Saying something is inaccurate without providing specifics is useless. In which direction are the

alleged inaccuracie(s)? The following is Mueller’s statement.


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 Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller.

It says something without informing anyone of anything in particular. People are assuming that the inaccuracies exonerate trump or suggest Cohen is lying once again. Until mueller clarifies the nature of the inaccuracies we could also be justified in assuming that the inaccuracies fall in the realm of not being complete and that trump’s guilt is even more complete than we know. It could be that Cohen’s testimony and evidentiary claims made by Buzzfeed are being parsed in a very specific manner by Mueller to protect the case he is formulating.

Remember, we are talking about lawyers here. These people take phrasing VERY seriously, justifiably so. But for us to infer anything from Mueller’s statement is to fall into the trap of reading our beliefs, expectations and even desires into something. That is something skills arguers and debaters have learned to use since antiquity.

Mueller said nothing that provides determinative or actionable information.....period. He just shoved smoke up EVERYBODIES you know what.