https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ff-book/ar-BBI85ZE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp Figured as much, dirty establishment GOP tricks on poor old President Trump. LOL
The book does read like a smear job. But then again, I'm only through page 17. This also explains why it was seemingly written for a 6th grade audience. I want to read a smear-job with elitist prose.
If the GOP is now purposefully smearing trump that would be a sign trump is in some real deep shit. The only reason I could see for them to damage trump is to start making a case for their impeachment efforts. If they smear him and do not toss him then they smear themselves. If they smear him and toss him as a lone wolf outsider then they can place most of the blame of the past few months on him and back pence. If that is the case Mueller has to have enough to turn trump's base against him.
told by whom, though? the prevailing notion seems to be that Bannon wanted a book that flattered himself and made this happen, and that Trump assumed it would be one which flattered himself (since how can you be exposed to His Awesomeness and write anything but how awesome he is?) and that over the course of time Bannon went from thinking "we can manage this dancing clown and do a lot of serious shit while he entertains the audience" to "my God the man is an incompetent fool who can't be managed" and so all that could be done, in terms of the book, is try to come out looking like the only sane guy in the place. If anyone was told to co-operate, that ultimately went back to Bannon even if the direction came from Preibus or whomever.
Yeah. I've gotten hold of some extracts now, and that book is rubbish. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything it says, and frankly fighting Trump's barrage of fake news doesn't get easier when his opponents and the LMSM (tm) immediately endorse such trash as if it were true.
Allegedly. But he hasn't released them (and yes, you and I can imagine many good reasons for that); he hasn't sourced his information to them in the book; he says that often he had to decide what to believe or what bits of otherwise conflicting accounts he had to combine, without explaining what the conflicts were; and beyond that, the bits I'm reading are full of 'the general impression was', 'there was an atmosphere of', and 'most people in the White House believe that'. To say nothing of the downright awful prose, which, you know, doesn't make a statement false, but does raise doubt as to the decision of this person to become a writer -- and he emphasizes that he thinks of himself as a writer rather than a journalist, and points to that distinction when asked for proof.
I'm reading this now and about a third of the way through it takes a hard and veers away from Trump and is all about bannon. Most interesting nothing so far is it appears his alleged syndication deal with Seinfeld that made him rich is bunk.
I agree that it's not well written, and it's salacious and gossipy. But I think that the general picture might be taken to be accurate, while particular details might be taken as questionable. It should neither be entirely dismissed or entirely believed.
So far, nobody connected with the book has really denied anything, which I think is telling. I'm not saying that this means the book is at all accurate, but if anyone's claimed that the quotes attributed to them are false, I haven't seen it.
But is the general picture more than an emotional judgement? It might very well connect to a justified moral judgement, but we are taking that from other sources, it is not corroborated by this book.
And people are making money off of the circus in the white house. The book may not be flattering but trump has made it a best seller with his insanity. Really I would not be surprised to find out trump is getting a piece.
Barunum's rule: "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Trump should have that on his desk where Truman put "The Buck Stops Here".
