And given that Mueller has run a very tight investigation, we have no idea what else awaits.

Last edited Fri Jan 18, 2019, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)

They did not say for example "It is completely false" and they kept it vague and did not provide any details.

rudy giuliani

there actually were additional details that buzzfeed was unaware of.

They are not going to invite the game of getting into specific commentary.

The buzzfeed report is not accurate. In what detail, we do not know.

I don’t believe they are playing games, and it’s foolish to suggest my comment implied such a thing.

this is to say the leak didn’t come from his office

Sounds to me like Carr is disputing that the leak came from the Special Counsel's office. Might be that Buzzfeed did not properly describe who their source was employed by. I am guessing the investigators Buzzfeed spoke with were not actually working with Mueller, but maybe the EDNY.

Mueller's crew never leaks, and want to make sure no one says they do. If their witnesses thought they leaked or couldn't be trusted to hold secrets, they wouldn't be able to get anyone to talk or flip.

Also, the docs may have not shown direct instructions from Trump to Cohen, but rather indirect instructions through a third party. We know Trump doesn't use emails and texts. Apparently Ronan Farrow would not run with the story for this reason, as noted on Rachel tonight:

Link to tweet

I would think that the color is being refuted and thong could be refuted or not.

Can't be spun any other way.

Instead, he issued a cryptically worded statement saying statements attributed to the Special Counsel's office and document descriptions were "inaccurate." That's not the same as saying Trump didn't get Cohen to lie about Trump Tower Moscow to Congress. Indeed, Cohen's plea filings submitted by Mueller's office shows the substance of Buzzfeed's story is true, that Cohen lied about the status of the Trump Tower Moscow deal, and he did it because that's what Trump wanted him to do.

It appears the issue Mueller had with Buzzfeed's article is that the "investigators" who were used as sources were not with the Special Counsel's office, and Mueller wants to make sure everyone knows his crew does not leak.

Also, the docs probably don't show direct instructions from Trump to Cohen, but probably are communications from third parties that show this was the understanding. Trump does not use emails or texts for this very reason.

Wow, do you work for the Special Counsel's office? I will take them at their word. You don't. You want to believe what a blog/website says over what the Special Counsel says so you parse their words. How many times has Mueller said anything about this investigation? Close to none. Yet they commented on this article. Parse it some more and you will have them confirming every word in the article.

And my reading is reinforced by what journalist Ronan Farrow found out from the central source for the Buzzfeed article.

If you want to go with Trump's spin, knock yourself out.

Leopold, one of the journalists, has some credibility issues. He's had some stories that were completely true, but he has had some other issues, which made me want to wait for confirmation before I believed it.

That the article contains confirmed incorrect information, means that none of the information can be relied on, unless confirmed.

And we will all see, with hope, in the near future.

reports on the checkered history of Leopold, and that the House Judiciary Committee is going to check on this story and try to confirm.

Always best to wait for confirmation when one of the authors has a questionable background.

Usually in articles we've relied on, someone has seen some document or something, so that it is confirmed somewhat. And the author has a stellar integrity record.

With luck, we will see what Mueller's report contains in the very near future.

It says "trump received 10 personal updates from Michael Cohen". It could have been only nine updates or eleven updates. In either case the report is "not accurate".

The statement didn't say the report was incorrect or false. It could be 99.9% true as written, but that 0.1% makes it "not accurate".

hand.

However we couch it, this is not good. It's close to refutation.

ther is this to consider:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211692323


Nuance is a big part of legalese.

Leopold has cred issues.

And we can hope to see the Mueller report soon.

At his hearing, he said that his understanding of the law is that the report is to HIM, and he can release parts of it, if he wants, or he can do a summary of it and release that.

That is...Barr might rewrite the report, leave out the most damaging parts, or reword them to make them sound better, and release that. I think there will be a lawsuit over that, if that's what he does. But at no time did he indicate he'd release the report or even consider it.

and I am certain that he might have already planned for this.

Including the farming out of various pieces of the investigation.

I wouldn't put it past Leopold.

Would it be justified?

But trump will eat up fake news mantra ugh

with stories like this. If people didn't see that, they didn't want to see it.

It also pointed out that some of his stories turned out to be true, but he has credibility issues with other stories. For that reason, I decided to wait and see if it was confirmed before believing it.

Several of us posted this in other threads...posted a caution.

But they've been running "analysis" pieces as their headline all day talking about what a game changer this would be if true.

and especially if they state that CNN hasn't confirmed it. As long as they don't present it as fact.

report sensational bombshells with the qualifier "We haven't confirmed it" unless the bombshell is coming from one of the very top news organizations - NYT, WP, WSJ, CBS, NBC, ABC - I mean, we're not talking about something as insubstantial as Hollywood gossip - we're talking about something that - if true - could very probably lead to the impeachment (if not conviction) of the President.

but the CNN or whatever clarifies that they haven't independent confirmed it.

It's done all the time. If they didn't do that, news would not be reported timely, if they had to wait for independent confirmation and investigation.

So they let the public know what is known, but tell the public that it hasn't been independently confirmed yet. Very common and ordinary and is what should be done, IMO.

So few on here seem to have the self-control to take our time and keep us from looking like idiots with fake stories.

with profoundly more verified sources?!?

"not accurate" could mean a lot of things.

The Mueller inquiry has never said anything before it was ready to act that it hasn't had to. It doesn't drop teasers, and it wouldn't intervene if the report was all correct but there was more evidence still. Because it could have done that hundreds of times already.

nowhere in that statement does it say not true...cryptic as always...

is called into question.

Congress is going to check on the story and see if it can be confirmed. Always best to wait for confirmation, esp when one of the writers isn't always right.

Set up
Like a bowling pin

Knocked down...

Trump is going to crow "Fake news!"

He's getting ready for Mueller's report.

shows that there is a witch hunt going on, is what Trump will say.

of this

Running with a story without confirmation. Buzzfeed is not a recognized widespread news org. (as far as I know), so they can get away with that. But a reporter should confirm or verify before presenting it as fact. That's what Rather did. He reported a story as true, when in fact, he'd bypassed the verification step. It turned out to be false.

Maddow said a trick like that was tried on her some months ago. But she and her staff stuck to their process, couldn't verify it, so didn't report it....and it turned out to be a trick. She passed w/flying colors.

The news stations will be fine, if they presented the story as written...that the documents had not been seen, that they had not confirmed or verified he story...so they just pass on Buzzfeed's story. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm guessing that's how it was presented, too. I know CNN has an article on its site about the "checkered past" of the article's authors, regarding this bombshell story and whether it can be relief on. So CNN is in the clear.

that what buzzfeed reported is not part of their report. What happen with the Dan Rather incident, it was the accusation that Bush went AWOL. There was no sanctioned investigation of Bush going, it was an investigation by CBS, via Dan Rather that was deemed questionable. This doesn't compromise the Muller investigation at all.

investigation. I badly worded my initial replay, and didn't make it clear

Sorry

But Trumpists will be crowing, "They're out to get him!"

I don't know what happened to the Buzzfeed journalists, but I got that "Where did they get this from" creepy feeling when the sources were talked about. It seemed very thin to me. And I know everyone is anxious.

Mueller is a solid investigator and he has the best people working for him.

But every journalist who values their reputation should proceed with caution. It wouldn't surprise me if there aren't suddenly a bunch of stories that seem too good to be true suddenly popping up.



Patience. Patience. Truth will out...we hope.

But Trump's people will be doing all they can to prop up Trumpty Dumpty.

not the credibility of the media

and you are right the trump people will make a hey day on this

...is that it's at least somewhat close to the truth, and Mueller does not want Trump to know what he has.

It could be directed at Trump, or it could be just what it seems (something to stop a segment of the public from getting carried away by misinformation), or some of both...

part of his investigation

When his report comes out, it'll have that much more force.

Not to mention his award winning co-author.

It could be that the Mueller team is making a fine distinction to arrive at the conclusion that the story's "characterization" was "not accurate."

Too early to know.

Accuracy is kind of a big deal in journalism.

Or at least it used to be.

This was very carefully worded....

"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."

"Description of specific statements" - all? some? Unclear.

"characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office" all? some? Again, very unclear.

"regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate." - "are not accurate" ... why not say:

"are inaccurate."

or

"are incorrect."

or

"are wrong."

My point here is that this statement by the SCO's office were very carefully phrased; came a day after the story broke; and after, apparently, the SCO chose NOT to comment on the record on the story before publication.

It's also worth pointing out that Trump's initial reaction to this story breaking was to, essentially, threaten a family member of the alleged witness in the case ...

Anyone who lived through Watergate knows the truth came to light slowly, incompletely, and, at times, with information, reports, and statements that suggested one conclusion or another, which were not entirely congruent with the final understanding of the events as revealed by history.

then it might not be "accurate" to "characterize" them as "documents" or "testimony."

Yep. There's a reason all these people are attorneys...

Words matter.

muddy the waters, lay suspicion on the entire investigation. Seems to be prudent damage control when docs or testimony from an investigation is leaked.

Yeah... if this journalistic report was flat out wrong, there's a way to say that, simply...

And the statement from the SCO is not a simple statement.

FUCK.

and ditto.

The word of a witness who claimed to have knowledge would not be enough. No other major news has confirmed it and BuzzFeed hasn't disclosed what the source is. For Mueller to disown it means he knows about it (from raid on Cohen's office?) and wants to protect his investigation.

"Mariah Carey’s Former Personal Assistant Says She Was Held Down And Peed On At Work" is their second most trending story as of now.

The 4 footnotes includes in your excerpt all link to articles that are glowingly positive about Buzzfeed.

As I said, it's too early to know how this story is going to shake out.

One possibility I could imagine is that the SC office had tape recordings. Technically, it would not be "accurate' to "characterize" them as documents.

OR the SC could be objecting to the timeline. Maybe the SC office found the documents AFTER talking to Cohen, rather than before.

We still don't know enough details yet.

From 2016:

https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/leonora-lapeter-anton-and-anthony-cormier-tampa-bay-times-and-michael-braga-sarasota-herald

He and his co-writer won the 2016 Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Reporting,

"For a stellar example of collaborative reporting by two news organizations that revealed escalating violence and neglect in Florida mental hospitals and laid the blame at the door of state officials."


"Anthony Cormier is an investigative reporter at the Times and previously at the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. He has been a reporter in Florida for 14 years."

And is a separate site.

Just stop. So tired of your negative posts. It is constant and has been so for years and years.

The "Mariah Carey’s Former Personal Assistant Says She Was Held Down And Peed On At Work" story is on BuzzFeed News:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/claudiarosenbaum/mariah-carey-personal-assistant-sues

It is currently the #1 trending story now on their site (passing the Trump-Cohen one).

Nope.

F#ck.

I give the fuck up. I am tired of disappointment!

But he'll never get reelected.

yes, anyone expects. And why not?...Everyone is assuming that it is "not accurate" in terms of it being ...all wrong and totally untrue

What if the BuzzFeed Report, was in general correct, but understating everything..That is possible. That somehow the final report is much worse for Trump than even the worst scenario assumes..Please don't underestimate the evil here.

... If Mueller uncovers all the evil and corruption in this, maybe that report will make it impossible for the gang to go on. All go down..Trump, Pence, family and those closest to Trump. Don't tell me that that crowd will not go down. Sure there are mistakes in the early reporting..So what?.. Here is the bottom line....

(In capital letters).,,,,,,,,,..MUELLER WILL GET HIM......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
......................................MUELLER WILL GET THE WHOLE GANG !!!!!!!!!!!
..................................how do I know????..............................................
.....................................MULLER HAS SPENT HIS WHOLE LIFE GOING AFTER ARROGANT, EVIL,
GANGS AND GANGS LEADERS. ALL KINDS. iT IS HIS JOB, AND HE
WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO BECOME THE LEADER OF THAT ORGANIZATION..
THAT GOES AFTER ARROGANT, EVIL ASSHOLE CROOKS. LOOK AT HIS RECORD.

......................................NOW READ THIS CAREFULLY: TRUMP AND HIS GANG ARE MUELLER'S
MOST IMPORTANT ASSIGNMENT...EVER...MUELLER WILL GET THE TOP OF THE
GANG, JUST LIKE HE GOT THE LOWER LEVELS OF THE GANG.........

It is my deepest believe that Mueller's pride and entire professional career are going up against Trump and his gang of international crooks. MUELLER AND HIS TEAM WILL GET THEM...
(and if I am wrong, I will eat my words..and admit that I am wrong in this forum in
the same way I am typing these words I am not afraid to admit it when I am
wrong. )

However, it is important to note that this particular news report has serious issues.

Regardless of Buzzfeed veracity, Mueller didn’t have to say anything. And it’s all the more significant since Mueller’s office has hardly issued any comments.

and given Leopolds track record, it would be a remarkable risk on behalf of an editor to let this run with no other supporting evidence.

So far all we know is that Mueller has stated inaccuracies. not a denial.

Deputy press secretary and Kellyanne Conway would not deny claim, despite continued questioning.

Cohens lawyer said his client will not confirm or deny at this point, he is in fear for his family - Trump mentioned his father in law in a tweet today

was going to comment, why did it wait? Why didn't it tell the reporters that their story had an "inaccurate" "characterization" so the reporters could have gone back over their work? Or included the SC's office statement in their original article?

....If Buzzfeed was totally wrong, the statement from Mueller would have said so. Don't you think?..And yes, no editor would run this without some supporting evidence....................................................
... Sure ...Leopold could have made up that evidence..ok, but that is the end of his career ...forever....is he that stupid?......maybe, but on this big a story, would he take the chance of being found out?..would you..I wouldn't.

So, guess what, we will find out. Yes, Leopold could be all wrong. But maybe, just maybe, it is all ...........
............an understatement..not an overstatement...That happens sometime in history...

Here is an example of an "understatement" On June 22, 1941, Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. No one knew the loss of life on the Soviet side till years after the war, Was it a million lost? 2million?..Now years later, some estimates go as high as 10 million citizens and soldiers killed. or..Was it 15 million?..Stalin was wrong about the whole war, so he deliberately did not keep close track of the number killed by the invasion. He deliberately ..underestimated the losses of human life in the invasion and subsequent battles.

The horror of the war was totally beyond belief. Even now it is hard to imagine the deaths of 15 million people at the hands of the German soldiers..Or was it 10 million? No one really knows for sure. The initial estimate of loss, was totally understated ...on purpose by Stalin..

It suggests some part of the whole statement could be incomplete, erroneous, or incorrect. What it does NOT do is claim the entire statement is false. It is neither a complete denial nor a confirmation. Neither is it a non-denial denial.

I recall the seemingly endless series of revelatory news stories from many sources about who did what when and how during the Watergate investigations and subsequent trials. There were never only one set of facts and there were many opinions expressed over what each new set meant and what changed because of it.

There will continue to be many half-truths, near truths and outright lies told along the way to Trump's demise. If you cannot deal with that pervasive condition I suggest you take up bowling or some other contemplative pass time which has more concrete outcomes.

If you all want to bitch about perfect truth you are looking in the wrong place and you chose the wrong venue for the debate.

Especially one this potentially significant.

Likewise, it is not published by Lord Rupert or any of his many surrogates. Nor are they part of the great MSM propaganda network.

I take the point that they may have missed the mark. It may also yet prove to be true that they were simply ahead of the curve on the parts which did not.

The Post was not the only paper of record to pursue the questions regarding Watergate. At some points, they were castigated for alleged inaccuracies which later proved to be a matter of interpretation. I submit that we may be observing evidence of a similar condition.

Please see also:https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211692246

Yes, that would be nice.

Feed said were in the Mueller report are untrue

The credibility of Buzz Feed is damaged, the integrity of the Mueller investigation is intact

Last edited Fri Jan 18, 2019, 11:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Carr's statement was cryptically worded and did not specify what was "not accurate" and how it was inaccurate.

..This (inaccuracy that is being reported) will in the long run be meaningless. We will all find out in a few months..one way or another. The extent of Trump's criminal behavior will come out. Trump strikes me as someone who listens to no one when it comes to right and wrong. He listens to himself alone. NO ONE ELSE.

Rudy Giuliani has been quoted as saying that he has tried to stop Trump from his "tweeting" I heard him say so once on the radio... Giuliani said that Trump does not listen to him sometimes..I remember thinking to myself, why not?. Giuliani is totally loyal, honest to Trump, somewhat knowledgeable and a friend...Often the tweeting is absurd, and should be cut back or stopped. Why doesn't Trump listen to Rudy?

Well Trump doesn't listen to anyone, only himself. NO ONE TELLS MR. TRUMP WHAT TO DO.

.................that's all folks.............................

Long term this is bad for the troll. It's bad for the media too but this takes a way trump's main fox news narrative that Mueller is a lying deep state operative running a witch hunt. The dumb bastard actually tweeted references to Mueller "exonerating" him. He just shot himself in the foot big time.

I bet you a lot of this story is true. Cohen has probably lied a lot on behalf of Trump.

...in his sworn statement Cohen said that he coordinated stories with the campaign out of loyalty to Trump. That seems quite different from being directed to lie. But when they said they had proof I wondered if he softened his sworn statement for some reason. But the fact is that Trump has been involved in multiple coordinated lies that we already know about. Marcey Wheeler at emptywheel.net has an interesting take on the whole thing.

will cause trump to confess to it.

The cookies are not behind the coach. Honest!

Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2019, 11:05 AM - Edit history (6)

What does that mean. That "directed" is too strong of a word. Instead, Trump only gave Cohen talking points for his testimony before Congress and Cohen knew what to do without Trump directing him on how to proceed. That would fit for someone in the fixer role.

When BuzzFeed jumps out there reporting evidence gained by their 'un-named sources', they are tipping off the Trump Administration as to what is coming down the pike.

Mueller needs to build his case and then present it in an orchestrated manner. We are only going to get one chance to take down Trump, and we don't need rogue operators like BuzzFeed revealing the play book before the case goes before Congress for impeachment.

Mueller is propping up Trump's administration with this announcement. And I don't think he would relieve any pressure from the media and Congress if he planned on just ratcheting up the pressure again with his report again in just a few weeks.

95% of what they toss up on their website is unadulterated trash and easily refuted. How is is that they are immune to the type of "correction" that veritable news organizations are subject to?