Which part of BuzzFeed report Mueller took issue with

My guess on what aspects of the Buzz Feed article were objectionable to the SC's office. First, watch this interview with Anthony Cormier on CNN, and/or read my partial-not-word-for-word-but-close transcript. Then, read the two excerpts from the BF story below.

Our sources are fully 100% read into that aspect of the SC investigation...

They had been working on the Trump Tower Moscow investigation before Mueller...

They had access to a number of different documents, interview reports, and that stuff was sort of compiled, as they began to look at who those players were speaking with, how those negations went, who all from the Trump org, and outside the org, were involved in getting that tower set up...

They compiled this evidence before Michael Cohen decided to cooperate, and to speak with the SC...

It's our understanding that they then presented this evidence to Cohen...began to ask questions based off of it....

Then he acknowledged it in his interview, yes indeed I was directed by the president...

We don't know at this point, and our sources haven't told us, exactly what... we haven't been told how exactly that directive was handed down, whether in person, or by phone, it's not clear, but ... it is rock solid information, developed over a long period of time, and then Michael was used to, sort of, confirm it.

I *think* what may be ambiguous is

"The SC office learned about...through interviews with..."

There are 2 ways to read this:
1) the SC learned it through *their* interviews with
2) the SC learned it through interviews {conducted by others} -- see bolded above

One reading suggests that the SC interviewed "multiple witnesses from the Trump organization". I believe we know that the accountant was interviewed by the SC, but who else? Perhaps those interviews with other Trump org people were conducted by, eg, SDNY, and that info was part of the compilation that was presented to Cohen, and passed on to Mueller?

Similarly, in the 2nd excerpt, "sources familiar with (Cohen's) testimony (to the SC)" said "he (Cohen) had confirmed Trump directed him to lie".

That could be read as either the "source said he confirmed" or "source said his testimony to the SC confirmed."

Sloppy writing, and perhaps just ambiguous enough that Mueller's office felt the need to object.

Just a thought. And while perhaps not *the* thing SC objected to, an example of *the sort of thing* that was ambiguous enough.