What the book says he said might violate Britain's Official Secrets Act, so even if he said it....

In my opinion, two or three discrepancies do not disqualify the entire book. It probably has captured the truth as close as anyone can come?

Wolff probably heard many second and third hand stories that may have been embellished or altered by the time WH staffer told Wolff, which is why he made a disclaimer in front of book.

Wolff is like a ghostwriter for Bannon's book.

"Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true."

He's speaking of the info given to him not his reporting. If 8 sources give you 3 different accounts of an event the author has to settle on a probable version of events. Human memory is not perfect.

so many are claiming some of the things in his book are legitimate. Granted, some may be inaccurate, but even if a fraction of the book is truthful it's still crazy. And Trump is completely livid and upset over the book right now which seems to indicate there is truth to it.

noise is coming from.

Keep in mind the RNC and Trump are liars.

Here are the RNC's weekend talking points about Michael Wolff's book.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210065731