PDA

View Full Version : Wikileaks Steals 'Fire And Fury'



Keith Wilson
01-08-2018, 01:15 PM
Wikileaks has stolen Michael Wolff's new book and made it available to everybody on the web. Whatever the virtues of the book, this is simply not right. The book is not secrets being held by governments, but something available in every bookstore. This is a blatant attempt to reduce the money made by selling the book; i.e. a criminal act. If there were ever any doubt that the organization is a mere partisan actor, rather than acting in support of transparency, it has been removed.


An update - apparently the link to the pirated copy is now dead.

Steve McMahon
01-08-2018, 01:18 PM
I agree.

Ian McColgin
01-08-2018, 01:21 PM
I'm not sure I see wikileaks as partisan so much as self-serving and crazy. Anyway, of course stealing the book is criminal and it could not happen to a more deserving victim. They so deserve each other and their attorneys, both sides, deserve extra pay for representing such disgusting clients.

Gerarddm
01-08-2018, 01:52 PM
Lock Assange up.

Keith Wilson
01-08-2018, 02:24 PM
I don't think this will really affect sales of the book much, and might get more people to look at it than would have otherwise.

An interesting comment on the thing from John Podhoretz: "I've read half of Wolff's book. It is as unprincipled and cartoonish and full of fancies masquerading as facts as I thought it would be. It's the work of a journalistic malefactor. But it doesn't strike me as false."

Seems about right.

skuthorp
01-08-2018, 02:29 PM
Rushed I'd say Keith, a race against the lawyers.
One thing, if Wikileaks leaked it for even a short period then censorship would not be possible.

Norman Bernstein
01-08-2018, 02:35 PM
I don't think this will really affect sales of the book much, and might get more people to look at it than would have otherwise.

An interesting comment on the thing from John Podhoretz: "I've read half of Wolff's book. It is as unprincipled and cartoonish and full of fancies masquerading as facts as I thought it would be. It's the work of a journalistic malefactor. But it doesn't strike me as false."

Seems about right.

I'm about halfway through it.

There are large portions of the book which might be best described as Wolff's highly subjective 'take' on things observed and heard while in the White House... I don't lend all that much credibility to that stuff.

As for direct quotes, it remains to be seen if any of them get challenged in a way that would induce Wolff to prove them, by releasing the tapes he alleges he's made.

What DOES strike me as credible are observations that are easily confirmed by what we have all seen, in the media, for the past year. When Wolff characterizes Trump as petulant, naive, childish, impulsive, and ignorant, we can easily correlate those observation to our own... because we've seen ALL of that, and more, just by watching Trump's comments and speeches and tweets.

Paul Pless
01-08-2018, 02:38 PM
What DOES strike me as credible are observations that are easily confirmed by what we have all seen, in the media, for the past year. When Wolff characterizes Trump as petulant, naive, childish, impulsive, and ignorant, we can easily correlate those observation to our own... because we've seen ALL of that, and more, just by watching Trump's comments and speeches and tweets.you needed to read this book to confirm this for you?

TomF
01-08-2018, 02:42 PM
Again, a CBC reporter said that he'd worked in Afghanistan alongside Wolff, though they wrote for different agencies. Said that Wolff's columns weren't about the war, so much as about the atmosphere and chaos and whispered confidences and attitudes among the local Army hierarchy and the folks running the briefings. How the place "felt" and "was experienced" by media and coms people there, not what the war was like for the fighters.

And said that respecting that shared experience, Wolff absolutely nailed it.

I figure Wolff's probably done exactly the same thing. Over the next few years we'll have a sequence of people writing their own tell-all books, who will corroborate Wolff's narrative.

Norman Bernstein
01-08-2018, 02:44 PM
you needed to read this book to confirm this for you?

Of course not... but SOME people probably did.

Ian McColgin
01-08-2018, 03:03 PM
Confirmation bias for everyone. Realists see Trump as he is. Trumpkins see proof of more fake news.

What amuses me is the rending of hair shirts that Trumpkins are doing so very publicly to disavow Bannon - even Bannon himself. It reminds me of the old Soviet era public denunciations of the purged by the not-yet-purged.

George Jung
01-08-2018, 03:08 PM
Rushed I'd say Keith, a race against the lawyers.
One thing, if Wikileaks leaked it for even a short period then censorship would not be possible.

yup - looks that way, from here. I doubt sales are hurt, and with this 'controversy', likely improved. *someone* seemingly wants this available to the public.


Again, a CBC reporter said that he'd worked in Afghanistan alongside Wolff, though they wrote for different agencies. Said that Wolff's columns weren't about the war, so much as about the atmosphere and chaos and whispered confidences and attitudes among the local Army hierarchy and the folks running the briefings. How the place "felt" and "was experienced" by media and coms people there, not what the war was like for the fighters.

And said that respecting that shared experience, Wolff absolutely nailed it.

I figure Wolff's probably done exactly the same thing. Over the next few years we'll have a sequence of people writing their own tell-all books, who will corroborate Wolff's narrative.

I thought that characterization interesting, as well. And in a 'he said/he said', who are you more inclined to believe?


Confirmation bias for everyone. Realists see Trump as he is. Trumpkins see proof of more fake news.

What amuses me is the rending of hair shirts that Trumpkins are doing so very publicly to disavow Bannon - even Bannon himself. It reminds me of the old Soviet era public denunciations of the purged by the not-yet-purged.

Bannon imploding and doing the mea culpas... I gotta say, I didn't see that one happening.

Canoeyawl
01-08-2018, 03:21 PM
Lock Assange up.

He is basically locked up...
but has "friends" in high places.

SMARTINSEN
01-08-2018, 03:32 PM
Rushed I'd say Keith, a race against the lawyers.
One thing, if Wikileaks leaked it for even a short period then censorship would not be possible.

I do mot believe that there was any remote legal possibility that the book would have been censored. Toothless twittering bluster is all

Keith Wilson
01-08-2018, 03:33 PM
One thing, if Wikileaks leaked it for even a short period then censorship would not be possible.Interesting point. Maybe I misunderstood this, and the point was not to cut into profits, but to completely prevent any possibility of suppressing the book. Could be. I don't think it's likely it could be suppressed, but then the Wikileaks people have far, far more cynical ideas about governments that I do.

Rum_Pirate
01-08-2018, 03:35 PM
I don't think this will really affect sales of the book much, and might get more people to look at it than would have otherwise.

An interesting comment on the thing from John Podhoretz: "I've read half of Wolff's book. It is as unprincipled and cartoonish and full of fancies masquerading as facts as I thought it would be. It's the work of a journalistic malefactor. But it doesn't strike me as false."

Seems about right. Not disputing the views of the book of or on Mr Trump.

Seems to be a bit of contradiction by Mr Podhoretz i.e. He states "It is ... full of fancies masquerading as facts" and then says "doesn't strike me as false" ???

Keith Wilson
01-08-2018, 04:16 PM
Seems to be a bit of contradiction by Mr PodhoretzNot so much. I'd paraphrase Podhoretz as saying that Wolff sometimes pretends his conjectures are more than conjectures, but he basically gets it right.

Ian McColgin
01-08-2018, 04:28 PM
Podhoretz is a second generation American-rightwing propagandist who has never done actual journalism - first hand investigation and reporting in his life. His commentaries stand, in his mind, when he has some facts wrong just as well as when he's factually right. In 1981 the Washington Post won and then declined a Pulitzer because they learned that reporter Janet Cooke had invented.

"Benjamin C. Bradlee, executive editor of The Post . . . sent a telegram to the Pulitzer board stating 'with great sadness and regret' that Miss Cooke had determined she could not accept the award.
''She told Post editors early this morning that her story - about an 8-year-old heroin addict - was in fact a composite, that the quotes attributed to a child were fabricated and that certain events described as eyewitnessed did not in fact happen . . .''
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/16/nyregion/washington-post-gives-up-pulitzer-calling-article-on-addict-8-fiction.html?pagewanted=all

All Podhoretz's turgidity about "fancies masquerading as facts . . . doesn't strike me as false" means is that he'd have kept the Pulitzer. Funny sense of integrity.

Let me change his point to one I can agree with: My understanding of Trump and his administration based on the public record is one of remarkable incompetency, ignorence, dishonesty, childish ego, and extreme sociopathy. One cannot trust Wise's reporting to be factually true without verification but his claims show no contradiction with the public record.

Hugh Conway
01-08-2018, 04:29 PM
Not disputing the views of the book of or on Mr Trump.

Seems to be a bit of contradiction by Mr Podhoretz i.e. He states "It is ... full of fancies masquerading as facts" and then says "doesn't strike me as false" ???

It's how the Trump defenders want us to treat Trumps Twitter tantrums - seriously, not literally.

SHClark
01-08-2018, 05:12 PM
It seems that everyone is distracted by the list of people who called Trump a bad name. I think that is the wrong string. Who cares what one guy whose opinion you don't respect says about someone else you don't respect? I look at this as systemic of a toxic workplace where people are calling each other F...n Idiots and are more concerned with turf war than actually doing what they are paid to do. Chaos makes sense for Trump, because it prevents consensus from building and challenging his authority. Has worked for him in the past even it is very bad management.
The belligerent ignorance of this group blows my mind. If they really think that this is reality TV style circus is proper administration of an enterprise as large and complex as the United States of America, then they should all be fired as quickly as possible. The shareholders should not stand for this.
I guess some feel that they will prosper in the short run, and someone will put out the fire before the house burns all the way down. And they will come out of it better off. This is akin to looting, and the blatant disregard for anyone else is the fundamental criminal mindset.
SHC

Keith Wilson
01-08-2018, 05:15 PM
I guess some feel that they will prosper in the short run, and someone will put out the fire before the house burns all the way down. This is exactly how Mr. Trump has always run everything he's ever been in charge of, except he hasn't cared if the house burns down as long as he gets out first.

Gerarddm
01-08-2018, 08:37 PM
^ He'd take out fire insurance with himself as named beneficiary first.

Old Dryfoot
01-08-2018, 08:50 PM
I gotta say, if it hadn't come from Wikileaks, then it would have come from any one of 100s of other places. With one hour I'm sure I could scare up a dozen different sources for this book. It was inevitable that it would be released on the net. So it's probably best to not look for motive on anyone's part, other than grabbing a headline, the pirates were going to do what they do, regardless.