Bob Woodward's book on 1st two years of the Trump Administration

#576
#576
0nelilreb said:
Let’s hear those recording then , name those names . I’m sitting here with hundreds of hours of recordings with two individuals that s let me record them when I interviewed her and her husband with both claiming they were paid off by Putin to throw an election but they made me promise not to say their names or let anyone hear the recordings, ever . See how that works ? Now where’s my book deal ?
Click to expand...
You're lacking that lifetime of achievement and accumulated respect........just a small technicality. See the difference?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TennTom and Septic
#577
#577
0nelilreb said:
Let’s hear those recording then , name those names . I’m sitting here with hundreds of hours of recordings with two individuals that s let me record them when I interviewed her and her husband with both claiming they were paid off by Putin to throw an election but they made me promise not to say their names or let anyone hear the recordings, ever . See how that works ? Now where’s my book deal ?
Click to expand...

Is it really hard to understand what the term "confidential" means or how violating trust would be career suicide? I get that these are just buzzwords to some folks but this guy has made a half-a-century career about keeping his word.
 
#579
#579
Septic said:
Is it really hard to understand what the term "confidential" means or how violating trust would be career suicide? I get that these are just buzzwords to some folks but this guy has made a half-a-century career about keeping his word.
Click to expand...
😂😂😂
 
#580
#580
Septic said:
Is it really hard to understand what the term "confidential" means or how violating trust would be career suicide? I get that these are just buzzwords to some folks but this guy has made a half-a-century career about keeping his word.
Click to expand...

Is it really that hard to understand the guys point when Luther lists those supposed hundreds of hours of interview recordings to literally call the book legitimized, when everyone here knows that the evidence Luther is using to legitimize the book hasn't been verified? And now, having appealed to the shadowy whisp of unseen evidence, Luther circles back around to appeal to trust/reputation of the gossip source as validation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#582
#582
Orange_Crush said:
Is it really that hard to understand the guys point when Luther lists those supposed hundreds of hours of interview recordings to literally call the book legitimized, when everyone here knows that the evidence Luther is using to legitimize the book hasn't been verified? And now, having appealed to the shadowy whisp of unseen evidence, Luther circles back around to appeal to trust/reputation of the gossip source as validation.
Click to expand...
The concrete has a crack.
 
#585
#585
volinbham said:
So Septic posted an interesting link. Woodward says that while looked "hard" for any indication of collusion he has seen no indication. Do you believe him?
Click to expand...
Of course I believe him when he says he has seen no indication. He's a trustworthy person. It's not me that has difficulty knowing who to trust.
 
#586
#586
luthervol said:
Of course I believe him when he says he has seen no indication. He's a trustworthy person. It's not me that has difficulty knowing who to trust.
Click to expand...

I believe him too. Given the extensive research he did you'd think he'd get at least a hint of something if there was anything to it no? Of course, he probably didn't interview Steele, Simpson or Strzok...
 
#587
#587
volinbham said:
I believe him too. Given the extensive research he did you'd think he'd get at least a hint of something if there was anything to it no? Of course, he probably didn't interview Steele, Simpson or Strzok...
Click to expand...
So you think his book is an accurate and honest portrayal?
 
#590
#590
NurseGoodVol said:
I'm to believe him uncatagorically? We aren't 17 Luthor, you know this drill.
Either he produces sources or credibility is in question for me. He's in the business of writing books to make money. I'm keeping that in mind also.
Click to expand...


Woodward's offered to produce the tapes for any of his subjects that will allow it. If they feel they've been misquoted, there is an easy remedy and they know it. They just have to agree to it, thus far - nary a one has.

The ball, as they say, is in their court.

 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol and volinbham
#591
#591
Septic said:
Woodward's offered to produce the tapes for any of his subjects that will allow it. If they feel they've been misquoted, there is an easy remedy and they know it. They just have to agree to it, thus far - nary a one has.

The ball, as they say, is in their court.

Click to expand...

So if Kelly, Mattis, etc... are approached and they say “I never talked to him so there are no tapes to release” are you guys going to say they are lying or accept a 3rd party 2nd hand account doesn’t discredit a first hand denial?

Hey if they say play the tapes and it backs up Woodward fine. But if they state play tapes if you have them but I know you don’t that doesn’t automatically mean they’re being coy.

Mattis, Kelly, Dowd, Sekulow for a few already said they didn’t say it. If there are no first hand interviews that doesn’t automatically discredit their denials.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeTrain
#592
#592
NorthDallas40 said:
So if Kelly, Mattis, etc... are approached and they say “I never talked to him so there are no tapes to release” are you guys going to say they are lying or accept a 3rd party 2nd hand account doesn’t refute a first hand denial?

Hey if they say play the tapes and it backs up Woodward fine. But if they state play tapes if you have them but I know you don’t that doesn’t automatically mean they’re being coy.

Mattis, Kelly, Dowd, Sekulow for a few already said they didn’t say it. If their are no first hand interviews that doesn’t refute their denials.
Click to expand...

I think we all understand what hearsay is. Recounting overheard conversations still has journalistic value. The reader will be left to decide if they believe the account or not. Given that Mattis, Kelly et al have everything to lose and nothing to gain I would expect them to disavow anything that is ever said by any third party, in any setting and for any reason. That, however, does not mean that it didn't happen. Each person should perform there own litmus test, ie. is the source credible, is it plausible, does the person have a motive to lie, etc? You know, all of the things that folks have not demanded of "Q."

I think what you're offering is a barrier so high that the only thing you'll accept is an outright admission, on camera, holding today's newspaper while holding two forms of valid ID. In that case, why are you even bothering to weigh in?
 
#593
#593
Septic said:
I think we all understand what hearsay is. Recounting overheard conversations still has journalistic value. The reader will be left to decide if they believe the account or not. Given that Mattis, Kelly et al have everything to lose and nothing to gain I would expect them to disavow anything that is ever said by any third party, in any setting and for any reason. That, however, does not mean that it didn't happen. Each person should perform there own litmus test, ie. is the source credible, is it plausible, does the person have a motive to lie, etc? You know, all of the things that folks have not demanded of "Q."

I think what you're offering is a barrier so high that the only thing you'll accept is an outright admission, on camera, holding today's newspaper while holding two forms of valid ID. In that case, why are you even bothering to weigh in?
Click to expand...
I think someone like Mattis has too much integrity to lie about it.
 
#594
#594
I finished the book tonight. Honestly there isn't anything in it that isn't already suspected or known about Trump and his inner circle. Woodward has written better books than Fear.
I will have to say, Bannon is a poet when it comes to cursing. I laughed at almost all of his quotes.
Edit: After some further thought, it was spooky how close we came to war with North Korea at the beginning of 2018. Reasonable voices within the Trump inner circle prevailed, which is a comforting thought.
 
Last edited:
#595
#595
luthervol said:
You're lacking that lifetime of achievement and accumulated respect........just a small technicality. See the difference?
Click to expand...

You don’t know that . I could show you all my credentials and awards but unfortunately they are all “ Confidential “ see what I mean ?
 
#597
#597
Septic said:
I think we all understand what hearsay is. Recounting overheard conversations still has journalistic value. The reader will be left to decide if they believe the account or not. Given that Mattis, Kelly et al have everything to lose and nothing to gain I would expect them to disavow anything that is ever said by any third party, in any setting and for any reason. That, however, does not mean that it didn't happen. Each person should perform there own litmus test, ie. is the source credible, is it plausible, does the person have a motive to lie, etc? You know, all of the things that folks have not demanded of "Q."

I think what you're offering is a barrier so high that the only thing you'll accept is an outright admission, on camera, holding today's newspaper while holding two forms of valid ID. In that case, why are you even bothering to weigh in?
Click to expand...
volfanhill said:
I think someone like Mattis has too much integrity to lie about it.
Click to expand...
So hill stated where I’m coming from. If Kelly or Mattis said it I think they’d own it. Dowd and Sekulow? Nah they’re lawyers.

And I think it’s a reasonable bar. Taking a 3rd party word over a direct refute with no direct interview is weak. Plain and simple.

Also why do people say Mattis and Kelly have so much to lose? This statement was made before. Personally after this gig I see them both going to private jobs and forever away from DC politics.
 
#599
#599
Septic said:
Is it really hard to understand what the term "confidential" means or how violating trust would be career suicide? I get that these are just buzzwords to some folks but this guy has made a half-a-century career about keeping his word.
Click to expand...
Like outting Hillary Clinton's ghost writer, without telling her. Integrity.
 
#600
#600
Septic said:
Woodward's offered to produce the tapes for any of his subjects that will allow it. If they feel they've been misquoted, there is an easy remedy and they know it. They just have to agree to it, thus far - nary a one has.

The ball, as they say, is in their court.

Click to expand...

Awesome, hope some of them grow a set and stand behind what they said and own it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top