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.

What reason do I have to believe that Woodward is making a book purely for financial gain?

Deepthroat from the Watergate scandal publicly denied be the source for decades until he decided to make his name public.

A good journalist is going to make clear to his anonymous source (anonymous to others, not to the journalist) and go over the details of what is on and off the record, what they want to put in the story, etc. So if say Gen. Mattis were the source, he and Woodward could very well come to an agreement that the allegation would be in the book but that publicly he would deny it. Now even if the source were not the person who made the comments but a third party present and stated that Gen. Mattis said this or that, of course Gen Mattis is going to deny it even if it is true. If these allegations are true then there are many perfectly reasonable reasons to deny them publicly.

Sometimes people do "the right thing" under the condition of anonymity and deny it if confronted. I see no real reason that the public denying of these allegations disproves them. Besides, as the old adage goes, politicians are always lying to us right?

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

Not personally, no.

I know Woodward stated that he has hours of recorded interviews that he would consider releasing and I know that many of the allegations are consistent with the way Trump talks publicly. I think there are reasons to consider the allegations could be accurate.

But ultimately I am only interested in the truth. I don't want the allegations to be true nor do I want them to be false, I only want to know whether they are true.

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.

A valid question but there could be some issues. Agreements between Woodward and a source for starters. Also in hours of conversation there may be stuff that was said that was off the record such as personal details that should not be released and that the recording would need to have parts of it redacted first. I don't know if that is the case or not but those are some of the possibilities of why he hasn't yet released the tapes.

What reason do I have to believe that Woodward is making a book purely for financial gain?

Deepthroat from the Watergate scandal publicly denied be the source for decades until he decided to make his name public.

A good journalist is going to make clear to his anonymous source (anonymous to others, not to the journalist) and go over the details of what is on and off the record, what they want to put in the story, etc. So if say Gen. Mattis were the source, he and Woodward could very well come to an agreement that the allegation would be in the book but that publicly he would deny it. Now even if the source were not the person who made the comments but a third party present and stated that Gen. Mattis said this or that, of course Gen Mattis is going to deny it even if it is true. If these allegations are true then there are many perfectly reasonable reasons to deny them publicly.

Sometimes people do "the right thing" under the condition of anonymity and deny it if confronted. I see no real reason that the public denying of these allegations disproves them. Besides, as the old adage goes, politicians are always lying to us right?

Watergate was about a President that supposedly knew about a crime.

This latest book is about calling Trump a meanie.

There is no morally redeeming value in a "hit piece" type of book.

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.

Are you saying then that due to the book and the op-ed that the MSM is now admitting that there actually is a deep state or shadow government in the Trump administration? If so, do you think they should apologize to Trump for mocking and making fun of him when he suggested the same? Just curious.

Isn’t it a contradiction that the person in the Trump administration that wrote the op-ed who is undermining the presidents efforts is trying to undermine the president’s confidence in his staff? If the op-ed is successful in undermining Trumps confidence in his staff I would think that would work against the writer who is operating within the administration due to Trumps confidence in his staff. If trump starts firing people he could fire the same people who are part of the shadow government. They operate in secret because Trump has confidence in them to do their job. That doesn’t seem right to me.

Are you saying then that due to the book and the op-ed that the MSM is now admitting that there actually is a deep state or shadow government in the Trump administration? If so, do you think they should apologize to Trump for mocking and making fun of him when he suggested the same? Just curious.

Isn’t it a contradiction that the person in the Trump administration that wrote the op-ed who is undermining the presidents efforts is trying to undermine the president’s confidence in his staff? If the op-ed is successful in undermining Trumps confidence in his staff I would think that would work against the writer who is operating within the administration due to Trumps confidence in his staff. If trump starts firing people he could fire the same people who are part of the shadow government. They operate in secret because Trump has confidence in them to do their job. That doesn’t seem right to me.

You’re trying to find reason with unreasonable people.

You’re trying to find reason with unreasonable people.

Yeah, I should have known better. 

Watergate was about a President that supposedly knew about a crime.

This latest book is about calling Trump a meanie.

There is no morally redeeming value in a "hit piece" type of book.

I disagree. Just because a publican official has not committed a crime does not mean that they haven't done things that raise serious ethical or moral issues that maybe the public should know about. 

Are you saying then that due to the book and the op-ed that the MSM is now admitting that there actually is a deep state or shadow government in the Trump administration? If so, do you think they should apologize to Trump for mocking and making fun of him when he suggested the same? Just curious.

Isn’t it a contradiction that the person in the Trump administration that wrote the op-ed who is undermining the presidents efforts is trying to undermine the president’s confidence in his staff? If the op-ed is successful in undermining Trumps confidence in his staff I would think that would work against the writer who is operating within the administration due to Trumps confidence in his staff. If trump starts firing people he could fire the same people who are part of the shadow government. They operate in secret because Trump has confidence in them to do their job. That doesn’t seem right to me.

The podcast just seemed to be discussing all the ways and forms a deep state could exist and how it could do what it does. It wasn't illuminati level conspiracy, rather something much more possible, like how Hoover influenced politicians using the FBI.

Not everyone in the podcast (one of them was a Trump strategist IIRC) even agreed such a thing existed. The discussion wasn't really trying to prove anything in particular.

I just thought the discussion and idea interesting since my poll design hadn't incorporated it. I guess the answers would cover it technically but the motive wasn't. Writing such a letter as this could have multiple possible motives.

There is a very valid moral question though that you touched on. Assuming the allegations are true that leaves the author two basic steps. Either speak out about what they believe is wrong knowing they will likely lose their job and may even be sued, or remain within the administration without speaking out but trying to mitigate the damage they believe is happening. It isn't clear which one would have a bigger effect on changing what is going on in the Whitehouse.

One of the allegations in the book was that Trump asked to have a foreign leader assassinated and General Mattis said ok but when Trump walked away he said to the others present we won't be doing that. Now if true, what does one do with that? Follow through because it was an order, wait till he forgets about it, resign in protest?

How about next time you let me answer before suggesting you can't find reason.

I disagree. Just because a publican official has not committed a crime does not mean that they haven't done things that raise serious ethical or moral issues that maybe the public should know about.

Of course you disagree.  People who are wrong all the time tend to do that often, if not constantly.

The podcast just seemed to be discussing all the ways and forms a deep state could exist and how it could do what it does. It wasn't illuminati level conspiracy, rather something much more possible, like how Hoover influenced politicians using the FBI.

Not everyone in the podcast (one of them was a Trump strategist IIRC) even agreed such a thing existed. The discussion wasn't really trying to prove anything in particular.

I just thought the discussion and idea interesting since my poll design hadn't incorporated it. I guess the answers would cover it technically but the motive wasn't. Writing such a letter as this could have multiple possible motives.

There is a very valid moral question though that you touched on. Assuming the allegations are true that leaves the author two basic steps. Either speak out about what they believe is wrong knowing they will likely lose their job and may even be sued, or remain within the administration without speaking out but trying to mitigate the damage they believe is happening. It isn't clear which one would have a bigger effect on changing what is going on in the Whitehouse.

One of the allegations in the book was that Trump asked to have a foreign leader assassinated and General Mattis said ok but when Trump walked away he said to the others present we won't be doing that. Now if true, what does one do with that? Follow through because it was an order, wait till he forgets about it, resign in protest?

How about next time you let me answer before suggesting you can't find reason.

I think motive is very important here. Which brings me to the motive of the people writing and publishing these things. There is the possibility, a great possibility IMHO due to past reputations of Woodward and the NYT, that all of this may have been made up as well. As long as the sources remain anonymous, there is very little validity to all of this. Just like in the Kavanaugh case. As long as his accuser remained anonymous it is really a nothing burger. Now that she has come forth and is willing to testify, her accusations went from unbelievable to let’s see if she is believable. It’s the same for the op-ed and Woodward’s book. Anonymous is a nothing burger. All these writings are nothing more than suggestions of impropriety. If and when the sources become known and are willing to come forward and testify, then we can have all of the facts for us to make up our minds. I just think it is ridiculous for anyone to consider any of this nothing burger as real until we have the identities, testimonies and all the facts here. JMHO

Of course you disagree.  People who are wrong all the time tend to do that often, if not constantly.

Oh, I see your logic. If I disagree with you I must be wrong. Gotcha.

Didn't realize you were the arbiter of truth.

I think motive is very important here. Which brings me to the motive of the people writing and publishing these things. There is the possibility, a great possibility IMHO due to past reputations of Woodward and the NYT, that all of this may have been made up as well. As long as the sources remain anonymous, there is very little validity to all of this. Just like in the Kavanaugh case. As long as his accuser remained anonymous it is really a nothing burger. Now that she has come forth and is willing to testify, her accusations went from unbelievable to let’s see if she is believable. It’s the same for the op-ed and Woodward’s book. Anonymous is a nothing burger. All these writings are nothing more than suggestions of impropriety. If and when the sources become known and are willing to come forward and testify, then we can have all of the facts for us to make up our minds. I just think it is ridiculous for anyone to consider any of this nothing burger as real until we have the identities, testimonies and all the facts here. JMHO

I agree, motive is an important thing to consider but there are lots of potential motives, some honorable, some not.

I forgot to mention this earlier, but one of the things that gives credence to the NYT Op-ed is that Trump was demanding the identify of the author be released. If the accusations were completely fabricated and in no way came from someone inside the whitehouse why demand an identity? I think that corroborates some of the claims.

I agree that anonymity means the claim should be looked at more skeptically but I also know that there are valid reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. It is easy to be principled about speaking out publicly but in reality, when the wheels hit the road a lot of people are too scared, shy, ashamed, etc to publicly identify themselves but do still report things. I agree that if the author really did see and hear everything he/she claimed then he/she should speak out publicly and that it would strengthen the allegations but I can also understand reasons why they don't. So I certainly don't consider the op-ed to be  canon by any means but it isn't a nothing burger.

Let me ask you this, say this person did come out publicly and was an official higher up in the food chain of the whitehouse. Would you believe the claims? And if the claims were all true, what do you think should be done about it?

Oh, I see your logic. If I disagree with you I must be wrong. Gotcha.

Didn't realize you were the arbiter of truth.

If I told you I am, you'd just disagree again ... and we know what that means.   

I agree, motive is an important thing to consider but there are lots of potential motives, some honorable, some not.

I forgot to mention this earlier, but one of the things that gives credence to the NYT Op-ed is that Trump was demanding the identify of the author be released. If the accusations were completely fabricated and in no way came from someone inside the whitehouse why demand an identity? I think that corroborates some of the claims.

You are missing the possibility that he is calling their bluff. Which I think makes it look like a nothing burger until all the identities and facts are in place so we the people can make up our own minds. NYT demands transparency from the Trump administration, yet they hope and expect that people will believe the least transparent of all op-Ed’s. And will not provide transparency themselves. Hypocrites. Hypocrites=Liars IMHO.

I agree that anonymity means the claim should be looked at more skeptically but I also know that there are valid reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. It is easy to be principled about speaking out publicly but in reality, when the wheels hit the road a lot of people are too scared, shy, ashamed, etc to publicly identify themselves but do still report things. I agree that if the author really did see and hear everything he/she claimed then he/she should speak out publicly and that it would strengthen the allegations but I can also understand reasons why they don't. So I certainly don't consider the op-ed to be  canon by any means but it isn't a nothing burger.

Obviously you don’t consider this a nothing burger. This is your opinion only backed up by your feelings because without transparency, there are no facts. Only feelings.

Let me ask you this, say this person did come out publicly and was an official higher up in the food chain of the whitehouse. Would you believe the claims? And if the claims were all true, what do you think should be done about it?

Assuming there even is a real person you mean? You seem to keep deleting that this is a huge possibility. And assuming that the person (if real) is really in a high enough position to have some knowledge? Don’t forget about the lies the NYT seems to like to print and the last NYT anonymous op-ed written that turned out the source was a low level clerk when the claim was a high level person. I have already stated that we should know all of the facts of these allegations before we can determine what the truth is. Without them, we cannot even begin to know the truth. And as I already stated that there is usually some truth to these types of allegations once all the facts are in place assuming the op-ed facts and the source are revealed. So you already knew my answer prior to asking the question. As far as what should be done, it all depends upon what exactly it turns out to be true. Without that knowledge, I cannot begin to know how the things that may turn out to be true should be handled.

You are missing the possibility that he is calling their bluff. Which I think makes it look like a nothing burger until all the identities and facts are in place so we the people can make up our own minds. NYT demands transparency from the Trump administration, yet they hope and expect that people will believe the least transparent of all op-Ed’s. And will not provide transparency themselves. Hypocrites. Hypocrites=Liars IMHO.
Obviously you don’t consider this a nothing burger. This is your opinion only backed up by your feelings because without transparency, there are no facts. Only feelings.
Assuming there even is a real person you mean? You seem to keep deleting that this is a huge possibility. And assuming that the person (if real) is really in a high enough position to have some knowledge? Don’t forget about the lies the NYT seems to like to print and the last NYT anonymous op-ed written that turned out the source was a low level clerk when the claim was a high level person. I have already stated that we should know all of the facts of these allegations before we can determine what the truth is. Without them, we cannot even begin to know the truth. And as I already stated that there is usually some truth to these types of allegations once all the facts are in place assuming the op-ed facts and the source are revealed. So you already knew my answer prior to asking the question. As far as what should be done, it all depends upon what exactly it turns out to be true. Without that knowledge, I cannot begin to know how the things that may turn out to be true should be handled.

The purpose of this "survey" was to find people who can take EEF's side on these latest Trump hit-pieces.  Nothing more.

In absence of support and agreement, he's using every Liberal tactic in his arsenal to argue against logic and reason. Innuendo, rumor, assumptions and hypotheticals are not facts, but to hear him use them, they cannot be ignored without allowing Trump a pass.

That, to EEF, is totally unacceptable -- what with his "higher standards" and all that.

The purpose of this "survey" was to find people who can take EEF's side on these latest Trump hit-pieces.  Nothing more.

Yes, I am using an anonymous survey to identify people. 

You are missing the possibility that he is calling their bluff. Which I think makes it look like a nothing burger until all the identities and facts are in place so we the people can make up our own minds. NYT demands transparency from the Trump administration, yet they hope and expect that people will believe the least transparent of all op-Ed’s. And will not provide transparency themselves. Hypocrites. Hypocrites=Liars IMHO.

You are right, Trump might be trying to call a bluff, I doubt it but it is certainly a possibility that shouldn't be discounted.
But I would say the conclusions that the NYT is hypercritical is unfounded. It is the author's choice to remain anonymous, not the choice of the New York Times. The NYT entered into an agreement with the author that the letter be published and the identity not be given up, they have to honor that agreement or people won't trust them to supply information. That is why some journalists have gone to prison before, they received information with an agreement to protect the identity.

Obviously you don’t consider this a nothing burger. This is your opinion only backed up by your feelings because without transparency, there are no facts. Only feelings.

Not true, feelings are irrelevant and I don't possess any feelings about this. This conversation should be seen as nothing more than an objective analysis of all the information publicly available. There is no aim to prove the letter true or prove it false. I am sorry if considering the letter could be valid makes you think I have some feeling or desire but you are mistaken.
Unfortunately the tone of this thread seems more interested in defending Trump than it does in being objective.

Assuming there even is a real person you mean? You seem to keep deleting that this is a huge possibility. And assuming that the person (if real) is really in a high enough position to have some knowledge? Don’t forget about the lies the NYT seems to like to print and the last NYT anonymous op-ed written that turned out the source was a low level clerk when the claim was a high level person. I have already stated that we should know all of the facts of these allegations before we can determine what the truth is. Without them, we cannot even begin to know the truth. And as I already stated that there is usually some truth to these types of allegations once all the facts are in place assuming the op-ed facts and the source are revealed. So you already knew my answer prior to asking the question. As far as what should be done, it all depends upon what exactly it turns out to be true. Without that knowledge, I cannot begin to know how the things that may turn out to be true should be handled.

Well yes, the question inherently relies on the assumption that the person is real. The question would be moot if we did not assume the person to be real for the sake of that line of questioning. Ok, so your answer is basically "it depends" but that isn't really an answer because I specifically set out the terms of the question of all the claims being true and it being an actual high level official. And the point of asking that the anonymous source go public is that for some (maybe not you) it really wouldn't change anything. People have publicly made comments about Trump before and it doesn't seem to give them any more credibility compared to being anonymous and it doesn't seem like it changes anyone's mind.

And no, I never discounted the possibility that there is no real person who wrote the letter. That is why I included one of the questions in the poll was covering that specific possibility.

You are right, Trump might be trying to call a bluff, I doubt it but it is certainly a possibility that shouldn't be discounted.
But I would say the conclusions that the NYT is hypercritical is unfounded. It is the author's choice to remain anonymous, not the choice of the New York Times. The NYT entered into an agreement with the author that the letter be published and the identity not be given up, they have to honor that agreement or people won't trust them to supply information. That is why some journalists have gone to prison before, they received information with an agreement to protect the identity.

Not true, feelings are irrelevant and I don't possess any feelings about this. This conversation should be seen as nothing more than an objective analysis of all the information publicly available. There is no aim to prove the letter true or prove it false. I am sorry if considering the letter could be valid makes you think I have some feeling or desire but you are mistaken.
Unfortunately the tone of this thread seems more interested in defending Trump than it does in being objective.

Well yes, the question inherently relies on the assumption that the person is real. The question would be moot if we did not assume the person to be real for the sake of that line of questioning. Ok, so your answer is basically "it depends" but that isn't really an answer because I specifically set out the terms of the question of all the claims being true and it being an actual high level official. And the point of asking that the anonymous source go public is that for some (maybe not you) it really wouldn't change anything. People have publicly made comments about Trump before and it doesn't seem to give them any more credibility compared to being anonymous and it doesn't seem like it changes anyone's mind.

And no, I never discounted the possibility that there is no real person who wrote the letter. That is why I included one of the questions in the poll was covering that specific possibility.

I am sorry I got into this circular conversation with you. I understand what you are trying to do here but I know that you don’t understand nor see what the rest of us do and how frustrating these circular conversations can be. I don’t need nor want to be enlightened by you. I do my own DD. It is not only frustrating but you are insulting and when someone calls out your insult you deny being insulting. When I call BS and say there is no proof of what happened here, you come back and say there is proof but you do not provide anything to back up your claim. So I’m done wasting my time with these types of never ending conversations that go round and round and round and...

I am sorry I got into this circular conversation with you. I understand what you are trying to do here but I know that you don’t understand nor see what the rest of us do and how frustrating these circular conversations can be. I don’t need nor want to be enlightened by you. I do my own DD. It is not only frustrating but you are insulting and when someone calls out your insult you deny being insulting. When I call BS and say there is no proof of what happened here, you come back and say there is proof but you do not provide anything to back up your claim. So I’m done wasting my time with these types of never ending conversations that go round and round and round and...

As I said many times, he likes to argue more about what someone said/meant than the topic.  That's completely unproductive and irritating.