With a title like that you’re probably thinking I’ve become a liberal snowflake or a RINO but I can assure you that is not the case. I support Trump and would definitely vote for him again in 2020.
Because of the title, I felt I needed to make that disclaimer first before going any further.
I feel like the media has finally ‘baited’ Trump as well as some of his supporters, but then there are other Trump supporters like me who’ve learned not to take anything in the media as factual or ‘gospel’.
Think of how many so-called ‘stories’ the mainstream media (or what I’ve started calling them as the fakestream media) have gotten wrong.
Now with this new book ‘Fire And Fury’ by liberal propagandist Michael Wolff, the media has been mostly focused in particular with the alleged quotes attributed to former Chief Of Strategist and current Breitbart Executive Chairman Steven Bannon which he allegedly called Donald Trump Jr’s meeting with a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”
However, I have real reasons to doubt that Bannon even said those things about Trump Jr. First, all of that does not sound like Bannon at all.
Also, if you actually do your own research into Michael Wolff’s other books you’ll notice he has a history of making up quotes or fabricating quotes.
The Gateway Pundit reported on January 4 that Bannon is ‘planned to refute quotes by controversial author Michael Wolf’
The Gateway Pundit wrote, As Michael Wolff set the MAGA world on fire with quotes that he claims came from Steve Bannon in his new book, it is important that his history of sensational deceit is taken into consideration – especially since those close to the former White House chief strategist deny the accusations.
The Gateway Pundit continues “in the unreleased statement, Bannon would have called Trump Jr. a ‘patriot’ and says that he doesn’t believe that he committed treason, according to a description from those familiar with it,” the Hill reported.
The Gateway Pundit also, noted that in his first book “Burn Rate: How I Survived The Gold Rush Years On the Internet,” Wolff was accused of misquoting a dozen people for his sensational tale about his own failed internet startup.
One of those subjects of the book, was entrepreneur Isabel Maxwell, called her quotes and representations by Wolff “gratuitous and inaccurate”.
There have been other criticisms of Michael Wolff’s previous books, a now-defunct website Brill’s Content criticized Wolff’s Book “Burn Rate” for “apparent factual errors” and said that more than a dozen of the subjects he mentioned complained that Wolff had “invented or changed quotes” that he attributed to them.
And in a 2004 cover story for the New Republic, Michelle Cotte wrote that Wolff was “uninterested in the working press,” preferring to focus on the “power players 0 the moguls” and was fixated on culture, style, buzz and money, money, money.” She also noted that scenes in his columns aren’t recreated so much as created – springing from Wolff’s imagination rather than from actual knowledge of events.” Calling his writings a “whirlwind of flourishes and tangents and asides that often stray so far from the central point that you begin to wonder whether there is a central point,” she quote one daily New York columnist as saying “I find it nearly impossible to read his columns. They’re flabby, I don’t know what the f**ck he’s trying to say.”
One journalist who knew Wolff told Cottle, “He can’t write. He doesn’t report. “ Cottle subsequently called Wolff “
In 2010, Wolff Wrote An Article that criticized The New York Times for their investigative reporting. “The Times drops this amazing story last week digging into how a Rupert Murdoch tabloid illegally hacked telephones, including those of the royal family. We praised it here. Go read it if you haven’t yet—it’s well worth your time. Michael Wolff liked it, too. He calls it ‘a rousing whodunit with many smoking guns.’ But Wolff being Wolff, he paints the piece as a Machiavellian power play by The New York Times rather than what it is: an obviously juicy story that any ambitious newspaper with the resources would go after.” (Ryan Chittum, “Michael Wolff’s High Cynicism,” Columbia Journalism Review, 9/7/10)
The Columbia Journalism Review Called Wolff’s Criticism On Investigative Reporter Don Van Natta Jr. “Pathetic.” “Wolff also slimes the investigative reporter Don Van Natta Jr. for no good reason: Van Natta is a Times insider, loyalist, and gun, in ways similar to various Murdoch reporters who do Murdoch’s bidding, like Andy Coulson, the former editor of News of the World, and now Prime Minister David Cameron’s communications chief, or Steve Dunleavy, who, in the mid-1980s, investigated Warner’s chief Steve Ross during Murdoch’s efforts to take over the company. All newspapers have their hatchet guys. Evidence? Van Natta wrote the Judy Miller piece a few years back. Seriously, that’s all Wolff ‘has’ here. Pathetic.” (Ryan Chittum, “Michael Wolff’s High Cynicism,” Columbia Journalism Review, 9/7/10)
The Columbia Journalism Review Called Out Wolff’s And Claimed He Had “Zero Evidence” To Blame The New York Times Of Conspiracy. “And Wolff, just to show you how much he hates accountability journalism, takes a pit stop to crap on Woodward and Bernstein: Still, just because you have ulterior motives (and some worry and guilt about your motives), doesn’t mean the story won’t stick. The Washington Post didn’t like Nixon—and because of that bad blood we got Watergate. Hey, why not? Finally, Wolff says, again with zero evidence, that the Times decided to pull up short, not tracing the coverup all the way to the top—just so it could hold a gun to Murdoch’s head. We’re left to suppose that if Murdoch pulls back the WSJ New York section or something, then the Times won’t let part two loose.” (Ryan Chittum, “Michael Wolff’s High Cynicism,” Columbia Journalism Review, 9/7/10)
To Conclude The Critique, The Columbia Journalism Review Called Wolff’s Piece “Twisted” And “Disgusting.” “This piece gives us more insight about the twisted worldview of Michael Wolff than it does about The New York Times. This is one of the most cynical things I’ve read in a long time. It’s disgusting, frankly.” (Ryan Chittum, “Michael Wolff’s High Cynicism,” Columbia Journalism Review, 9/7/10)
In 2012, Erik Wemple Of The Washington Post Claimed That Wolff’s Writing Is “Difficult To Hack Through” Adding That He Is The “Foxconn Of The Pointless, Comma-Laden Aside.” “Though by no means his worst outing, this piece has plenty of the distractive prose that makes so much of Wolff’s writing difficult to hack through. He is the Foxconn of the pointless, comma-laden aside.” (Erik Wemple, Op-Ed, “If Only We All Could Write As Well As Michael Wolff,” The Washington Post, 3/20/12)
In 2013, Joe Coscarelli, A Former New York Magazine Reporter, Called Wolff An “Angry Man For Pay.” “Angry man for pay (and past and present New York contributor) Michael Wolff is at it again, as he is every time he has an article to promote.” (Joe Coscarelli, “Michael Wolff’s War On Everything Is Just Viral Marketing For Himself, New York Magazine, 3/12/13)
Coscarelli Wrote Wolff Was A “Media Provocateur.” “Long a media provocateur, Wolff has only optimized his barbed bitching for the Internet, where he works like a Method actor, matching the tone of his latest piece on social media and carrying on until everyone notices.” (Joe Coscarelli, “Michael Wolff’s War On Everything Is Just Viral Marketing For Himself, New York Magazine, 3/12/13)
In 2016, Wolff Was Criticized For His Claim That Journalists Covering President Trump Should Be “Stenographers” And Nothing More. “Columnist Michael Wolff is being roundly mocked on Twitter for asserting that journalists covering Trump should be simply ‘stenographers’ who relay what he says to the inquiring public and nothing more.” (Sam Reisman, “Michael Wolff Mocked For Saying Journalists Covering Trump Should Just Transcribe What He Says,” Mediaite, 11/23/16)
Also, Wolff wrote in the book that Blair had a secret meeting with Trump’s son-in-law and senior aide Jared Kushner to inform him that Trump’s campaign staff and possibly even Trump had been under British surveillance.
However, former British Prime Minister has vehemently denied claims that he warned President Trump’s advisers that United Kingdom intelligence might have spied on Trump during his campaign, the Guardian reported.
Wolf also wrote that Blair had maneuvered for a job as Trump’s Middle East envoy, according to the Guardian.
In an interview with BBC Radio 4, Blair said the book’s allegations are entirely false.
“This story is a complete fabrication, literally from beginning to end. I’ve never had such conversation in the White House, outside the White House, with Jared Kushner, with anybody else,” said Blair in the interview.
Now that the book is now out Bannon is free from the “cease a desist” order that Trump’s lawyers file against he is speaking out and clarifying what he really said Bannon said his comments were directed and Paul Manafort and not Trump Jr. Bannon also says that Trump Jr. is a “good man” and a “patriot” in his statement.
In his own book Michael Wolff a note at the start that casts significant doubt on the reliability of the specifics contained in the rest of its pages. “Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.
“Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances, I have, through a consistency in the accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.”
Trump should have known negative attention to anything always brings high demand to that cause whether it be a product or for that matter a campaign. In fact, that’s one of the reasons Trump one the election because the media was constantly negative toward Trump.
It’s what I call reverse psychology, Trump should have ignored this book instead of filing a “cease and desist” letter. Because that made it an even bigger deal than it should’ve been. If Trump would have ignored it this book would have not been a ‘big deal’ at all.
Don’t get me wrong I still support Trump and will definitely vote for him again in 2020 but the way he’s been attacking Bannon makes fee feel that the media has finally ‘baited’ Trump. I mean Bannon is a very prominent figure in the conservative world was part of the very first people to endorsed Trump in the primaries.
Also another aspect this story is a few days ago one of the panelists of Fox News made a statement that Breitbart readers were ‘turning on Bannon”. In fact, after looking into and reading the comments. I’ve seen more criticism of Trump in the Breitbart comments, they are concerned about the way Trump’s been attacking Bannon and some of even suggested he’s “not the person who they thought they were”.
I find the timing of this book suspicious think about this the news about the book came out now that we see the Trump/Russia probe backfiring on the Democrats, we learn the FBI is reopening its Hillary Clinton investigation, as well as during the Iran protests which are still happening at this very moment. Since the news of the book came and now that the book is out we haven’t seen any news about either the Clinton investigation or the Iran protests which are still occurring in Iran at this very moment.
As will as this book is an effort to try to divide the Republican Party between the ‘Bannon wing’ and the ‘Trump wing’ even though Bannon is part of the ‘Trump wing’ of the Republican Party. I really hope this ‘division’ between the ‘Bannon wing’ and the ‘Trump wing’ will calm down and both Bannon and Trump can work together to elect more conservative Republicans in the coming midterms elections this year.
This book of falsehoods and fabrications is just a distraction an effort by the Democrats to divide the Republican Party and hinder Trump’s ability to put his agenda in place. Bannon is one of Trump’s biggest supporters and wants to see Trump’s agenda succeed.