Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 08:53 PM Jan 2019

Not accurate does/does not equal false.


"BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate," said special counsel spokesman Peter Carr in a statement.

-Original statement



If something is false say so. I can think of instances where something is factually true but inaccurate. I am not going to get over my skis either way.



"BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are false," said special counsel spokesman Peter Carr in a statement.

-Modified by me

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Not accurate does/does not equal false. (Original Post) DemocratSinceBirth Jan 2019 OP
Exactly right! Zoonart Jan 2019 #1
We'll learn in the fullness of time. DemocratSinceBirth Jan 2019 #2
That's for sure. Zoonart Jan 2019 #4
They did say it was not true. former9thward Jan 2019 #11
Perhaps the intent was to quiet the "Buzz" that is "feeding" into the series of speculative stories. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #3
We need to be patient grasshoppers. DemocratSinceBirth Jan 2019 #5
"24 hours" actually means "24 business hours" oberliner Jan 2019 #6
Saying X is overweight and weighs 300 pounds when he or she weighs 290. DemocratSinceBirth Jan 2019 #13
Yes, they are being careful with their statement. manor321 Jan 2019 #7
But the fact they needed to come out and refute it Kablooie Jan 2019 #8
Yes empedocles Jan 2019 #9
This is mysterious. triron Jan 2019 #10
Nevertheless Apollyonus Jan 2019 #12
I agree. It's careful wording and can be read several ways. nolabear Jan 2019 #14
We Need The House to Investigate Asap Cbarwitz Jan 2019 #15
Welcome to DU, Cbarwitz. Qutzupalotl Jan 2019 #16
This message was self-deleted by its author Cbarwitz Jan 2019 #17

former9thward

(32,030 posts)
11. They did say it was not true.
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 09:06 PM
Jan 2019

Mueller has been almost totally silent for this entire investigation. The fact that he felt the need to say something about this "report" says something.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
3. Perhaps the intent was to quiet the "Buzz" that is "feeding" into the series of speculative stories.
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 08:56 PM
Jan 2019

My view.

 

manor321

(3,344 posts)
7. Yes, they are being careful with their statement.
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 09:00 PM
Jan 2019

We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

But I'm getting tired of waiting for Mueller. Indictments need to come soon!

Kablooie

(18,635 posts)
8. But the fact they needed to come out and refute it
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 09:01 PM
Jan 2019

Has significance.
Just what it means is unclear at the moment.

 

Apollyonus

(812 posts)
12. Nevertheless
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 09:08 PM
Jan 2019

This gives the trump supporters, Faux news et al a fig leaf or a straw (choose your metaphor) to call into question the ENTIRE set of investigations.

Inaccurate reporting is inexcusable especially when slapped in the face or butt (choose your anatomy) so fast.

nolabear

(41,987 posts)
14. I agree. It's careful wording and can be read several ways.
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 09:14 PM
Jan 2019

Some statements? All of them? False? Not exact? It’s impossible to tell.

It’s not hard to imagine how he’ll use it though.

Stay the course. Just stay the course.

Cbarwitz

(27 posts)
15. We Need The House to Investigate Asap
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 09:25 PM
Jan 2019

No disrespect to Mueller, but if he’s sitting on evidence confirming Trump has committed numerous impeachable criminal offenses, including conspiracy to interfere in national elections and/or is current threat to national security, at what point does he have an obligation to inform of THAT?

This one clarification is not helpful in that context. If that’s “not accurate”, then wtf is? The nation may be in peril and we have no idea. Trump wants to leave NATO ffs.

I’m glad Cohen is appearing, but again, subject to Mueller’s censoring of information that the nation may NEED to know.


Qutzupalotl

(14,319 posts)
16. Welcome to DU, Cbarwitz.
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 09:48 PM
Jan 2019

Many of us here are torn. Of course we want to ITMFA, but we also realize that in practical terms we get one shot and one shot only. The case to impeach must be airtight and overwhelming, so much so that even this Senate would have to convict; otherwise the consequences of a reinvigorated Trump could be catastrophic — even more so than what we see now. So I’m inclined to give him some more time, but ... tick tock.

A lot is riding on Mueller’s professionalism and impartiality, including whether we still have a country when all this is done or we descend into civil war. I wish that were only hyperbole.

Response to Qutzupalotl (Reply #16)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Not accurate does/does no...