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

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 10:43 PM Jan 2019

OMG people *IT ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T MATTER* if the underlying claim is true

You simply have to understand that by now, I hope?

It doesn't matter if the central claim is true. They got something wrong. And they got something wrong under the byline of a reporter who already had a history of fabricating stories. This isn't a fair game. It's rigged, completely. And complaining about that doesn't change it.

We can't fabricate stories. Trump now has several years' worth of ammunition, for free.

39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
OMG people *IT ABSOLUTELY DOESN'T MATTER* if the underlying claim is true (Original Post) Recursion Jan 2019 OP
"It seems to me the core of the story is CORRECT"--Chuck Rosenberg just now on Rachel hlthe2b Jan 2019 #1
They should have just published the correct parts and taken out the inaccurate parts oberliner Jan 2019 #9
What a ridiculous statement. I really don't feel like defending Buzzfeed but I do believe in hlthe2b Jan 2019 #14
If BF's story were only marginally inaccurate, Mueller's team would not have said anything. Hoyt Jan 2019 #13
Not true if Mueller's objective was to make clear OSC was not the source. hlthe2b Jan 2019 #15
Then, why haven't they done it with all the other "stories" that cite people close to investigation? Hoyt Jan 2019 #16
You would have to ask Mueller. Those who know him and dealt closely with him (including Rosenberg) hlthe2b Jan 2019 #18
Agree. triron Jan 2019 #24
Because Whittaker told them to do it today? DonViejo Jan 2019 #19
This is a possibility that Rachel also brought up... hlthe2b Jan 2019 #20
I watched her show but did not hear that. When did she allude to that? triron Jan 2019 #25
With Rosenberg discussed the changes in OSC and alluded to that possibly resulting in the decision hlthe2b Jan 2019 #27
Now we are going to double down on wild conjecture. Hoyt Jan 2019 #32
Speculation, yes, as is everything being posted here tonight. But, wild? Have you not been hlthe2b Jan 2019 #33
There is no way for us to know this uponit7771 Jan 2019 #37
I'll wait for the real proof at this point! nt USALiberal Jan 2019 #2
This is utter bullshit. Buzzfeed is asking for clarification because the statement was so vague manor321 Jan 2019 #3
Chuck said it well. triron Jan 2019 #26
How many OP's are you going to start? n/t demmiblue Jan 2019 #4
Post removed Post removed Jan 2019 #5
My advice: perhaps you should log off and get some zzzz's. n/t demmiblue Jan 2019 #7
The reporter didn't get the story from Mueller, but he DID get the story FakeNoose Jan 2019 #6
Who knows you ask...seems like the OP seems to think they know exactly what is going on. UniteFightBack Jan 2019 #35
Who fabricated a story? OliverQ Jan 2019 #8
"Not accurate" oberliner Jan 2019 #10
Reporters get details incorrect or partially incorrect all the time despite their best efforts hlthe2b Jan 2019 #21
Why don't people get this? oberliner Jan 2019 #11
Right? (nt) Recursion Jan 2019 #12
Remember fake but accurate? pintobean Jan 2019 #17
If the reporter has a history of lying then why was everyone so willing to believe him helpisontheway Jan 2019 #22
Jason Leopold of Fitzmas fame? oberliner Jan 2019 #23
Excellent point. cwydro Jan 2019 #31
Then you weren't paying attention. Codeine Jan 2019 #34
Here was my message before Mueller released his statement oberliner Jan 2019 #36
It makes one wonder. H2O Man Jan 2019 #28
? hlthe2b Jan 2019 #29
My Spidey-Sense was tingling immediately upon reading about the BF story last night mr_lebowski Jan 2019 #30
I think what bothered Mueller was that the media went crazy with the story... honest.abe Jan 2019 #38
I'm not terribly concerned about the whole thing. It seems like a sure thing Mueller has this and a Vinca Jan 2019 #39

hlthe2b

(102,304 posts)
1. "It seems to me the core of the story is CORRECT"--Chuck Rosenberg just now on Rachel
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 10:45 PM
Jan 2019


Look, I was here when we got burned re: the false indictment report from Jason Leopold re: Rove
and it certainly appears that there are elements of current reporting that are not fully accurate as the OSC has stated. They did not call the reporting false, however and Rosenberg is no quack. That given, to call it

"Fabricated" is to me equally unwarranted given what we know to date.
 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
9. They should have just published the correct parts and taken out the inaccurate parts
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 10:52 PM
Jan 2019

That's one of the basic fundamentals of journalism.

hlthe2b

(102,304 posts)
14. What a ridiculous statement. I really don't feel like defending Buzzfeed but I do believe in
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 10:59 PM
Jan 2019

fairness.

They (Buzzfeed) believe what they have reported is accurate, so how, exactly are they supposed to only publish the "correct parts and taken out the inaccurate parts" when the OSC did not tell them what was inaccurate? Nor did OSC correct anything when given the opportunity PRIOR to publication...


That has to be the most ludicrous statement on this I've seen.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
13. If BF's story were only marginally inaccurate, Mueller's team would not have said anything.
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 10:58 PM
Jan 2019
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
16. Then, why haven't they done it with all the other "stories" that cite people close to investigation?
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 11:01 PM
Jan 2019

hlthe2b

(102,304 posts)
18. You would have to ask Mueller. Those who know him and dealt closely with him (including Rosenberg)
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 11:06 PM
Jan 2019

stated the objective might have been only to make clear that OSC was not the source, given some Congressional Reps were taking this and running--even to the point of suggesting Mueller was inappropriate in not contacting Congress of this finding. Well, the finding (whatever it is or is not) may be still be the subject of further related investigations.

We shall see, but I neither discount 100% nor am I willing to run with it as the "smoking gun"--both extremes having been at play the past 18 hours.

hlthe2b

(102,304 posts)
27. With Rosenberg discussed the changes in OSC and alluded to that possibly resulting in the decision
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 11:32 PM
Jan 2019

to push back, discussed Whittaker and that it remains unclear if he is overseeing the day to day--the implication being that if he is that he may have made this decision. It was a brief discussion, given it is merely speculation.

hlthe2b

(102,304 posts)
33. Speculation, yes, as is everything being posted here tonight. But, wild? Have you not been
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 12:28 AM
Jan 2019

paying attention vis-a-vis Whittaker and the controversies surrounding him?

 

manor321

(3,344 posts)
3. This is utter bullshit. Buzzfeed is asking for clarification because the statement was so vague
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 10:48 PM
Jan 2019

You can't make this bullshit true by constantly repeating it. Watch Chuck Rosenberg on Rachel tonight. He destroys this bullshit.

Response to demmiblue (Reply #4)

FakeNoose

(32,659 posts)
6. The reporter didn't get the story from Mueller, but he DID get the story
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 10:50 PM
Jan 2019

Another office leaked it - maybe SDNY - who knows? Mueller is not denying the story, and to me it looks like he's trying to take some heat off Michael Cohen. (Cheeto is threatening his father-in-law!)

You guys need to just take a breath and calm down. Have a glass of wine and chill out.

 

UniteFightBack

(8,231 posts)
35. Who knows you ask...seems like the OP seems to think they know exactly what is going on.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 12:35 AM
Jan 2019

Which is pretty amazing really.

hlthe2b

(102,304 posts)
21. Reporters get details incorrect or partially incorrect all the time despite their best efforts
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 11:13 PM
Jan 2019

If OCS does not correct them when asked prior to publication, how exactly do they know it is incorrect so as to not publish. this makes NO sense whatsoever.

Even worse is your conflating of error with FABRICATION.

We all bristle when a certain someone and his RW ilck constantly accuses the MSM of "fake news". Mistakes or inaccuracies occur. That does not equate to FABRICATION" (unless you are talking about our National Propaganda network--Faux News or their RT Russian counterparts-- or the White House Press Office).

helpisontheway

(5,008 posts)
22. If the reporter has a history of lying then why was everyone so willing to believe him
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 11:21 PM
Jan 2019

I do not recall seeing one message regarding his history of lying until Mueller released his statement.

 

cwydro

(51,308 posts)
31. Excellent point.
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 12:16 AM
Jan 2019

As another poster said, he was a hero this morning.

I have to admit, bu I didn’t remember he was the one with the Rove story.

When I looked him up - what I learned isn’t good.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
36. Here was my message before Mueller released his statement
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 07:56 AM
Jan 2019

Jason Leopold is the co-author of the Buzzfeed article everyone is talking about

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211689368

 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
30. My Spidey-Sense was tingling immediately upon reading about the BF story last night
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 12:13 AM
Jan 2019
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2246914

Though admittedly it was a non-Cohen-testimony detail in the article that made me wary of the idea of sharing it round ... this was before the story was on every network ...

honest.abe

(8,679 posts)
38. I think what bothered Mueller was that the media went crazy with the story...
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 08:53 AM
Jan 2019

and it was starting to look like the House might seriously take up impeachment proceedings prematurely. For sure Muellar has alot more on Trump than what Buzzfeed disclosed and he wants all of that available to Congress when the impeachment starts. Thus the warning shot to the bow.

Vinca

(50,285 posts)
39. I'm not terribly concerned about the whole thing. It seems like a sure thing Mueller has this and a
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 08:58 AM
Jan 2019

whole lot of other things on the Don and his crime family. As Rachel pointed out, there must be a reason Mueller took the time and effort to get a guilty plea out of Cohen on perjury and then didn't ask for an additional sentence. It's now on record the perjury happened. There must be documentation behind it as well as other witnesses. Trump is toast and we have to remember that. The problem is that this has gone on for so long we're losing hope justice will eventually win out.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»OMG people *IT ABSOLUTELY...