax. Also, it is too much of a coincidence that the NYT op-ed comes out a day after and says almost word for word some of the the same things. So it sounds like it might be just one person trying to make extra money by leaking info and lies. Either way, there are always two sides to everything and a person who only wants to believe one side of anonymous sourced and written things without hearing the other side is a fool. Especially when most of the book and op-ed articles have been debunked already and reliable sources claim that some of these anonymous sourced items are lies.

So do I want to believe anonymous sources about anything? I think I am smarter than to fall for such diatribe. JMHO

The op-ed saying a lot of the same things could be seen as indications of dishonesty, but it could also be indications of corroboration. Hard to know if they had anything to do with each other. Woodward might have been using the author of the op-ed as one of his sources which would explain the similarities either way.

I do know that being anonymous doesn't inherently discount what is being reported. There are many valid reasons for someone wanting to remain anonymous.

I haven't seen proof that what the book claims are lies. Only contradictory evidence I see are Trump's staff saying that they never said those things. Of course it could be because those things are lies, but it could also be because they don't want to admit saying bad things about Trump.

To me, one of the things that lends credibility to the anonymous source's claims is that the behavior alleged by Trump seems rather consistent with stuff he already says publicly. Of course it could be a well manufactured lie, but many of the things being reported in the book aren't exactly a surprise given what he tweets and says in public.

eyeeatingfish

Are all the stories true like in Omorosa's book?

A broken clock is right twice a day reference comes to mind.

I don't think he treats his staff bad, because he knows lawsuits are waiting to happen and that the dems will fund any and all lawsuits.  People may think they're being treated bad (getting fired), but it's because you're not doing your job.  This has been Trumps philosophy for a while now.  Don't do your job, "You're Fired".  Which is what I like about him.  The days of being in a position and doing nothing are over.

Why would Trump get sued for treating his staff bad? I mean I could see if he committed sexual harassment.

Seems they would be more worried about getting sued by him given the NDAs he had them sign.

Trump has publicly said negative things about some of the people who he hired that were doing their job though.

eyeeatingfish

There have already been people in both Omarosa's and Woodward's books, and in the OpEd, who said the words or actions attributed to them never happened.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

And do you believe them just because they publicly said so?

There are many good reasons why they would lie and deny such allegations. Think about it, if you said something bad about your boss behind his back and someone told on you, would you admit it or deny it? If you needed the job or you would be faced with an NDA it would be very understandable for you to deny saying bad things about your boss.

The fact these people denied the allegations really doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Flapp_Jackson

And do you believe them just because they publicly said so?

There are many good reasons why they would lie and deny such allegations. Think about it, if you said something bad about your boss behind his back and someone told on you, would you admit it or deny it? If you needed the job or you would be faced with an NDA it would be very understandable for you to deny saying bad things about your boss.

The fact these people denied the allegations really doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

You'd be a fool to believe someone writing a book for purely financial gain is more credible than the "sources" who claim their quotes are fabricated or taken out of context.

People know who and what Woodward is. They know anything they say could get publicized. It would have the same effect as the quotes being used without permission.  they wouldn't;t say these things. Period.

From what I read, the vast majority of Woodward's quotes are not exact quotes (even though he portrays them in quotation marks).  They are recollections of what the source remembers saying (could have been paraphrased or misremembered), or secondhand recounting of what someone said. Woodward counts a second-or third-hand report of someone's words as a quote by the source, but doesn't make it apparent to the reader it's hearsay.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

macsak

I haven't seen proof that what the book claims are lies.

have you seen proof that what the book claims are the truth?

punaperson

Woodward is threatening to release "tapes" if the people saying that his claims about their "quotes" are lies don't recant and admit that what Woodward wrote are true quotes.

Perfect. Release the "tapes". The original versions, so they can be subject to forensic investigation. That should settle that. My only question is why is he "threatening" to release them rather than actually release them? Why just "say" "people are lying about what they said", when you could easily "prove" that by simply releasing the tapes? Something doesn't smell right.

Flapp_Jackson

Woodward is threatening to release "tapes" if the people saying that his claims about their "quotes" are lies don't recant and admit that what Woodward wrote are true quotes.

Perfect. Release the "tapes". The original versions, so they can be subject to forensic investigation. That should settle that. My only question is why is he "threatening" to release them rather than actually release them? Why just "say" "people are lying about what they said", when you could easily "prove" that by simply releasing the tapes? Something doesn't smell right.

Because his tapes aren't the actual quotes.  They are sources who told him they may have said, heard, or was told someone else heard a statement.  All it does is show he trusted his sources, but there's no corroborating evidence to substantiate the sources.

Poor journalism.
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

changemyoil66

Because his tapes aren't the actual quotes.  They are sources who told him they may have said, heard, or was told someone else heard a statement.  All it does is show he trusted his sources, but there's no corroborating evidence to substantiate the sources.

Poor journalism.

Dont you know, all you need to do is say "source" and you can make up what every story you want.

Flapp_Jackson

Dont you know, all you need to do is say "source" and you can make up what every story you want.

I thought we learned better during the McCarthy hearings ...  Maybe they stopped teaching US history in US History classes?
It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.

drck1000

Woodward is threatening to release "tapes" if the people saying that his claims about their "quotes" are lies don't recant and admit that what Woodward wrote are true quotes.

Perfect. Release the "tapes". The original versions, so they can be subject to forensic investigation. That should settle that. My only question is why is he "threatening" to release them rather than actually release them? Why just "say" "people are lying about what they said", when you could easily "prove" that by simply releasing the tapes? Something doesn't smell right.
The threat of information make for more sensational “news” than actually information, whether it be truth or fabrication.

eyeeatingfish

I am listening to a podcast called 1A and the topic is about "The Deep State" and whether there are individuals oar an entity functioning in the government that serves to challenge the president. It is kind of interesting with the historical examples being mentioned and whether they could be seen as good or bad. The general tone of the conversation was that the New York Times Op-ed was accurate but then whether it was an action of someone in the deep state and what the aim was.

An interesting idea was brought up that I hadn't considered earlier and that is that the op-ed was written not to badmouth the president or undermine public confidence, but to undermine the president's confidence in his staff. Maybe to cause his office to fall apart from the inside due to mistrust. That idea adds a whole new layer to the question of what is alleged in the book and op-ed.