US PoliERA 2019 |OT1| You down wit' NDP? (Yeah you know me!) Who's down wit' AOC? (This whole party!)
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
Weird he's both sidesing. The Bushes are a lot of things, but they're very reasonable on border policy.
Throwing cold water on it? Trying to stop a congressional investigation before it starts? That is one rare statement from Mueller.
Edit: If I wanted I could probably parse that into a non-denial.
I worked at the school where his son went to school when his son ran away. It was fucking awful. The school had search parties and shit going out to find him. His son was eventually found in Times Square, NYC a few days later. The school is in MA. Probably took a bus there. I've always thought part of the reason why his kid ran away was because his dad is an asshole.
Jeff Jacoby is definitely a pre-ratio columnist.
If true, lmao.
'specific statements'. At this point it could be possible they definitely did not want that getting out and are now scrambling to obscure things. They almost never reply to news stories.
I know you know this, but this makes no sense as a strategy. Even if the Senate were to pass something, Pelosi can put it up for a vote and it will be voted down in the House. Pelosi has that perk in that she knows she can put something up and it will NOT pass, whereas McConnell is not putting something up because he fears it will. McConnell had already said he's operating based on Trump's blessing, therefore, any "deal" has to be between Trump and the House since McConnell has already passed on his responsibilities wholely to Trump's whim.
That's not a flat denial of things, but they wouldn't do something like that regardless. Well, this is certainly complicated.
Trump: "Totally exonerates the President, thank you!"
Trump: "Totally exonerates the President, thank you!"
The wording there is fascinating because it's both destroying the story but also full of such laser-targeted word choices it could be saying very little.
It could be an entire generational gap before the right lets that bit of ammo run dry now.
"Why do insurance companies do this?"
You know why, tweeter. You know why.
Well this is interesting. "Specific statements" and the wording makes me think there's still some truth to the articel though.
Right wing news is mostly fake shit, so if a mistake was made here, move on and forget about it. Fucking prayer rugs.
Probably because those stories didn't have people demanding Mueller clarify what he knows like some were calling for.
I swear to god if one of you posts some Jacob Wohl or similar person tweet reacting to this thinking that we should see it don't, we don't need to see it.
Ok here's my take on their word choice: They said inaccurate, not incorrect. I interpret that to mean that Buzzfeed got some specific assertions wrong but the spirit of their article is probably right.
Mueller could have done the usual "no comment" but I'm wondering why his office made that statement.
Edit: could be because they don't want to spook Individual 1?
Edit: could be because they don't want to spook Individual 1?
good luck putting that genie back in the bottle. especially with the expansion of sports betting
They don't want to have to elaborate on what they know as some Dems were demanding, they don't want other cooperators to think stuff will leak, they hate Buzzfeed, etc.
I get to stay with my initial skepticism and assume it was justified. This isn't the first story that has a big claim that gets doused.
Or maybe it's because they don't have specific evidence such as emails, texts and so on that he told Cohen to lie like the article says that Mueller has
You only get to shoot at a wanna be mob boss once. As well as the president.
If don't want to whiff, even though McConnell and the senate will protect him.
No, they've found something they're willing to dangle to try to make it look like the Democrats are responsible for the ongoing shutdown.
This is entirely about shifting blame, not about opening government or making any sort of deal.
I mean Cohen and his attorneys haven't denied the story.
Dunno what strategy Mueller is playing, but it's getting late to be keeping things under wraps.
Dunno what strategy Mueller is playing, but it's getting late to be keeping things under wraps.
Having a perfectionist investigating is great, until the amount of crime involved becomes too much for them to get done in a timely manner.
I just find it odd they never did something like this for the McClatchy stories, which everyone grew to doubt because no additional collaboration.
The article covers a number of big issues with the prescription drug market, but the main complaint is pretty trivial. My insulin prescription just listed all the brands
They didn't dispute it, they just said it's not accurate
Of course, it's because they have TONS more calls, documents, statements than are described in the report.
Right?
Of course, it's because they have TONS more calls, documents, statements than are described in the report.
Right?
Perhaps not.
It says the sources were based on texts and emails the special counsel has. If they are saying it's not accurate then it's likely that they are saying that don't have that proof not that it didn't happen
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it
Were McClatchy stories getting Congress people to talk about impeachment? It could be just because this one was getting a lot more play in Congressional circles and seemed to be taken more seriously, so they felt they needed to clarify it quickly.
Right but the reporter earlier today said they *saw* documents and was very confident on the story:
Kinda over getting excited about the Mueller investigation. When it happens, it happens I guess.
- Status