Posted on 09/11/2018 2:15:19 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
Veteran journalist Bob Woodward said a “key” official in the Trump administration privately told him that the details in his books are “1000 percent true,” but later publicly defamed him.
Woodward was interviewed on The New York Time’s podcast, “The Daily,” on Tuesday — the day his book “Fear: Trump in the White House” was officially released.
Woodward told reporter Michael Schmidt that after excerpts of his book began circulating last week, someone working for the administration called him to praise the accuracy of his book.
“After the information in ‘Fear’ started breaking last week, one key person who’s in office called and said ‘Everyone knows what you said here is true. It’s 1,000-percent correct,’” Woodward said. “And then this person has said some public things that contradict that.”
Woodward declined to name the official and said he wasn’t pleased with the official’s public statement.
“And I’m not happy but I have a smile on face because the truth in all of this is going to emerge,” Woodward said. “There’s too much evidence, too many witnesses.”
President Trump and White House aides have rushed to condemn the book and undermine Woodward’s credibility in recent days.
Defense Secretary James Mattis, Chief of Staff John Kelly, ex-White House press secretary Rob Porter and former top economic adviser Gary Cohn all released statements criticizing the book.
Woodward has stood by his reporting despite the White House's response, saying on Sunday that Kelly and Mattis are "not telling the truth" in their denials.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders dismissed the book as “reckless” during Monday’s press briefing.
“I think I would certainly rather take the actual on-record account from people who are here — who have been working in this building, who have interacted with the president day-in, day-out, like General Mattis, like General Kelly, like myself — and not disgruntled former employees that refuse to put their name on things when they come out to attack the president," Sanders said.
Woodward, who worked with reporter Carl Bernstein to break the news of the Nixon-era Watergate scandal, said the use of anonymous sources is necessary when covering presidential administrations.
He said The Washington Post reporting duo started using unnamed sources “because you can’t get the truth, you won’t get the straight story from someone if you do it on the record.”
Woodward, however, said that he did not agree with the phrase “anonymous sources.”
“Sources are not anonymous to me, I know exactly who they are,” Woodward said on the podcast. “So I think it’s — in a sense — the wrong phrase. They are deep-background or background sources.”
He said he understands the “skepticism” around unnamed sources but added that it would be nearly impossible for reporters to get certain documents and testimony on the record.
The Hill actually wrote an article about an author quoting an anonymous source to confirm that his book based on anonymous sources is accurate.
who claimed trump was biased against mexicans?
“...but later publicly defamed him.”
Woodward thinks he is awfully cunning. Now, anyone who denies anything is automatically considered a colluding witness who is trying to protect himself.
So presently everyone is damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
I cannot imagine why anyone would let that snake within a thousand feet of the White House.
Trump can start to clean house by getting rid of anyone placed in position by McMasters and any hold-over from the Obama administration.
I personally could spend a few days walking through the White House and spot the traitors. It is not really hard.
lol
Woodward’s ‘key’ person’s existance is as phony as his book.
Maybe ‘low information voters’ can be swayed by this garbage, but the problem with ‘low information voters’ is that they do not read anything.
I know the guy who keeps the rest room key and it was NOT him!
Woodward gains financially with these lies. Like the Steele Dossier, unverified and salacious. See a pattern here?
***Hey, that’s 10 times better than being 100% correct.***
Otherwise, incorrect.
As there is no such thing as 1000% correct.
Is he 1000% insured against a libel suit?
Was it the guy with the discredited book?
Logic would say that if you are a “high government official,” interviewed by a well-known journalist, and have a negative view of the President, confiding in that journalist those views makes absolutely no sense. There is no reason to employ the media as recourse, rather introspection, privacy and resignation would be the obvious path. Do you really think these people hold their positions as a matter of opposition politics and naivety?
His book will be in the discount bin, along side Omarosa, in no time.
Unfortunately that will not be the case. It will be discussed and praised. A lot of people will read it and never consider the fallacy of “anonymity”. That is the nation we live in.
(To the tune of "Barbara Ann")
"Bob-Bob-Bob Bob-Bob is lying
Bob-Bob-Bob Bob-Bob is lying..."
You can’t assume anything this clown and the media tells you in correct. They have become that bad.
New anonymous sources verify the previous anonymous sources, who agree with the anonymous editorial.
It’s anonymous turtles all the way down.
What’s the frequency!!!
1000% true?
And he believes it?
What a moron.
Sorry, Bob, upping 100 to 1000 doesn’t make it more believable. It just shows that you are willing to embellish, maybe even fabricate, to make a point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.