The liberal media were experiencing nirvana on Sunday as they continued their nearly non-stop love-fest for the anti-Trump gossip book Fire and Fury by journalist Michael Wolff. Despite the fact that, when pressed, they admit the book was dubiously sourced and filled with easily provable factual inaccuracies, they still claim to their viewers that the book somehow “rings true.” It was the same on ABC’s This Week were Clinton lackey George Stephanopoulos led a largely liberal panel in fawning over the book even as he speculated that only ‘50 percent’ of the book was actually true.
“It seems like every White House in a generation is hit by a book like this usually by Bob Woodward,” Stephanopoulos joked to Matthew Dowd and to the panel’s laughter. “Not this time around. But what is your big take away from here and how much of this can we trust?”
Dowd, who the network likes to pretend was a Republican and who wasn’t known for his own stability when talking about President Trump, first claimed that he didn’t like Wolff’s style of journalism yet touted him for “confirming” what everyone has known:
It's all confirmed those things that have been talked about for a year. The third thing, fund mentally, the President only made this matters worse in what he's done. All the tweets and everything have basically confirmed basically everything Michael Wolff said. Everything that he’s done has confirmed it.
“When you hear him put out that tweet, ‘stable genius,’ it's kind of like Richard Nixon, ‘I'm not a crook,’” Stephanopoulos chided, playing off of Dowd.
Stephanopoulos then gave credence to Wolff’s assertion that Trump and his campaign team didn’t want to win the election. “I think the central insight in the book really is that they didn't think they were going to win. From the president on down, all through the campaign, and heading into the early days of the White House, they acted like it,” he said to rabid anti-Trump reporter Roland Martin of News One Now.
Martin agreed that the Trump team didn’t want to win claiming Wolff’s depiction was “all true.” He also said that the book confirmed that the Trump team staffed the White House with some really deplorable people. “Everything he laid out, we already knew. In terms of the kind of people that he chose. You don't have principles. You don't have morals. You don't have ethics,” he angrily spat. He then claimed that the only reason anyone on the right supported the President was that they were drunk on power.
“It raises the question of power. But Sara it does also raise these questions of the President's fitness. I mean, a lot of anecdotes in there -- Let's say that 50 percent are true … it raises serious questions [about] his mental capacity, his ability to process information, his impulse control,” Stephanopoulos seemed to agree while speaking to CNBC’s Sara Fagen.
Fagen thought that 50 percent was the right number for how truthful Wolff’s book was while Martin interjected and said it was more like 90 percent. The fact that they were fine with a book woefully lacking in truthfulness driving much of the news coverage and speculation was very disturbing.
American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp was the only one on the panel interested in setting the record straight when it came to weeding out the lies and misinformation found in Wolff’s book. He called out Wolff for not reaching out to the ACU when he wrote about their CPAC event in the book and how he got basic facts wrong:
His facts are wrong from top to bottom. He said Wilbur Ross was the secretary of labor. He said that John Kelly was the director of Homeland Security. Another man has that job. He was the secretary of Homeland Security. When it came to CPAC he got fact after fact after fact wrong. And he didn't bother to call. Look, there might be some truth in here, but it’s riddled with and surrounded by the fact that this was written by a journalist who doesn't believe in calling anyone to correct sources.
There have been numerous tweets from journalists pointing out the plethora of spelling, grammatical, and factual problems with the book. So, if Wolff, his editor, and his publisher didn’t do their do their due diligence with correcting those simple things, then what are the chances they actually researched and corroborated the claims made in the book?
Relevant portions of the transcript below:
ABC
This Week
January 7, 2018
9:04:52 AM EasternGEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It seems like every White House in a generation is hit by a book like this usually by Bob Woodward. [Laughter] Not this time around. But what is your big take away from here and how much of this can we trust?
MATTHEW DOWD: Well, speaking as a genius I have three that – I mean there's so many but I have three. First, I'm not a huge fan of Michael Wolff and the stale of journalism that that entails. (…) That being said, he does paint a broad picture. Take the little stories out of it. With insiders who have not denied they have said all the things, they have been quoted as saying of something Republicans on the record and most Republicans off the record have said: That there's a question about the president's temperament. That he has serious questions about his mental acuity. Can he handle the office? All of the stresses of the office? It's all confirmed those things that have been talked about for a year. The third thing, fund mentally, the president only made this matters worse in what he's done. All the tweets and everything have basically confirmed basically everything Michael Wolff said. Everything that he’s done has confirmed it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: To Sara Fagen. When you hear him put out that tweet, “stable genius,” it's kind of like Richard Nixon, “I'm not a crook.”
SARA FAGEN: Yeah, I mean, he handled it in the worse possible way by adding to it.
(…)
STEPHANOPOULOS: And Roland, let me bring it to you because I think the central insight in the book really is that they didn't think they were going to win. From the president on down, all through the campaign, and heading into the early days of the White House, they acted like it.
ROLAND MARTIN: All true. And the bottom line is here: This book changes nothing. I read 250 of the 350 pages last night. Bottom line is simple: Everything he laid out, we already knew. In terms of the kind of people that he chose. You don't have principles. You don't have morals. You don't have ethics. And what you have here though, is a Republican Party with different pieces. They get exactly what they want from Donald Trump. (…) You look at the fact that Democrats forced out Senator Al Franken and Congressman John Conyers. Have Republicans forced out Blake Farenthold? No. This is about power.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It raises a question of power. But Sara it does also raise these questions of the President's fitness. I mean, a lot of anecdotes in there -- Let's say that 50 percent are true.
FAGEN: Yes, I think that’s the right number.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It raises serious questions—
MARTIN: Maybe 90.
STEPHANOPOULOS: [Laughter] -- his mental capacity, his ability to process information, his impulse control.
(…)
MATT SCHLAPP: He did a whole chapter in the book, Michael Wolff, on CPAC. Never once called anyone at CPAC, never called me. His facts are wrong from top to bottom. He said Wilbur Ross was the secretary of labor. He said that John Kelly was the director of Homeland Security. Another man has that job. He was the secretary of Homeland Security. When it came to CPAC he got fact after fact after fact wrong. And he didn't bother to call. Look, there might be some truth in here, but it’s riddled with and surrounded by the fact that this was written by a journalist who doesn't believe in calling anyone to correct sources.
DOWD: Donald Trump and the Trump supporters like Matt. I give him credit for even though if I gave Matt truth serum I know what Matt would say about Donald Trump.
SCHLAPP: I’ll let you right now.
DOWD: Of the level of integrity he holds this office to.
(…)
