They have reporters furiously hunting this story down.

publicly, the corporate media will says, whose the liar?

verifying this. Hopefully all that info will be revealed soon.

No matter how much we want this story to be true, we need to put it aside until it is corroborated.

most of which came from the National Enquirer

Guilty - no facts needed.

tRump is trashing Speaker Pelosi.

Breathlessly reading unvetted Wikileaks without any context or any attempt to contact the parties who had their emails stolen for comment.

without questioning. If you mean the email story, the first account was the NYT and it clearly had spoken to the State Department because they had direct quotes. If you mean the earlier stories about the emails to Sidney Blumenthal - that included testimony before Congressional committees.

I think the HRC health issue was covered in the mainstream press to reject the NE stories that she was unhealthy. It is true that they covered the wikileaks emails. However, no one questioned that those emails were not real -- just that they were - obviously - cherry picked. (It was only via social media where you could micro-target that bizzare meanings were given to rather mundane emails. ie ordering pizza is not unusual or evil.)

telling them to back off

..."Joining us now is Yada Yada Yada from Blah Blah Blah whose reporting helped break the story." So, I don't know. In the Navy we have a saying, "What you permit, you promote." I think they're getting the benefit of something without putting their own skin in the game. Just my humble opinion.

I wouldn't put a lot of faith in this until it gets verified by actual journalists.

Killian memo time.

I really don't like the fact that two investigators on Mueller's team actually leaked this story (if that is true).

Stop with the damn leaks until it is confirmed that you are prevented from moving forward. Then you have reason to leak. Heck you have a reason to go in front of every camera as a whistle blower.

Rathers had a tight, well documented case that without using that memo had many sources with essentially the same story. Bush had a problem when he was in the National Guard. That was lost when the right - suspiciously within minutes - questioned the typewriters of that time being the source of that letter. (Ignored was that a secretary confirmed to Rather that she did write something similar. (In fact, one conjecture is the Killion memo's content was real -- it was just retyped and RW bloggers clued in to make the objections. )

Here, Trump Towers Moscow was obviously something that went beyond what Trump has said in 2016 and afterward. In addition, while Trump Towers Moscow is suspicious -- it is but one of the Trump/Russia issues. That Trump may well have been used to launder Russian money long before 2015/2016 and might be compromised could be true even if the whole Trump Towers Moscow is a complete fake story. (A fake story the RW created and left as bait to discredit any REAL Russia Trump issues.)

Just as Rathers was fired and the Republicans claimed that Bush's National Guard was "vindicated"; if this is a false story, when it is rejected, the Republicans will move to claim that that being false means that there was no Russia/Trump connection. (Note that even though the NAVY records were the story questioned by the swiftboat liars, no such vindication was given Kerry - even as many lies were shown to be lies.)

Michael Cohen is testifying in less than three weeks -- all elected Democrats would be better off stating that this has to be investigated and that it should be one of many questions when he testifies.

"I really don't like the fact that two investigators on Mueller's team actually leaked this story (if that is true). "

Aren't investigators from SDNY also looking into Cohen,maybe they are the LEOs who are leaking?

Mueller's team? It still does not change the point I made, but it does make it more likely that it really happened (I can't see a Mueller investigator leaking).

it does seem the investigators were from Mueller's team-sorry.
I also heard besides the 2 on record confirmations, they got 4 off record confirms plus this:

"The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office."

On the record? Unauthorized leaks are grounds for dismissal. Did Mueller authorize them to leak?

First of all, they ARE reporting this -- a sign they think it credible enough and important enough that they are not refusing to risk it blowing up on them. However, they are noting that they themselves have no proof that that report is accurate.

This makes sense because Buzzfeed is not as reputable a source as many other sources and it is standard practice for new organizations to make that caveat even when quoting each other -- ie the WP reporting NYT reporting.

It is also a caution for us. It sounds real and in a few weeks, we will likely know when Cohen testifies. The fact that Ivanka's spokespeople have responded on her role on the project - not totally rejecting some parts of the Cohen story (but not the key suborning perjury) is interesting.

having checked it themselves. That's all.

to condemn the story if it's a hoax. Please stand by..."

doesn't trust the rest of you guys. See Christopher Steele.

Media get better, damn it. Fast.

Happens a lot, especially right after a story breaks. One source is willing to talk to one reporter only. They usually eventually tease it out of the other people who know, it just takes a while.

Usually, a news org will try to follow up something like this with their own sources and see if any of them give them a "yup." Be cautious on this until we get some other independent confirmation.