Michael Wolff has concocted a wide array of crazy (and easily debunked) theories about President Trump. The author of the sensationalist political fiction “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” has a new book coming out: “Siege: Trump Under Fire.”
If his interview tour promoting the book is any indication, “Siege” will merely contain the same brand of wild conspiracy theories and shock-value-over-substance as his previous book. To prepare for its upcoming release, and a naïve news cycle hanging on to his every unverifiable claim, let’s take a look back at five of his wildest, most fantastical theories about President Trump and his coterie.
Some honorable mentions include Wolff’s claims that Stephen Miller was an “effective intern” who lacked the requisite policy knowledge rather than an experienced policy player before his time in Trump’s White House. They also include that Kellyanne Conway had run a small-time, local down-ballot polling company with no national experience when she actually ran a large firm that worked on many national corporate and political projects. Now for the top five (yes, they’re crazier than these).
1. The Kushner-Ivanka Presidency Pact
Wolff alleges Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump have an agreement that, should the opportunity arise, she’d run for president instead of him, despite her apparent purposeful distance from politics before her father’s campaign.
2. Nikki Haley Is Having an Affair with Donald Trump
Aside from the president himself, Nikki Haley is probably Wolff’s most defamed figure. He describes the former United States ambassador to the United Nations as being as “ambitious as Lucifer,” gaining favor through her position as a moderate Republican aligning with Kushner and Ivanka Trump.
However, his most virulent and aggressive claim against Haley is his ceaseless supposition that she is having an affair with Trump. Haley has fought against these charges time and time again, expressing her disgust with the baseless rumors. Yet to no avail.
There is an underlying sexism to the claim that a woman could not achieve the success that Haley has without sleeping her way to the top. Reports of an affair between the two are nothing more than blatant attempts to smear both their names through cheap and easy headline-bait.
3. Donald Trump Doesn’t Know Who John Boehner Is
Wolff tells a charming anecdote of the late Roger Ailes suggesting former Speaker of the House John Boehner as an option for chief of staff, to which Trump purportedly replied, “Who’s that?” Imagine: the president doesn’t have the faintest idea about a man he spent years complaining about, as evidenced by interviews and statements to the press long before Trump even ran for president.
4. Robert Mueller Prepared a Draft to Indict Trump of Obstruction of Justice
This new argument comes in Wolff’s next book, which appears to have a similar level of truth as his past work. A spokesperson for Mueller denied this groundless accusation, saying the alleged three-count charging document simply does not exist.
The Mueller saga has been a long, drawn-out media affair that saw an anticlimactic conclusion when no charges were made. The left would love to grasp onto any claim that the investigation they lauded for so long did not end up ultimately exonerating the president, truth notwithstanding.
5. All His Senior Advisors and Family Members Agree Trump Is Unfit for Office
The basis of Wolff’s first book and media campaign boiled down to this key supposition. Regardless of what his doctors, supporters, or family have said, Wolff’s main arguments live and die by Trump’s mental fitness. If Trump is, as it now appears, sane, then much of Wolff’s rumormongering is all for naught.
Labeling those with whom we disagree as insane or mentally unstable is a dangerous precedent, used to discredit anyone with an unpopular opinion and shut down political discourse. Our media-consuming society must have the critical thinking to combat this type of rhetoric, disagreeing with the points through intelligent argumentation, not crying insanity at the sight of a good argument for the opposition.
