Mueller's office disputes BuzzFeed report that Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress

[Pragidealist]

24 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

I don’t want it both ways. Jamal was wrong to lock right wing retard threads, too.

 

I don’t want any threads to get locked based on whether a story is true or not. If it’s not true, I want to be able to criticize it.

If he can’t do a better job distinguishing between propaganda and credible, disputed reporting - he absolutely needs to leave them all alone. More damage is done diminishing and minimizing credible reports than calling out obvious trash. 

[Starkiller]

2 minutes ago, Pragidealist said:

Does the fact that people who I sometimes consider intelligent immediately put a credible journalistic report to in the same bucket as Briebert trash not deeply concern anyone else? 

 

Trump, Russia and right wing propaganda are winning the war against the free press. That’s dang scary 

It's probably easier because it’s Buzzfeed and not a traditional media source, but the fact is the reporters are very well know and reputable reporters.

[tgo]

14 hours ago, OILERMAN said:

The Special Counsel didn't call out the  overall story because it's not right, they called it out because they hate leaks and don't like their work messed with. They likely used a small insignificant portion to call it inaccurate 

I think this about sums it up. 

[Pragidealist]

11 minutes ago, tgo said:

I think this about sums it up. 

I think it could be more strategic than that. They don’t want anyone to know what they do or do not have. I doubt they respond at all unless they think it interferes with either their current investigative work or ability to get a conviction on ppl later.

 

 

[OILERMAN]

37 minutes ago, tgo said:

BuzzFeed is standing by their story and I bet it’s largely true. 

They came out and doubled down

[Stranger]

I thought Trump supporters didn't trust Mueller to be impartial? 

 

How can we trust him that the Buzz Feed article isn't accurate?  

 

If anything, this only goes to show that Trump is guilty as fuck because Mueller hasn't made a public rebuke of any of the other reports regarding Trump's illegal activities. 

[Starkiller]

43 minutes ago, Stranger said:

I thought Trump supporters didn't trust Mueller to be impartial? 

Trust the liberal media or the witch hunter? The Trumptard's dilemma...

[reo]

Just for reference, here are the actual comments from the SCO

 

Quote

“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,” the spokesman, Peter Carr

Its interesting. Unless there's more to it, they're talking about comments to the special counsel's office.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/mueller-team-disputes-aspects-of-buzzfeed-report-claiming-trump-told-cohen-to-lie.amp

Edited January 20, 2019 by reo

[Rogue]

4 hours ago, Pragidealist said:

Does the fact that people who I sometimes consider intelligent immediately put a credible journalistic report to in the same bucket as Briebert trash not deeply concern anyone else? 

 

Trump, Russia and right wing propaganda are winning the war against the free press. That’s dang scary 

Oh please.  You dismiss I'd guess 30% of the free press.  This seems feigned outrage.  

 

No one is saying buzzfeed be in the same class as Brietbart, but non-Breitbart can be wrong too.  

 

I'm fine they reported it and standing by it.  That at least says they have confidence in what they believe.  Yet still, there is something not right about it, unless you distrust Mueller?  Do you? 

 

The report may or may not be accurate, to some degree or another.  That's fine.  What we do know is that Meuller's team felt the need to comment on it.  Conspiracies are made up to explain it.  Personal beliefs.  That's how conspiracies are born. 

 

There is no doubt in my mind the people holding the grudge are liberals unhappy with the special counsel's reponse.  

 

Why not just take it like it is?  A report came out and the special counsel takes objection to some portion of it?  That alone should lead some belief something isn't right somewhere?  Right?  Unless you distrust the special counsel?  

 

What I do know is that there is a very partisan response here.  There is very clear a need to support the Buzzfeed article, dispute Mueller's objection to it.  This is as clear as day. 

 

 

[Pragidealist]

8 minutes ago, Rogue said:

 

 

 

 

Why not just take it like it is?  A report came out and the special counsel takes objection to some portion of it?   

 

 

 

Dude - read what I’m actually writing and not what you think I’m going to write. The above is all I’ve been saying to do. I dispute noting Mueller has said nor am I saying to believe buzzfeed article is correct. I am saying and have been saying to take them for what they are. A report and a dispute of that report. That’s it. No conclusions or assumptions of which is to be believed, trusted, or assumed more credible. Two reports that create interesting questions of which we don’t have answers. There’s nothing partisan about it. 

[Pragidealist]

https://www.axios.com/buzzfeed-reporter-trump-tower-moscow-story-cohen-9b0937d2-89b8-4f53-b51a-3dcc03d23ab5.html

[Jamalisms]

Justice Dept perspective, according to the Washington Post:

 

Quote

Inside the Justice Department, the statement was viewed as a huge step, and one that would have been taken only if the special counsel’s office viewed the story as almost entirely incorrect. The special counsel’s office seemed to be disputing every aspect of the story that addressed comments or evidence given to its investigators.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2019/01/18/b9c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html

[Jamalisms]

And a note from BuzzFeed:

 

Quote

BuzzFeed says its sources are "standing behind" the bombshell report about the special counsel investigation.

 

"We're being told to stand our ground. Our reporting is going to be borne out to be accurate, and we're 100% behind it," investigative reporter Anthony Cormier told CNN's Brian Stelter on "Reliable Sources" Sunday.

And later

Quote

Cormier, who wouldn't reveal his sources when asked, said the story had been in the works for months and went through a "rigorous" vetting process. The story was reviewed by at least three editors, Smith said.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/20/media/buzzfeed-ben-smith-anthony-cormier/index.html

[Pragidealist]

It’s definitely interesting.  

[reo]

Be interesting to see how it pans out.