Originally Posted by Sini

This is continuation of willful denial.

Not really. From Wolff's preface:

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another;

Which accounts? Are we supposed to guess?
many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue.

Again, which accounts are untrue? Does he say? Is the passage you quoted untrue? How would you know?

These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.

Given that the book is itself admittedly playing loose with the truth, I think that is a true statement, but it applies to the book itself.

"Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them.

Upon what basis may they be judged by the reader? Are they the statement that Wolff says are baldly untrue? Why then does he not just tell us they are untrue, and offer his evidence that demonstrates they are untrue? If they conflict and the reader is not given context to resolve the conflict, what is the purpose of offering conflicting statements? Does the author know how to resolve the conflict? If not, what hope does the reader have?

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."

What sources would those be? Upon what basis does he trust them? Why should anyone trust his "belief" if he doesn't back his beliefs up with evidence?

Originally Posted by Sini
"the contents of which the author cannot verify" is not a reasonable interpretation of Wolff words

If the the author says that some accounts are baldly untrue, he cannot verify their authenticity. He could verify their lack authenticity by explaining how he knows they are untrue, but apparently he does not, and leaves it to the reader to guess.

If there are accounts that conflict but doesn't resolve the conflict, he cannot verify the truth of the matter one way or another.

[/quote]..it is creative misinterpretation in order to dismiss the book. [/quote]

It is a very reasonable interpretation that that argues, yes, the book should be dismissed, and for good cause.

[quote]What he said in preface should be understood as: "other people lied to Wolff, even when he knew he was told lies, these lies were recorded as told, as lying by Trump administration is the key part of his story".[quote]

So when people said bad things about Trump, were those lies? Why would you think they were true, since it is equally plausible that those statement were among the lies Wolfe admits are in the book.

To the everlasting glory of the infantry...

Owain ab Arawn
KGB Supreme Knight
King's High Council