Seriously? They have been dead on about everything regarding Trump and Russia. Especially these two reporters.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Mueller's office says BuzzFeed's characterization of the documents and testimony obtained in their reporting has inaccuracies
- Thread starter Deleted member 249
- Start date
OSC would not have done this if it weren't necessary, there's no reason for anyone to be pissed at Mueller or that office.
Yep, Buzzfeed has a bunch of really good journalists. People should wait to see how this shakes out exactly.
Good on Muller's team. What matters is completing a thorough investigation, and stories like need to be 1000% sure what they're reporting is accurate when it comes to Trump committing an obvious crime.
Plus, the lack of independent corroboration for me raises a bunch of flags. Not saying the Buzzfeed report is wholly wrong, but it's definitely looking like they didn't get everything right. And the devil is in the details in cases like this.
Plus, the lack of independent corroboration for me raises a bunch of flags. Not saying the Buzzfeed report is wholly wrong, but it's definitely looking like they didn't get everything right. And the devil is in the details in cases like this.
It's already been pointed out that the poster you quoted has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Why act as if he made a valid point?
I think Mueller should've stayed quiet but maybe he felt the investigation wasn't ready to present its case, since we already have people in the Senate trying to force his hand.
Probably Mueller felt stuck between a rock and a hard place, pressured to act fast and took this route.
I'm just spitballing here. I'm of the opinion if the press has a scoop, then it has the right to report it. It's the job of the investigation team to not leak anything, but I'm biased though.
Which goes back to my original assessment: Mueller acted on this decision while being pissed about the whole thing.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/01/...ts-important-but-it-oversells-the-lying-part/
Excellent article I encourage all to read (and also follow @emptywheel on twitter).
Also, this whole tweet thread:
Excellent article I encourage all to read (and also follow @emptywheel on twitter).
Also, this whole tweet thread:
Which could be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it.
I saw this. Early this morning but couldn't remember where or what, just that someone had already done what Mueller just did which was say, "hey now, yeah the story is true but it makes a specific accusation that may be exaggerated." Again, seeing the word "characterization" in a granular objection rather than a blanket refutation is FASCINATING. Like, 2152 Rachel Maddow will do a long drawn out torturous but hypnotic editorial essay on it on the HoloScreen. This story - and I mean the Mueller calibration here - will be historical for a reason that is either bland or striking, but not in between.
They have very little currency to spend, so any time you see themn offer Zenny Coins, you can bet your ass there's a very important reason, no matter how opaque. I'm even prepared to believe it exonerates Trump or his immediate people from some laser aspect. But it doesn't upend the story. It corroborates a non-trivial percentage of it.
This entire tornado of news is so fascinating to me - and I'm the first to admit I get emotional about it - because my frustration at our media's toothlessness and conflict of economic interest and our constitutional handcuffs - and to be partisan - the GOP's complete treachery and abdication of country - gets me lit. I can't be Vulcan about the tone of my reactions, but I can stay rational about the facts and the semantics.
This one is weirdly black and white, for such a seemingly gray detail.
Last edited:
Keep seeing this.
Recognized Cohen.
Who is the second person circled?
It wouldn't be public and it would be limited to this question because the Pandora's box has been opened. This story is not going away it's only going away.
You are correct. It really is Comey 2.0. My only critique is that part of Comey's fuck up is not saying enough about the investigation either. He said just enough to spark people's imaginations and not enough to actually inform people of the reality of the situation.
Frankly, even if the characterization had inaccuracies, I wish Mueller's team would have just shut the fuck up. Comey fucked up by talking too much about and sharing too much about the Clinton e-mail investigation, which turned out to be nothing. Mueller remains absolutely tight lipped until now? Over this? Making me question just how competent he actually is and whether or not he has run an investigation that will result in anything meaningful aside from the convictions we've already seen.
People read into these statements what they want to hear, not what they actually say or don't say. It's completely accurate to read Comey's letter as there being a glut of new info or a tiny thing check up, and it's completely accurate to read Mueller's statement as a small technical inaccuracy or categorically false, without more context. And anyone going into those statements undecided is going to see the context of an increadibly rare statement that must have caused a lot of alarm to cause that statement before they see the context of lawyerly wordplay and standard investigation procedures.
You do know Buzzfeed has reported on stories before right? I mean they dropped the Steel Dossier as well and GOT SHIT ON for it at the time. Now it's like 90% correct.
Do you think they just made this up?
There is a HUGE difference between Cohen saying Trump directed him to lie to congress and there being other witnesses or direct evidence (texts emails etc) that corroborate his story. Buzzfeed ran with the story that there is outside evidence that corroborates Cohens assetstion and that's the part that Mueller has decided to push back against and that's a pretty big deal no matter what people want to tell themselves to feel better about all this.
Buzzfeeds credibility going forward on Trump/Russia has also been completely shredded until the Mueller report comes out. I do genuinely feel bad for them over that and it sucks becuase I'm sure they'll put more good reporting out but they won't be taken seriously.
Apparently the 2 sources for the article in the first place are standing by Buzzfeed and how they delivered their story. So now its basically Buzzfeed plus anon FBI dudes vs Mueller's vague 'specific comments are wrong'. So who the fuck knows.
Everyone should let the SC do their work and stop trying to fuck around with it.
No, that's just Rick Wilson. He's a Republican anti-Trumper.
This isn't like Comey at all!
Comey sent a letter to congress about reopening the Clinton email investigation knowing exactly what Republicans would do just so he wouldn't appear "bias"
The SC is pretty much saying here. "Some of the shit you got here isn't 100%, but you certainly didn't get this info from us."
That makes the issued statement (from the SC) even more strange.
idk, but ignore the image. It's totally unrelated to the content of the article. Strange thumbnail there for the article.
Mueller saw Dem senators demanding info from him and probably is looking to douse the flames.
keith schiller, trump's bodyguard. The agalarovs are in the foreground. that's the stock photo emptywheel uses for trump tower posts.
I understand your point, but they don't need to be right here or anywhere else. We factually and objectively have multiple felony convictions, cooperations, confessions, even imprisonments. The bulk of the Steele dossier has either been confirmed, in some cases confessed to, or at worst demonstrated to be unfalsifiable. That's not normal. So Buzzfeed could burst into flames tomorrow or hit by a house from Kansas, it would have no meaningful effect on the veracity or direction of the probe.
The story literally confirms they have something. The Mueller "characterization" is a black and white proclamation that some of this story is objectively and factually correct. Ifeellikeimtakingcrazypills.gif
The fact that Mueller made a statement about this basically confirms the overall accuracy. They've never done that before.
Buzzfeed said they ran general outline of the story with the SC so they probably left out the explosive part that they know about the direct instruction from Trump. So yeah they as trying to stomp out a fire that caught them off guard too.
My reading of the Mueller response is with the claim of the initial report was so important/historically significant along with the calls from active congress people for Mueller's team to corroborate this report, the team felt compelled to shoot down the erroneous reporting by Buzzfeed News.
I don't see any other way to read into the Special Counsel's response other than the material facts of the report being incorrect. I am interested to see if Buzzfeed stands by the claim they observed the evidence which substantiated the report versus sourcing this story exclusively through third party accounts.
I don't see any other way to read into the Special Counsel's response other than the material facts of the report being incorrect. I am interested to see if Buzzfeed stands by the claim they observed the evidence which substantiated the report versus sourcing this story exclusively through third party accounts.
I don't think you can jump the gun on this. Either they have the evidence of Trump ordering his subordinate to lie to Congress or the Special Counsel does not.
I mean, for their own sake. They've worked hard for respectability, so this story could make or break them.
Um.
Literally NOTHING EVER has been a career ender for Trump. And Lordy he's tried. The serious issue here is that the media and constitution are not equpped for absurd levels of venal criminal incompetence if a majority party decides to let it slide. And New York has some lazy ass investigations back when.
WaPo got sourced specifics: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b9dec761e73_story.html?utm_term=.1b97fcd7bb8e
my problem with this is, though, if there's 'innacurrate parts' how much is left to be accurate. Crux of the story is there's tangible, documented evidence of trump himself instructing cohen, and that's it. If one part of that's false there's not much wiggle room for any kind of 'truthful' interpretation
Jason Leopold has a history of unethical journalism. I should have known something was fishy when I saw that byline.
Even Cohen's passport didn't break them. That's still out there. Firstly they're online only and should be held to a better standard, but secondly so far they're not wrong willfully or specifically. I expect the latter to be refined but not refuted.
That is an extreme reading of this that most news orgs definitely don't agree with.
People can fight all they want tonight over this, but the real question raised by this story is the above? What's the endgame? Why one detail and not the whole thing? What does this step upon?
Except he used gasoline instead of water. Everyone is taking his statements as either vindicating most of it, or completely repudiating it, and I don't blame either side for doing so because it's an extremely poorly written statement.
