Prior to the release of Michael Wolff’s book ‘Fire and Fury’, I had never heard of the man.  Naturally with the book, I was curious as to who he is so I set out to look.

Watching Wolff speak, I see a flamboyantly styled man by his looks alone, yet in his recent interviews, I saw subdued. That’s a contradiction to me. I immediately question: subdued by purpose or by cause? Because he is not a subdued type.  I ponder:  Was he arrogant in the past and cut down?  Or does he need credibility so he is playing it cool?  Those are the questions running through my mind as I watch him speak in the video below.

If Wolff and I met in a lobby of a hotel and chatted, I wouldn’t put my guard down with him as I can with some people. There would be a watchful eye at all times. There is something about him that raises my eyebrows. I settle on his flamboyant style as what pings me.  His personality fits a profile of a person that loves to get attention, attract people’s interest and tell things with a flare.  Do you see it? It fits with what he is doing as well (behaviorally).

When I watch Wolff in the interview, I believe Wolff believes what he is telling us.  And he tells us directly–he witnessed lots of conflict, and through that conflict he made choices as to what the truth is. When he tells us everyone was lying, and that he had to discern the truth, he is truthful on that–but as an expert in human behavior and deception, at what level is he able to discern the truth accurately?  I question that.  Is he good at it or not?

So I have a flamboyant man who I am now relying on to determine what he thinks is truthful. That gives me pause. I would prefer someone who remains neutral and gives me both sides of the story and lets me decide. Do you agree?  Does he do that in his book? From the interview, he suggests he does not.

I have not read his book, so I cannot comment on the book. I can only comment on his statements.  And much of what I hear in the video above supports what I have seen so far myself from the reporting by people in the White House directly. It supports what I have seen from Trump, Bannon, Priebus, Conway, Spicer and others.   It’s no secret the White House is in chaos, that rational thinking doesn’t apply there (what rational WH would give recording access to anyone cart blanche)?

Which makes me ponder: Did they give him access?  Why would they? Ironically, I have not heard a denial on this front from the White House on the recording being illegal or not vetted or approved, so I am assuming they did or they would go after him since he is claiming he had tapes. Right?  Have you seen a story on this?  The absence of it will speak volumes. I will be watching.

So the overall messages from Wolff does not ping me as fundamentally false in this interview, but I would not trust things verbatim.

And oddly, in reading more about him, I see quotes that he writes in the introduction of his book  that accounts from the book “are in conflict with one another” and may be “badly untrue,” according to thehill.com.

That screeches me to a halt.

I am not comfortable with his words that things may be “badly untrue”.  If he is reporting what people said–what they said would never be untrue, even if the person told a lie.  They said it. That would be fact, right?  What they said, however, may not be fact but as a journalist, I am not responsible for their lies, so I would never write that statement unless I may not be truthful.  That statement is a caveat flip-card to say I told you so, isn’t it?

That smells to me of an excuse.