world

Trump vents anger over book; Woodward says Kelly, Mattis denials of quotes untrue

101 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

101 Comments
Login to comment

Donald Trump says 'you've got to deny' accusations by women, according to Bob Woodward book

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-says-apos-apos-115100474.html

LOL! I love how he is "deny, deny, denying" Woodward's book, which claimed that Trump advises people to "deny, deny, deny" when they are caught doing something wrong. He is literally proving the book accurate!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Things we have come to expect from barely literate Trump supporters.

At least they are barely literate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump vents anger over book; Woodward says Kelly, Mattis denials of quotes untrue - Headline

No matter what, President Trump will run the country through 2024, followed by eight years of President Pence, and, if the last two years are an indication, the country will be far better off in every aspect.

Make America Great Again resonates.

The opposition party has zero ideas, save for obstructionism, the desperate relitigation of the lost 2016 election, and a rejected socialist agenda.

Deal with it!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sneezy, its pretty common knowledge.

Well, it's what the smear campaign is commonly spreading. I'm not sure if you could call that 'knowledge' though.

Because he's won 2 Pulizers, one for breaking Watergate story while a reported at WAPO, and 70% of what Trump says has been documented as untrue, misleading or unsubstantiated

Hyper-partisans claim that it's logical to not believe Woodward.

Logical people point out it's not logical be hyper-partisan.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sneezy, its pretty common knowledge.

Just do a little background search on Woodward. 

It's clearly not common knowledge.

Just give me some sources. Stop making accusations and then demanding other people do the work of proving you right for you.

That's the right for you: they always want something for nothing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Because he's won 2 Pulizers, one for breaking Watergate story while a reported at WAPO, and 70% of what Trump says has been documented as untrue, misleading or unsubstantiated? Use Occam's Razor - who benefits more from lying at this point, those who spoke on the record w/Woodward and want to keep their jobs, or a reporter whose book had to be vetted by teams of attorneys prior to publication to avoid legal blowback. They are not "anonymous" sources, they are "protected" sources - and no journalist worth his salt outs a source. Are you that gullible, that poorly educated, or just that ideologically blind?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'll take Mattis' word over Woodward's anonymous accusers.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Sneezy, its pretty common knowledge.

Just do a little background search on Woodward. Just dont expect CNN to reveal that info on one of their favorite hacks.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

What Woodward seems to forget is that comments from people who remain anonymous and unverified is called gossip.

I wonder if someone mentioned that to Nixon, and if it made him feel better.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

What Woodward seems to forget is that comments from people who remain anonymous and unverified is called gossip.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

More tapes from Omarosa!!!!!

A vitamin pill a day, and a new Omarosa tape a week!!!!!

On The View last year, she was told to go for Joy Behar in particular because he hates Joy. He, the man-child, also berated Sarah Sanders because she didn't defend him enough like Omarosa did.

As Omarosa says, he has a short attention span, and rambles, from one subject to Hillary to another subject,... and back to Hillary. This low-IQ guy will be mumbling about Hillary on his death-bed.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

And do we know who these people are? Can we verify that everything is 100% factual? No, we can't especially from a paper that hates the President, has had more retractions that almost any other media outlet, has an owner that is an extreme hater of the President, so yes, I am somewhat skeptical or at the very least cautious in just running with a lottery ticket.

Woodward knows...

I don't believe he's an idiot, if he were, he would have never gotten the Presidency,

OK, let's go with errant, amoral (you know that one's true - so does Melania), petty, adversarial, understands at the Fifth Grade level, and is a danger to the country...

but I do feel the others were complete idiots and even if the Dems take the House, the Senate won't remove him. so...

Who's "others"?

If you can prove it was a Republican 100% I will owe you an apology, IF you can prove it. Because you are so sure.

There's nothing to prove - you show me a "Senior White House Official" who is a Democrat...

The President killed about 200 Russians in Syria, you can't be another persons pet anything if you kill their people or impose sanctions or them or can you prove it, but it seems like the FBI can't prove it, but liberals can? Lol nice try.

Mattis killed them - and Trump probably chewed him out for it.  Even you said Trump acted like a Wimp at his Summit with Putin.

Well, as bad as that is, if he did it BEFORE he was President, then I wouldn't care,

He paid them off then lied about it in 2016...

back in 1998 liberals didn't care their President was doing it while on the job, but now it's doom and gloom because of what the President did 12 years ago? ROFL

Says the guy that is fixated on Bill Ayers and Rev Wright...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Indeed, Woodward has fabricated stories and lied in the past. This is beond dispute.

I dispute this.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

"Woodward has a stellar reputation. Woodward gas impeccable credentials."

The leftys keep repeating the mantra of untruths. An old Stalinist trick. Keep repeating something that isnt true until hopefully people start believing it.

Indeed, Woodward has fabricated stories and lied in the past. This is beond dispute. One standout example is the deathbed interview he falsely claimed to have had with Pat Casey.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@SerranoSep. 11  10:50 pm JST

Maria: "trump's read a book?"

Yeah, and he's written books too, you should read them and learn something, including how to capitalize names.

Oh dear me serrano, don't get so upset. I was impressed is all, that he has found the time to read, what with his presidenting and golfing.

After all, he himself said he doesn't reads much:

"Well, you know, I love to read. Actually, I'm looking at a book, I'm reading a book, I'm trying to get started. Every time I do about a half a page, I get a phone call that there's some emergency, this or that. But we're going to see the home of Andrew Jackson today in Tennessee and I'm reading a book on Andrew Jackson. I love to read. I don't get to read very much..."

0 ( +2 / -2 )

They aren't anonymous - they were off the record. Big difference for those that care. 

And do we know who these people are? Can we verify that everything is 100% factual? No, we can't especially from a paper that hates the President, has had more retractions that almost any other media outlet, has an owner that is an extreme hater of the President, so yes, I am somewhat skeptical or at the very least cautious in just running with a lottery ticket.

"He's erratic, amoral, an idiot, impetuous, adversarial, petty, a Fifth or Sixth Grader, who acts in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic."

Sounds like a deal to me - we agree he's a idiot that's detrimental to the health of the republic... get him out of the Oval Office!

I don't believe he's an idiot, if he were, he would have never gotten the Presidency, but I do feel the others were complete idiots and even if the Dems take the House, the Senate won't remove him. so...

Sounds like the Democrat party sprinkled with a few hot tempered Neocons on top..

Once again we are treated to the Trumpster conundrum - they just can't accept that all this ridicule of Trump is coming from their own conservative Republicans. I can't wait until Jeff Sessions comes forward and says "It's me, the little boll weevil that smoked your a$$...."

If you can prove it was a Republican 100% I will owe you an apology, IF you can prove it. Because you are so sure.

Pence is hardly my choice, but at least he wouldn't be Putin's Puppy like Trump.

The President killed about 200 Russians in Syria, you can't be another persons pet anything if you kill their people or impose sanctions or them or can you prove it, but it seems like the FBI can't prove it, but liberals can? Lol nice try.

And I don't see Pence dallying with porn stars or Playboy Bunnies (though these days you never know)...

Well, as bad as that is, if he did it BEFORE he was President, then I wouldn't care, back in 1998 liberals didn't care their President was doing it while on the job, but now it's doom and gloom because of what the President did 12 years ago? ROFL

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Who cares if you don't like them?

We don't care if people don't care, but that doesn't mean that Woodward is infallible or as a writer, he wants to sell books, so given his record on both sides for writing good books but stretching the truth and relying on sources we mostly cannot always verify and some people that have flat out denied or contradicted what Woodward wrote there should always be a bit of skepticism.

I would've believed Woodward, until Mattis flat-out denied his comments. Out of everyone in Trump's cabinet, James Mattis is an honorable man.

I totally agree with that.

You're saying you will bend over for them if they get back into power. 

So I should support liberal policies? That's like asking me to eat a bowl of worms and cockroaches.

Kind of like the way you didn't support Trump until he started to lead the pack.

So what? Now I do and very proud of it.

Youre a born follower. Your personal opinions are irrelevant.

Actually, let me rephrase that: I don't follow and hated the Washington establishment for years and won't be suckered into their greedy mitts again, so in that sense, I'm a born independent and not a liberal lemming.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I would've believed Woodward, until Mattis flat-out denied his comments. Out of everyone in Trump's cabinet, James Mattis is an honorable man.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I believe Woodward. Trump tells lies.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Hi Bob, just release the tapes already.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Texas A&M AggieToday  09:36 pm JST

Who to believe: two highly decorated military generals or a reporter doing/saying anything just to sell a book?

Because if someone's a senior military officer with lots of medals that automatically means he's also scrupulously honest, right?

Is there another kind of general in the US by the way, except for a military one?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Who cares if you don't like them? You're saying you will bend over for them if they get back into power.

Kind of like the way you didn't support Trump until he started to lead the pack.

Youre a born follower. Your personal opinions are irrelevant.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

These are the same people who discredit the hundreds if not thousands working at our intelligence agencies with a waive of their hands.

Especially knowing what we know now? Well, that's obvious.

So you rail on the GOP establishment when they aren't in power.

I haven't liked the GOP establishment for a very, very long time.

But if Pence becomes President, you're saying you'll fall in line and support them.

I will support him of course, especially when he uses and carries on Trump's policies.

I guess we can say the GOP has you in their pocket no matter what.

No, they don't, but as I said, I don't like the Washington establishments either.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Maria: "trump's read a book?"

Yeah, and he's written books too, you should read them and learn something, including how to capitalize names.

Oh my...

Steve Bannon's Trump @ War Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T30THIsAY1M

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Bass: Yes, both lean cuts, both great tasting meats.

So you rail on the GOP establishment when they aren't in power. But if Pence becomes President, you're saying you'll fall in line and support them.

I guess we can say the GOP has you in their pocket no matter what.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

These are the same people who discredit the hundreds if not thousands working at our intelligence agencies with a waive of their hands.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Trump = sirloin

Pence = tenderloin

Got it.

Yes, both lean cuts, both great tasting meats.

I assume the correct answer is the slimeball reporter who’ll do anything for a buck.

Maybe

The lib who’ll write things about Donald Trump that nobody would ever imagine in a zillion years.

Embellish?  Probably.

Against our man. Against our dear, dear leader.

Exactly, but he's not our leader, he's our president, liberals have leaders that like lemmings will jump through a cheerio to please their owners.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The Dems want to go from sirloin to tenderloin. Lol

Trump = sirloin

Pence = tenderloin

Got it.

Who to believe: two highly decorated military generals or a reporter doing/saying anything just to sell a book?

Yes, somebody already made that point. A little late to the rodeo, eh comrade? I assume the correct answer is the slimeball reporter who’ll do anything for a buck. The lib who’ll write things about Donald Trump that nobody would ever imagine in a zillion years. Against our man. Against our dear, dear leader.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Trumpets: Woodward must be lying for money, since money is the only motivation that people have and you get it by lying

Normal people: Mattis and Kelly might be lying to protect their jobs and therefore their income, then.

Trumpets: What? No. Why would someone lie for money!?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Kelly is that guy who lied about Maxine Waters, right? Then in the face of overwhelming evidence he stuck to his story and refused to apologize?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Who to believe: two highly decorated military generals or a reporter doing/saying anything just to sell a book?

Decisions, decisions.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Anonymous and unnamed sources. Rumors, gossip, allegations, and paid for statements. All are the most trust worthy in the establishment of - Guilt by Accusation. Addition credence is produced by memories from 20 to 30 years in the past. A promising Legal procedure indeed.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I guess Dump knows what the truth looks and sounds like.

Top White House economist says Trump's GDP and unemployment claim was wrong

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/top-white-house-economist-says-trumps-gdp-unemployment-194521472.html

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Well then if it’s anonymous then having tapes and notes wouldn’t be “proof” would it?

@Blacklabel: I understand that you might want proof for accusations.

No they just polled six percent more Democrats to create the poll to go with the narrative.

But it seems that you do not apply the same standards to yourself when you make completely unevidenced and unfounded allegations.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Do you really want Trump in the White House WITHOUT Kelly and Mattis around?

That's a damned if you do, damned if you don't option. Nobody knows who wrote the op-ed; there are no educated guesses. But Trump got himself into this, along with those who collaborate. I don't see how he'll get himself out, and as for the collaborators - they're finished.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

With anonymous sources? Now how could anyone say that with a clear conscious? Oh, wait....

They aren't anonymous - they were off the record. Big difference for those that care.

I’ll give the man 50/50

"He's erratic, amoral, an idiot, impetuous, adversarial, petty, a Fifth or Sixth Grader, who acts in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic."

Sounds like a deal to me - we agree he's a idiot that's detrimental to the health of the republic... get him out of the Oval Office!

Sounds like the Democrat party sprinkled with a few hot tempered Neocons on top..

Once again we are treated to the Trumpster conundrum - they just can't accept that all this ridicule of Trump is coming from their own conservative Republicans. I can't wait until Jeff Sessions comes forward and says "It's me, the little boll weevil that smoked your a$$...."

And replace him with Pence? Just as good, he’ll scare the living daylights out of Democrats even more and would further the Trump agenda, not to mention a solid evangelical. Doesn’t sound bad to me.

Pence is hardly my choice, but at least he wouldn't be Putin's Puppy like Trump. And I don't see Pence dallying with porn stars or Playboy Bunnies (though these days you never know)...

The Dems want to go from sirloin to tenderloin. Lol

That's just plain weird...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Why do you insist on going back to Trump? I am not talking about him, I am referring to Mattis and Kelly. Woodward had called them liars and you support him based on an anonymous source over the public statements of both men. Why?

Liberals simply keep attacking everyone around Trump hoping they will all quit. Do you really want Trump in the White House WITHOUT Kelly and Mattis around?

I would say be careful what you wish for. But you are actually trying to make this happen. So be careful what you cause to happen.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

So Woodward over Mattis AND Kelly.

Hmm. It doesn't seem so long ago that many conservatives took Trump's side of President Obama and a plethora of evidence regarding his birthplace. Integrity-wise, there's a very narrow precipice on which conservatives can stand.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Woodward: Keeps notes and records interviews. Has impeccable credentials as a journalist.

Kelly and Mattis: Have jobs to lose.

It's too easy to see which two of the three are lying about not saying things.

The word of two United States Marine Corps Generals against the musings of a has-been star reporter of the Nixon era who seeks a little relevance and a little cash.

For avowed leftists who just can't accept the hard fact that President Trump won the election fair and square against one of the worst presidential candidates who squandered her overwhelming advantage, the tooth fairy wins hands down.

That is until he sadly once again becomes irrelevant, let's say, by this weekend, and the left in turn goes into another desperate hissy fit.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Why the sudden disrespect for Kelly and Mattis and why is it that suddenly their word means nothing?

Just because “The narrative” doesn’t work otherwise?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Black: So Woodward over Mattis AND Kelly.

Yep.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

some days I really wish liberals would get their wish and get Trump removed. Then you get Pence, which is what you really deserve after making up nonsense for 2 years straight.

give it a week, then impeach Pence! starts. Is the goal still to get rid of Pence too, then Ryan becomes President, chooses Hillary as his new VP then resigns?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

We, I think its empirically clear that what Woodward writes is entirely 100% accurate.

With anonymous sources? Now how could anyone say that with a clear conscious? Oh, wait....

but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, let's say he's 80% correct;

I’ll give the man 50/50

"He's erratic, amoral, an idiot, impetuous, adversarial, petty, a Fifth or Sixth Grader, who acts in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic."

Sounds like the Democrat party sprinkled with a few hot tempered Neocons on top..

Get this incompetent out of office!

And replace him with Pence? Just as good, he’ll scare the living daylights out of Democrats even more and would further the Trump agenda, not to mention a solid evangelical. Doesn’t sound bad to me. The Dems want to go from sirloin to tenderloin. Lol

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Bass wants to say that because Woodward has also been critical in his reporting of Democrats in the past, which has made some Democrats upset, therefore Democrats are being disingenuous in their trust of Woodward this time, which means Woodward's book on Trump's WH must be a nothing burger or completely false.

I know, this logic escapes me as well, but I'm just translating

You didn’t say anything different from what I said, except with a bit dry humor embellishment. But funny......I guess...in a sort of liberal way.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Woodward tends to keep sources anonymous. While I understand the need, at times, to maintain secrecy, the frequent use of anonymous sources to tar and feather Trump is getting a bit old and tedious. I'm tending to no longer pay any attention to such stories.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Hes been caught fabricating interviews and evidence before. Look it up.

Why not just post a link to a reputable source, rather than make a claim and then insist others find evidence for you?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Oh my the double standards from Trumplets are pretty out there....

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I have no particular affection towards Woodward one way or the other. I’m simply evaluating his credibility and motivations compared to them. He has everything to lose if he lies, as he’s got a stellar reputation for reporting the truth. They have everything to lose, as they have a spaztastic boss who loses it when he finds out people said bad stuff about him behind his back.

It’s a logical thing, not a partisan thing.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

So Woodward over Mattis AND Kelly. Liberals must really love this guy. (Or just love anyone who says what they like to hear).

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

LOL, Trump loves people who lie. So why is he so down on this OP-Ed liar who is also Republican ? He is going to Texas solely to help out Lying Ted. Trump even hates Lying Ted,s Dad. Trump pay the National Enquirer to print the story about Lying Teds Dad involvement in JFK,s killing. Strange behaviour ? Unless you want to save your political neck from impeachment. Trump can hear the clock ticking. Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick,

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Cochise: "Heres the thing - Woodward does NOT have "impeccable credentials""

Hahahahaha!!! From a Trump supporter! hahaha.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Heres the thing - Woodward does NOT have "impeccable credentials". Hes been caught fabricating interviews and evidence before. Look it up.

Watergate for a start.

Give up your smear campaign. The only people who aren’t going to believe him are the zealots. The rest of us see through that.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

so absent a publicly released recording or absent the anonymous source publicly identifying themself and being more credible that two revered generals, you got nothing. Nada. Zilch.

So it becomes he said she said. I’ll go with Woodward on this one. Credibility and all.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Heres the thing - Woodward does NOT have "impeccable credentials". Hes been caught fabricating interviews and evidence before. Look it up.

Repeating the "impeccable credentials" line isnt doing your own credibility any good.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Oh Im sorry it was actually NINE percent more Dems than Repubs in the latest poll. Even worse than I thought.

A total of 1,003 adults were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Among the entire sample, 34% described themselves as Democrats, 25% described themselves as Republicans, and 40% described themselves as independents or members of another party. 

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/09/10/rel8a.-.trump.pdf

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It’s not Trump’s quote and Woodward isn’t saying it was told to him directly. So it’s Mattis AND Kelly vs. someone who told Woodward something.

So why are all the comments about Trump? Cause to gotta deflect.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Mattis and Kelly are not anonymous they are public figures. Who have publicly released statements saying they didn’t say what was quoted by woodward.

so absent a publicly released recording or absent the anonymous source publicly identifying themself and being more credible that two revered generals, you got nothing. Nada. Zilch.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said no lie detectors were being used to smoke out the writer of the op-ed, though she insisted the West Wing would like to see an investigation.

Well, as everyone knows, lie detectors can be unreliable and, in some cases completely beaten.

So, what else can we use? Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, Waterboarding....?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

In any case, it's hilarious to watch people like Sanders say, "We're dealing with real issues, not worry about this" as the President literally freaks out on a nightly basis. Hahaha. I love how he's being played with this, and how he is now completely paranoid about his staff. Won't be long before he either starts suggesting he be a full-fledged dictator with all powers over media and those who oppose him, or he just implodes and has a heart attack.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Yeah, if “never” is a time and “I don’t have any” is a place.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Well, you have a guy who has shared two Pulitzer prizes vs. an angry orange who has lied upwards of 5000 times to the public since becoming presidency (including lying about the popular vote and inauguration crowd), and his defenders openly, and on mic, caught defending the lies. Who to believe...

3 ( +5 / -2 )

BlacklabelToday  07:51 am JST

Then Woodward can simply play us his tape of the liars, no?

Wait for it, wait for it.

There is a time and a place for everything.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

So if you think Woodward is wrong about this, which is the logical conclusion to draw from your posting this link, you think that Obama didn't make a mistake

I'll translate bass' point into English:

Bass wants to say that because Woodward has also been critical in his reporting of Democrats in the past, which has made some Democrats upset, therefore Democrats are being disingenuous in their trust of Woodward this time, which means Woodward's book on Trump's WH must be a nothing burger or completely false.

I know, this logic escapes me as well, but I'm just translating.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

If the Trump cult followers weren't so insane they'd be worried.

"Bob Woodward has brought down more Republicans than gay sex in public restrooms " - Bill Maher

3 ( +5 / -2 )

who cares? important point is...is the information true?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The man wrote a lot of good books, not knocking his journalistic skills, but the man did have in the past some questionable sources and I think it’s irresponsible to take a blind eye and to say concretely, the man is telling the truth 100%.

We, I think its empirically clear that what Woodward writes is entirely 100% accurate. but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, let's say he's 80% correct;

"He's erratic, amoral, an idiot, impetuous, adversarial, petty, a Fifth or Sixth Grader, who acts in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic."

Let's throw out adversarial and petty - that still leaves idiot, amoral, has the understanding of a Fifth or Six Grader and is still a detriment to the health of the republic...

Get this incompetent out of office!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Counterpunch is a socialist website. I'm glad that you now apparently think that socialists are good sources, but they also have a bookshop. Given their strong ideological bona fides, they don't sell just any books, but books which they think will help educate and inform their readers.

One of the books they sell is Fear by Robert Woodward.

In the Fiscal Times (not a publication I'd heard of) is reporting that Woodward thinks Obama made a mistake and under-estimated the GOP during the 2012 sequestration battle. So if you think Woodward is wrong about this, which is the logical conclusion to draw from your posting this link, you think that Obama didn't make a mistake, didn't underestimate the GOP and handled the sequestration crisis really well?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Woodward has been accused of exaggeration and fabrication regarding "Deep Throat", his Watergate informant. Ever since W. Mark Felt was announced as the true identity behind Deep Throat, John Dean and Ed Gray,in separate publications, have used Woodward's book *All The President's Men*** and his published notes on his meetings with Deep Throat to argue that Deep Throat could not have been only Mark Felt. They argued that Deep Throat was a fictional composite made up of several Woodward sources*, only one of whom was Felt. Gray, in his book In Nixon's Web*, even went so far as to publish an e-mail and telephone exchange he had with Donald Santarelli, a Washington lawyer who was a Justice Department official during Watergate, in which Santarelli confirmed to Gray that he was the source behind statements Woodward recorded in notes he has attributed to Deep Throat.However, Stephen Mielke, an archivist at the University of Texas who oversees the Woodward-Bernstein papers, said it is likely the page was misfiled under Felt because no source was identified. The original page of notes is in the Mark Felt file but "the carbon is located with the handwritten and typed notes attributed to Santarelli." Ed Gray said that Santarelli confirmed to him that he was the source behind the statements in the notes.

The man wrote a lot of good books, not knocking his journalistic skills, but the man did have in the past some questionable sources and I think it’s irresponsible to take a blind eye and to say concretely, the man is telling the truth 100%.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Could you give some examples of Mr. Woodward being muddled?

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/02/25/Bob-Woodward-Obamas-Incredible-Sequester-Mistake

https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/29/the-long-long-fall-of-bob-woodward-2/

Liberals can never decide which side of the fence looks better to them.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

Woodward going back years with previous administrations has had problems with a lot of his sources, he’s right on a lot of things that you can verify, on others....more muddled.

Could you give some examples of Mr. Woodward being muddled?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@texaggie So, it's now Woodward's turn in what has become the continuing saga of "Today's the Day".

Excellent observation. Though it might not be every day that a book is published allowing the public to learn more about the train wreck that is the Trump administration, the crimes Trump's closest friends and family members have been accused of, charged with and sentenced for, the involvements of 'foreign' governments in US elections and politics, among other newsworthy issues, the books that do come out (and whose sales help businesses profit) are shedding light on the most unethical and immoral president modern America has seen.

Hopefully even more books will be published digging deeper into the fetid cesspool Trump's added to the DC swamp. Maybe more books will also come out if Trump releases his tax info. It would be good to see what he and his highly paid armies of accountants and lawyers have been hiding. 'Loans' from foreign 'financiers'?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Trump is a proven scammer and known liar.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

No they just polled six percent more Democrats to create the poll to go with the narrative.

Can you back this up? Please link me to the methodology of the poll.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Let's see: To date, the left's multiple attempts to hound our president out of office (Michael Wolff, Amorsa, the NYT "anonymous" Op Ed, etc.) have all bombed. So, it's now Woodward's turn in what has become the continuing saga of "Today's the Day".

Evidently you've never heard the phrase "don't shoot the messenger"...all these folks are doing is quoting those inside the Trump White House, you know - REPUBLICANS - THE BEST - THE TEAM...

When will Trumpers ever get that everyone saying Trump is an idiot, errant, amoral, comprehends at the Fifth Grade level, and is a danger to the republic are REPUBLICANS - CONSERVATIVES - RIGHT-WINGERS...

Thanks to Anonymous, in addition to "cesspool", we can now also refer to this White House as "Crazyland"...

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Burning Bush

The burden of proof is on the accuser, which in this case is Woodward, and his reliance on "anonymous sources" which he refuses to name, doesn't inspire much confidence.

Woodward didn't quote 'anonymous sources', he quoted Kelly and Mattis. Trump called them anonymous sources.

IMHO, these books and op-eds and such aren't going to make a lick of difference. Those who like Trump aren't going to change their minds, and those who don't like him don't matter here. The divide he is creating in America is really quite frightening. He is supposed to take his country forward, not back.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Since when did Bob Woodward become the mythical, monolithic "left"? His book on Bill Clinton was not particularly flattering.

Chip, your 7:34 post was fun. An additional point: Kelly and Mattis can afford to have been discovered lying about badmouthing their boss - there is no credibility lost; Woodward cannot be afforded the same tolerance.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Let's see: To date, the left's multiple attempts to hound our president out of office (Michael Wolff, Amorsa, the NYT "anonymous" Op Ed, etc.) have all bombed. So, it's now Woodward's turn in what has become the continuing saga of "Today's the Day".

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

Hey journalist has had problems with the truth for many years as well as verification of sources.

No.

Let's stick to reality, mmmkay?

8 ( +10 / -2 )

"An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud."

--Donald J. Trump, August 7, 2012

And yet Cult 45ers believe the esteemed journalist Bob Woodward lacks credibility.

To the left, Woodward is a Deep State icon. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ha ha. One of the men who exposed Nixon's corruption is now considered "deep state". Another fever dream of the diseased alt right #QAnon crowd.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

To the left, Woodward is a Deep State icon. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, we think more of him than that. I think you meant 'right' in that statement. It certainly fits the situation more accurately.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Woodward also claimed in one of his books that back in the 1980s the former CIA director, William Casey, awoke from a coma on his deathbed to tell him (after sneaking into his hospital room when no one -- including the Secret Service agents detailed to protect Casey -- was looking) that Ronald Reagan instructed him to go ahead with the Iran Contra compact.

To the left, Woodward is a Deep State icon. Nothing more, nothing less.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

the problem with Woodward and his sources is that you can never verify them, them could be true, but when someone is Anonymous.

In general, maybe. But once again the right is using reductionist logic. In the real world, when the sources are not verifiable, we outside the bubble look at things like the credibility of the author to determine whether or not we should trust what they say. Have they used anonymous sources in the past? Woodward has. Have their anonymous sources consistently been proven to be accurate as the details are revealed? Woodward's anonymous sources have.

So we can’t absolutely conclude whether or not the anonymous sources are speaking the truth or not, but we can say that since the author has consistently used anonymous sources that were proven to be correct, they therefore have everything to lose by suddenly using bad sources, so between that and their past credibility, logic says it’s a very safe bet to take their anonymous sources, and in this case Woodward’s, as being truthful.

Hyper partisanship and logic however are fundamentally opposing forces. They can’t exist in harmony.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

As Brit Hume said this morning, the problem with Woodward and his sources is that you can never verify them, them could be true, but when someone is Anonymous.

Many Trump supporters in the US and 'abroad' actually believe Qanon and even pass along their whack conspiracy theories. But then many Trump supporters are also haunted by the spectres of Obama and Hillary, plus the ghosts in the deep state. Along with the voices in their heads.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/1/17253444/qanon-trump-conspiracy-theory-reddit

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Brit Hume is just another partisan hack like Tucker, Hannity, our resident blogger, etc.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Remember that one anonymous source that one reporter used to expose that one president who resigned?

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Believing the most dishonest administration of any modern president over a respected journalist with impeccable credentials is asinine, idiotic, and ignorant. Things we have come to expect from barely literate Trump supporters.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

As Brit Hume said this morning, the problem with Woodward and his sources is that you can never verify them, them could be true, but when someone is Anonymous.

its just another “attack by polls” led by CNN. They says his approval is down SIX points because: 

“Trump's numbers have slipped amid the release of an op-ed in The New York Times and reports about the Bob Woodward book that will be released Tuesday”

coordinated media attacks both by anonymous comments.

Pretty much

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

No they just polled six percent more Democrats to create the poll to go with the narrative.

Cute “Putin” answer. Anyone who has any knowledge of the topic and can follow along would know that refers to James Mattis.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

coordinated media attacks both by anonymous comments.

And effective apparently as well!

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Well then if it’s anonymous then having tapes and notes wouldn’t be “proof” would it? 

This isn’t a court. He has the proof that the anonymous sources said what they did. He had no obligation to show that proof to anyone he doesn’t want to show.

i simply would have to believe a journalist trying to sells book over one of the most revered military leaders of our generation.

Said journalist has been proven to be truthful with his anonymous sources multiple times in the past. I’m not sure who the military leader you are referring to is though. Putin?

12 ( +14 / -2 )

its just another “attack by polls” led by CNN. They says his approval is down SIX points because:

“Trump's numbers have slipped amid the release of an op-ed in The New York Times and reports about the Bob Woodward book that will be released Tuesday”

coordinated media attacks both by anonymous comments.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

Kelly is quoted calling Trump "He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the rails. We're in crazytown.

Mattis is quoted saying Trump has the understanding of "a fifth or sixth-grader."

In a statement, Kelly flatly disputed maligning the president like that: "The idea I ever called the President an idiot is not true, in fact it's exactly the opposite." He added, "He and I both know this story is total BS."

Mattis issued a statement, tweeted at least twice by Trump, saying, "The contemptuous words about the President attributed to me in Woodward's book were never uttered by me or in my presence." Mattis called the book "the product of someone's rich imagination."

Kelly and Mattis: "Well, sometimes we tell little white lies so we don’t end up like Rex Tillertson…in this White House, we have to bow down on our knees and swear allegiance to the Great Orange Fifth Grader before we're allowed in the Oval Office..."

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Well then if it’s anonymous then having tapes and notes wouldn’t be “proof” would it?

i simply would have to believe a journalist trying to sells book over one of the most revered military leaders of our generation.

I don’t, as the story last week was that Mattis wants to quit. Now it’s that he wants this job sooooo bad he would start lying after all these years. Not buying it.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

Trump, though, has called the book "fiction."

trump's read a book?

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Trump, though, has called the book "fiction."

He actually knows the difference between fact and fiction? That's news to me.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Then Woodward can simply play us his tape of the liars, no?

Ahh, the answer to that question makes more sense if you understand what ‘anonymous’ means:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anonymous

11 ( +14 / -3 )

his reliance on "anonymous sources" which he refuses to name, doesn't inspire much confidence

Why not? He’s used anonymous sources on many books in the past and every time he’s been proven correct with said sources. Why would you think that suddenly he would be using unreliable sources after using reliable sources on multiple books over decades? Try using some critical thinking.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

Then Woodward can simply play us his tape of the liars, no?

-10 ( +6 / -16 )

Let's run this through a simple credibility analysis.

Woodward: Keeps notes and records interviews. Has impeccable credentials as a journalist.

Kelly and Mattis: Have jobs to lose.

It's too easy to see which two of the three are lying about not saying things.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

The burden of proof is on the accuser, which in this case is Woodward, and his reliance on "anonymous sources" which he refuses to name, doesn't inspire much confidence.

-14 ( +5 / -19 )

I believe Mattis and Kelly.

-10 ( +6 / -16 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites