Michael Wolff Defends Claim That Mueller Probe Considered Indicting Trump The author of the forthcoming book Siege: Trump Under Fire, defended an explosive claim that had already been called into doubt before the book's publication.

Michael Wolff Defends His Reporting Of New Trump Tell-All

  • Download
  • <iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/729131609/729191949" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript


Michael Wolff insists his second book on President Trump is all true. His first, "Fire And Fury," described a dysfunctional White House. The president threatened to sue. Other journalists questioned Wolff's facts. But it was a huge seller. His second book is called "Siege: Trump Under Fire." Wolff no longer has the White House access that led to his first book but says he interviewed sources around the president. He also makes an explosive claim - special counsel Robert Mueller's office prepared a, quote, "draft indictment of the president." Mueller's spokesman denied that, only the second time Mueller ever denied a news story. So we went into our talk wondering what Wolff knows and how he knows it.

What do people who have spent a lot of time close to the president think of him?

MICHAEL WOLFF: They think he is vile and ludicrous.

INSKEEP: Ludicrous?

WOLFF: Ludicrous.

INSKEEP: What do you mean by that word?

WOLFF: I mean there's no logic to what he does. There's no way to anticipate what he's going to do. Often, what he ends up doing defies logic, defies everybody's expectations, defies explanation.

INSKEEP: When you hear this from people who've been around the president, is there a but anywhere? Do they say, I love this man, but?

WOLFF: There used to be. Remember - so I've done - this is my second book. This is effectively a sequel. I've spent the last three years pretty much non-stop talking about Donald Trump. And there used to be buts. There are no buts now. I might make a reservation for some of the most sycophantic people around him. But even they, if you push them a little, get to the vile and ludicrous pretty quickly.

INSKEEP: I'm thinking of a description attributed to a former senior White House official, Steve Bannon, describing the president the United States and the president of Russia, Putin and Trump, quote, "two narcissistic, cult leader-type presidents. Both had populist talents, yet both were ultimately out for their own benefit." And then a key line here, I think - of the two, Putin was the far cleverer one. It sounds like even Steve Bannon, who did so much to promote the president's career, doesn't seem to think he's very bright.

WOLFF: Well, particularly Steve Bannon. And Steve appears throughout this book. And he's, to me, one of the fascinating figures of this moment, partly because he is so conflicted. It goes very deep, what Steve Bannon feels about Donald Trump. And it would be in part that he is vile and in part that he is ludicrous, but also in part - and maybe this is the but that you were looking for - that he is somehow magical at times. He somehow pulls the rabbit out of the hat when everyone would expect that he would not be able to.

INSKEEP: As has been widely reported already, you note that there was a draft indictment drawn up in the office of the special counsel that was looking into Russian interference and possible obstruction of justice by the president. What was that indictment?

WOLFF: Well, let me explain the document in my possession. It's a memorandum of law. It assumes that the president has been indicted. It assumes that the president has gone into court and made a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that a president cannot be indicted. And this is the response to that motion. And the document - it's a 56-page document - has two parts. The first part outlines all of the particulars of the indictment, hence my characterization of this as a draft indictment. And the second part is an argument - an incredibly powerful argument, by the way - about why the special counsel can in fact indict a sitting president.

INSKEEP: I think I've learned something here. You're telling me that the Office of the Special Counsel was thinking through the eventualities - if we indict the president and if he says, I can't be indicted, here is our notional response. That is the document that's in your possession.

WOLFF: That is the document in my possession.

INSKEEP: Which might help to explain why the Office of the Special Counsel has said that the document described does not exist because you wrote in the book it was a, quote, "draft indictment," which sounds like something a little different.

WOLFF: Well, yeah. I guess it depends upon how you define a draft indictment. Yes. And I think it's very possible. I mean, the special counsel, when it responds, has become quite a gifted prevaricator. It is quite possible that they responded accurately but that nevertheless this document exists and goes to trying to understand a very significant moment in the thinking of the special counsel.

INSKEEP: So the statement from Peter Carr, Robert Mueller's spokesman, is the documents described do not exist. You insist you have a document in your possession and maybe the difference here is on the word described. He thinks you described it wrong.

WOLFF: It is quite possible, yes.

INSKEEP: There is only one quote from this document in your book, and it is headlined, United States of America against Donald J. Trump, defendant. Is that, every word of that, a quote?


INSKEEP: In a legal document, wouldn't it be more normal to say, United States of America versus Donald J. Trump, defendant?

WOLFF: I, you know, can't tell you that. I know that this is precisely what it says. That's word for word.

INSKEEP: OK. What was your standard for sourcing? I mean, you must have heard a ton of things, and some of it, you decide, is hearsay, and some of it, you don't believe and some of it you do believe. How did you decide what went in this book and what didn't make the cut?

WOLFF: Obviously, everything in this book is something that I concluded is accurate and true. That's a process of, do I trust my source? No. 1. And then I, you know, like to hear it a couple of times.

INSKEEP: I'm thinking of the famous Watergate stories by Woodward and Bernstein. It was said that their standard was they wanted to hear two sources. Was that your standard? Anything in here is by two sources?

WOLFF: Most everything in here is either by multiple sources or, in some cases, by someone I absolutely trust.

INSKEEP: Does the president talk to you anymore?

WOLFF: He does not.

INSKEEP: Did you ask, for this book?

WOLFF: I did not. And I think it's important to explain why - that Donald Trump, on my last book, tried to stop the publication of that.


WOLFF: So I decided, in this instance, better not play with fire.

INSKEEP: Do you feel you've learned something about the president that you didn't know in the course of this book as opposed to the previous one?

WOLFF: That's a good question. When I went into the first book, I thought that there was some rationality about Donald Trump, a method to his madness. I no longer believe that.

INSKEEP: Is that more troubling to you than if he had a grand plan?

WOLFF: It is more troubling, yes. I mean, we might, in the end, be safer for it. You know, the narrative when this administration began is that he was a right-wing despot and thug who would bring terrible policies to the United States. And I think there's probably less of a chance of that because everything shifts from moment to moment, and he has no grand intentions here. Whatever irrational moment he has now might as well be reversed by another irrational moment to come.

INSKEEP: Michael Wolff is the author of "Siege: Trump Under Fire." Thanks so much.

WOLFF: Thank you.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.