MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

New Trump Book Brings 'Fire and Fury' to Twitter

Fire and Fury, Michael Wolff's new book about the first year of the Donald Trump White House, has taken the internet by storm. It includes some stunning claims and explosive quotes from former Trump aides, most prominently Steve Bannon, whose comments to Wolff have prompted President Trump to start calling him "Sloppy Steve" (a phrase that has a NSFW pre-existing entry in Urban Dictionary).

Trump's lawyers tried to squash the book with a cease and desist letter, which only led the publisher to move the release date up to today.

Some bookstores in Washington, D.C., even held midnight releases.

Journalists pored over the book looking for scoops, pranksters on Twitter had fun passing around fake stories, like the one from @pixelatedboat about Trump demanding a 24-hour gorilla TV network.

As Peter Suderman noted here earlier today, the fake stories illustrated the propensity of some Trump critics to believe nearly anything about him that they see being shared on Twitter.

"It would be a mistake, I think, to simply dismiss Wolff's book as a work of pure fiction or baseless speculation," Suderman continued. "Yet it's also worth approaching any individual story or event it describes with some amount of skepticism."

Wolff, for his part, insists his book is accurate and says he recorded many of his interviews. Whether his sources' claims are accurate, and what additional work he might have done to corroborate them, remain unclear.

Pointing out that you have more credibility than Donald Trump not the most compelling defense. While the entire affair is boosting book sales, it may also end up making it more difficult to treat the book seriously.

Fire and Fury is currently at the top of Amazon.com's bestseller list.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Yo momma's so ugly she can't even arouse suspicion.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Let them eat TDS.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Yo momma is so old she has a separate entrance for black dicks.

  • Juice||

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Yo momma is such a stranger to the gym she calls it a James.

  • Rhywun||

    Pointing out that you have more credibility than Donald Trump [is] not the most compelling defense.

    And claiming that Donald Trump "has less credibility than, perhaps, anyone who has ever walked on earth at this point" is a totally credible statement.

  • ||

    A lot Team Blue folks seem to have gone into a sort of communal psychosis with the TDS. I've accidentally been catching Colbert the last couple of nights, and I really had no idea how completely unhinged and obsessed he's gotten. His opening monologues are just 15-minute hysterical anti-Trump rants, and he can't seem to go even three minutes in an interview without shoe-horning Trump into the conversation somehow.

    And the constant hysterics are all based in "crazy Nazi rapist Putin puppet!"

    I think they honestly have no idea how ridiculous they sound to people outside the echo chamber.

  • paranoid android||

    Every Colbert monologue ever:

    COLBERT: "Evening folks. So, Donald Trump..."

    CROWD: "BOOOOOOOOOO!"

    MAN IN BACK: "I HATE THAT GUY!" *is inundated with high fives and back pats from other audience members*

    COLBERT: *easing audience* "Trump was so eager to leave a White House press conference today, you might say he was Russian!"

    AUDIENCE: *fifteen minute standing ovation, garlands of flowers are tossed onstage*

    The show is crazy unwatchably bad, the interviews are somehow worse, but expressing this opinion to anyone gets you basically labeled a crypto-Trump supporter. Crazy, crazy times.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Was he ever funny?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes. Strangers With Candy was great.

  • ||

    Strangers With Candy was great.

    ^ This.

    I continued to tolerate him for a long, long time based on that show.

  • paranoid android||

    The Colbert Report had its moments, early on. The character could be entertaining, at least. And he's a great comedic actor in other contexts. But as a political humorist, no, never. Because it's not really humor, just pandering.

  • Brandybuck||

    The Colbert Report was only funny in comparison to the other segments on the Daily Show.

  • ||

    But as a political humorist, no, never. Because it's not really humor, just pandering.

    Yeah, this. And mean-spirited, too. When he gets on politics he completely loses his sense of humor and gets deadly serious and pissed at anyone who even slightly disagrees with him.

    The Colbert Report was okay when he was simply making fun of O'Reilly, but he was never able to stay in character when he felt the time had come to attack someone for having the wrong idea, at which point he would get easily as ugly as O'Reilly, and totally without irony.

  • Rhywun||

    The Colbert Report was funny the first couple years.

  • Rhywun||

    But enough about the Samantha Bee show.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Ugh

  • ||

    But enough about the Samantha Bee show.

    I've hated her from the first moment I saw her as a sidekick on the Daily Show. That distinctive combination of smug and ignorant was on wild display even then.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It will be fascinating to see if Trump's boorishness will contribute to him losing potential voters, or if the overreaction to him will help him gain votes.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I'd bet it will be more like a vote exchange. Some people who voted for him will be turned off but he'll pick up votes from people who didn't last time.

  • Delius||

    I can see people who voted for him voting for him again; no one likes to admit they were wrong. I can also picture the people who voted for him who don't the second time around (assuming he even gets there). But who is out there who didn't vote for him before, and has been convinced by his hilarious hijinks over the last year?

  • ||

    But who is out there who didn't vote for him before, and has been convinced by his hilarious hijinks over the last year?

    People who realize his presidency hasn't been nearly the unmitigated disaster we were told it was going to be and that we're daily told it is.

    If he runs again, and if the Dems run someone like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris against him, then yes, he could pick up votes he didn't have the first time.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Based on the reaction of the Left to the Gorilla channel troll story I am fully convinced that the C&D letter from Trump's lawyers was a deliberate attempt to make libs think this was a serious work of capital-j Pulitzer-winning Journalism.

    Game, set, match to The Donald.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    A lot Team Blue folks seem to have gone into a sort of communal psychosis with the TDS. I've accidentally been catching Colbert the last couple of nights, and I really had no idea how completely unhinged and obsessed he's gotten. His opening monologues are just 15-minute hysterical anti-Trump rants, and he can't seem to go even three minutes in an interview without shoe-horning Trump into the conversation somehow.

    This is the billions in free press everyone keeps referring to. Literally.

  • Tony||

    It's a bit much even for me, but you have to understand that the president of the United States is an illiterate Nazi-sympathizing senile mafia-tied Russian-oligarchy-tied incompetent racist who talks about his penis size on national TV. And that's day 1.

  • Rhywun||

    In other words he's the gift that keeps on giving.

  • Tony||

    I have always been against the sentiment that you can win by losing in politics, but I'm starting to come around to the idea that, as long as we survive Trump, his shitshow example might just set this country right for at least an election cycle or two.

  • ||

    his shitshow example might just set this country right for at least an election cycle or two.

    That's funny, because you were calling everyone who was saying that a year ago racists.

  • ||

    you have to understand that the president of the United States is an illiterate Nazi-sympathizing senile mafia-tied Russian-oligarchy-tied incompetent racist who talks about his penis size on national TV.

    So, I can put you in the "crazy Nazi rapist Putin puppet!" column, then?

  • Tony||

    So how abnormal is this presidency according to sober-minded smart people like you? Or is it all perfectly fine?

  • ||

    You really do have trouble with that middle ground between polar extremes, don't you?

    I know, I know - you've been lecturing other people about binary thinking for years, therefore you don't do it!

  • Tony||

    Trump is an extreme.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Not even close. Trump is like one of those fucking loud motorcycles that shout out "Look At Me"! It's still just a motorcycle and the guy riding it is still a normal 9-to-5'er.

  • Rebel Scum||

    the president of the United States is an illiterate Nazi-sympathizing senile mafia-tied Russian-oligarchy-tied incompetent racist

    I hope you leftists stick with this winning strategy.

    P.s. Everything you said is exactly opposite of reality. Take the Nazi accusation as an example. Deregulation is the opposite of fascism, as is nominating a strict constitutionalist to SCOTUS. Get a grip.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""I think they honestly have no idea how ridiculous they sound to people outside the echo chamber.""

    Of course they don't. Anything contrary to the echo chamber is racism, sexism, and a bunch more name calling.

    To them, logic is just a vaping company.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    He needs a lollipop.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    As Twitter goes, so goes America.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    I remember the good old days when 'tweeting' meant stabbing a whore.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I authorized zero access to White House

    Someone spoke about the President without permission! Quick! Get the fainting couch!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    On it.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Omg the craziest part of Fire and Fury is where it explains how by turning an election into a sporting event and giving Trump billions in free airtime, constantly airing his rallies live the media and journalists are complicit in his rise. Amazing.

    And they're still doing it. Billions in free airtime! BILLIONS! Maybe trillions.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I wonder if that guy thinks it wasn't a sporting event before?

  • ||

    And now a whole best-selling book, that's all about him!

    Will they ever stop giving him so much free publicity?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Quash?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Major new developments in #TrumpRussia!

    The most potentially damning new revelation about Russia, Trump and Sessions

    Not only Drumpf, but also Sessions might be taken away in handcuffs by Mueller's investigation! Seriously, read the whole article, it's got explosive new info!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm curious to know, do you wish you could take back your Trump vote in light that Russia made you vote for him?

  • Brandybuck||

    Hah hah! Russian paid me millions to vote for Trump, but I secretly voted for Vermin Supreme and kept the money!

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    As I've explained several times, I voted for Hillary Clinton. Just because I wasn't manipulated by Russian hacking into voting for Drumpf, or staying home, doesn't mean nobody else was. It's a big country with tens of millions of voters. Don't forget, Hillary won the popular vote easily, and only lost the Electoral College by a few thousand votes in a handful of swing states.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Hillary won the popular vote easily, "'

    A false statement. There is no contest for the popular vote, therefore it is not a win.

    She did receive more votes overall. But that didn't win her anything.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Great. Word games. The President is a white supremacist Putin puppet and on a supposedly libertarian site, the commenters are more interested in playing word games. Why am I the only person taking this situation seriously?

    By the way, I don't like Ronald Reagan, but if somebody said "Ronald Reagan won the popular vote in 1984" I wouldn't chime in with this "Well, actuallllllly..." nonsense.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I've noticed liberals like to say Hillary won the popular election in an attempt to give her some credibility that she should be president.

    However, words have specific meanings and context, to put something in a proper context in not a word game.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "Great. Word games."

    It's not word games. I didn't vote because my home state is a slam-dunk for Democrat. The electoral college is everything. The "popular vote" is nothing.

    If you want to play the irrelevant game, you could say Trump won more square miles of the USA than Hillary.

  • Rebel Scum||

    "Ronald Reagan won the popular vote in 1984"

    RR won in a landslide in his second run. And if he only had achieved getting more votes in either election, while failing to acquire enough to satisfy the electoral requirement, he still would have lost the actual election. Hilldawg only won a game that was not being played.

  • chemjeff||

    Well at least the OBL troll has some useful function, revealing the unhinged irrational Hillary hate among some people around here. She's a horrible person, yes, but for heaven's sake, acknowledging reality doesn't mean agreeing with Hillary.

    Ronald Reagan won the popular vote in 1984. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. Stating either sentence is not an endorsement of either Reagan or Clinton. Too many people on the right went totally batshit unhinged nuts in their hatred of Hillary - let's call it HDS - that their cries of YOU MUST VOTE TRUMP IN ORDER TO STOP HILLARYYYYYYYY were a bit too much to take and drove a lot of people away from the right.

  • Rebel Scum||

    She did receive more votes overall. But that didn't win her anything.

    And wasn't the difference attributable to CA alone?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Russian hacking

    Describe, in a 100 word summary, what 'hacking' made erstwhile hillary voters vote for Donald Trump. Show your work... you may use a followup post to show said work.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Drumpf

    You guys really need to come off of this one as well. Trumps father or grandfather changed the family name to make it more palatable for business. Where Barry Soetorro changed his to 1) take his fathers name and 2) have a more ethnic name. I think there is more comedic value in the latter, myself. Just a thought.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Why not #Trussia?

  • Rhywun||

    This one weird trick might get Trump impeached!

  • josh||

    I haven't even read the book, and I believe every word of it. Now, that's a bit of hyperbole, sure, but regardless of what you think of the president's politics, no one can honestly believe this isn't at least an accurate picture of the president. It takes a very unhealthy sense of denial to think otherwise.

    Part of me thinks Trump wants the book to succeed though, because the book is about him, and if it's about him it's going to be a bestseller!

  • Tony||

    He certainly Streisanded the crap out of it.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Part of me thinks Trump wants the book to succeed though, because the book is about him, and if it's about him it's going to be a bestseller!""

    I don't know. Usually it needs the Trump name up front. Now if it was called "Trump's Fire and Fury" he would tell you it's the best book ever.

  • Mickey Rat||

    At best, this book seems to gild the lily, as there are some obvious whoppers in the excerpts released (like supposedly not knowing who Boehner was).

  • josh||

    "there are some obvious whoppers in the excerpts released (like supposedly not knowing who Boehner was)."

    Boehner was no longer in politics, so the idea that Trump forget him five seconds after he left Congress isn't hard to believe.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    But you believe everything in a book you've never read, so maybe you aren't the best 'everyman'.

  • josh||

    "But you believe everything in a book you've never read, so maybe you aren't the best 'everyman'."

    And you missed the part about that being "hyperbole", so maybe you're not either.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The book is gonna be yuge! Great press! Can't beat it!

  • Tony||

    He never said what kind of machine was being well-oiled. Maybe it's an insane fucking retard machine. Fake news.

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Pointing out that you have more credibility than Donald Trump not the most compelling defense.


    It's like saying "I'm more beautiful than my wife!" when the wife looks like Hillary and you're Bill.

    Nevertheless, I'm buying the book. It sounds so... how do you say it... how do you say it...

    Ah, yes: Unsurprising! It just sounds so much like one would expect the p...y-grabber-in-chief's administration would work, for it not to be true!

  • Hank Phillips||

    So the cease-and-desist blackmail worked as flawlessly as Beauregard's attempt to bully Vermont into sending men with guns to shoot kids over plant leaves?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It worked as well as Russian Haxxing!

  • Deflator Mouse||

    "My credibility is being questioned by a man who has less credibility than, perhaps, anyone who has ever walked on earth at this point."

    Isn't that the very definition of an ad-hominem attack? The fact that a person with low credibility says something does not imply that it is untrue.

  • josh||

    "The fact that a person with low credibility says something does not imply that it is untrue."

    It doesn't help...

  • EPUnum||

    Mr. Wolff is no stranger to biting the bubble that feeds him...

    "This discussion provides an opening for the film's sole political analyst—who happens to be Vanity Fair's media columnist, Michael Wolff—to stick his own knife into the staffer whose job it was, at one point, to deny him (Wolff) access to Mr. Shrum.

    'Stephanie (Cutter - Kerry Communication Director) is a horror show,' he (Wolff) says. 'You come away from that experience wanting to get a picture of John Kerry which makes him look like a fool.'"

    http://observer.com/2005/10/ke.....-dreamers/

  • Ecoli||

    Trump's string of brilliant accomplishments versus a hack with bad teeth. Who should I believe? Choices, choices.

    Imma go with the stable genius.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online