General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThey didn't get *every* detail right in their reporting - but they got enough right
Bob Geiger @GeigerNewsThis seems like the perfect time to show this picture of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein watching the president who called *their* reporting fake news resigning from office.
They didnt get *every* detail right in their reporting but they got enough right, didnt they?
Link to tweet
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)DinahMoeHum
(21,783 posts)https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1086617706458157056.html
Interesting observation by Eichenwald
(snip)
I was deeply skeptical of the Buzzfeed story for a variety of reasons. But for those who want to believe it because you want evidence that Trump committed a crime - you don't need it. The story lured him out and - once again - he PUBLICLY committed a more serious crime...
...federal law on suborning perjury has a five year sentence. Now consider the relative significance of witness intimidation under federal law: 20 year sentence. And Trump has been publicly intimidating witnesses for months.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I could go on, but you get the idea. Make of it what you will.
P.S. Boldface emphasis is mine.
Chemisse
(30,807 posts)We've just become so used to him flagrantly committing crimes (or certainly appearing to) in plain sight over the past two years, with absolutely no consequence, that we've taken on a kind of 'learned helplessness' that once plagued neglected babies in orphanages.
But Mueller has seen it all and duly noted, AND Nancy is in power now. Somehow he is going to pay for these public threats and lures to witnesses, which are far more serious than the Cohen perjury charge. And the time of reckoning is drawing near.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,315 posts)malaise
(268,885 posts)Liars lie and tell others to lie
paleotn
(17,911 posts)like the one in the white house. They routinely fail at plausible deniability.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)When Woodward and Bernstein got it wrong about John Dean's testimony about Haldeman, everybody freaked out, especially Bradlee. It was a mistake, and a bad one, but the body of their work prevailed.
I'm not even sure the BuzzFeed article was a total misfire. Mueller could have easily categorically denied the whole thing if that's what he meant; he didn't. The statement was closely parsed. But time will tell.
True Blue American
(17,982 posts)OnReliable Sources, today. Their story turned out to be right, but he also said we need to wait on the Mueller report, not wise to jump the gun.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)Investigation was attributed. Mueller had to nix that
former9thward
(31,970 posts)Anything. MSM tried mightily to confirm the BF report and couldn't. The two reporters contradicted themselves. The report was so wrong that Mueller felt the need to say so when he doesn't say anything normally.
George II
(67,782 posts)Mueller's office merely said that the "characterization of documents and testimony" was "not accurate". The CHARACTERIZATION, not the documents and testimony itself.
Here's the exact 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.
onenote
(42,685 posts)The BuzzFeed story only is plausible if someone within Mueller's team spoke to them. And that, to say the least, is highly implausible.
PatSeg
(47,370 posts)to the Steele Dossier and it wasn't just the right that jumped all over it. Pretty much everyone in the media mocked it and criticized BuzzFeed for publishing it before it could be verified. Very few people took it seriously at the time. It sounded so far-fetched and BuzzFeed wasn't considered a serious news source.