The problem is running with a story as though it's actual news even though they could not confirm it. That's not journalism; that's rumor-mongering.
The latest numbers I saw put it in the $27 million range.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-.../30/how-much-does-mueller-investigation-cost/
Are we getting our monies worth?
We don't know yet. We'll know more when it gets closer to the $52 million spent on the Clinton investigation.
Any idea of the cost this investigation has imposed upon us to date?
I'm at a loss to see how this is a substantive reflection on the rest of media, accept for those already having an ax to grind.
It's not at all extraordinary to assert that another has errantly characterized the nature of one's own and own organization's activities. Nobody I know of cares to be misrepresented, most especially in public situations that matter, in any way, shape, form or measure. Maybe folks you know don't much care about such things. I and my cohort do.
Perhaps you've seen the phrase I use on DP to indicate that someone's mischaracterized me and/or my remarks? "You just keep thinking that..." That's what I say when the circumstance(s) merit not my going into more detail. Carr's remark is only slightly more illuminating than the one I use...No surprise that, for his situation doesn't allow him the glibness of the phrase I use on DP.
Though I identified one of the Buzzfeed passages that I think may be what the SC had in mind, it could well be that it's not those passages at all and that it's, for instance, Buzzfeed's claim that its characterization of the nature of evidence Mueller has as having come from Mueller's office when the fact is that it didn't. As I said, Carr's statement was "beautifully" ambiguous.
ETA:
What my earlier post assumes is that something leaked out of the Russia investigation and Mueller thus had to respond to it because, unlike everything else we've heard about the SC's work -- all of which came from witnesses, their attorneys, and Mueller's court documents -- this is alleged to have come from his office/the DoJ.
It is ENTIRELY extraordinary for the Special Counsel's office to do so.
To think that they would do something they almost never do just to nip at the fringes of a news story that's basically correct strains credulity, to say the least.
Except that's not how it works. Buzzfeed wouldn't have gone with it without vetting it.
About half as much as the investigation has netted in fines and forfeitures from those who have already been convicted; $44 million from Manafort alone, and another $8-10 million from Cohen. The investigation has spent a total of $25 million, last I heard.
Fair enough, but the claim that "all media's credibility is surely on the line here" is a bit hyperbolic. There are many media sources that are highly respectable and do great work.
Context is everything....
It is extraordinary in the sense you note only because the Buzzfeed article represents the first time any news outlet has cited the SC office as the source of "XYZ" and XYZ does not accurately represent the existential truth of what the SC office has done or said. As I said, until that article, literally everything we've heard about the SC's actions, gathered information, statements, etc. was sourced either from court filings or from witnesses and their attorneys. Of either of those sources, there was no need for Mueller to correct the record; nothing was attributed as being a remark coming from his personnel.
To think that they would do something they almost never do just to nip at the fringes of a news story that's basically correct strains credulity, to say the least.
Ben Smith and BF are on trial here, as far as I'm concerned. What other media outlets have picked the story up and vouched for it? Where do you get "the credibility of the rest of the news media", which includes pjmedia, Fox and all of Trump's other pals?
Is that absolutely true?
Nonetheless, what I said still holds:
To think that they would do something they almost never do just to nip at the fringes of a news story that's basically correct strains credulity, to say the least.
Red:
Perhaps among folks given to disregarding the totality of matters, you may be correct.
I wager it doesn't strain your credulity that Rudy has attempted to split the hair of implied and explicit instruction as exhibited in the context of the attorney-client relationship....
That said, I'll accept by your above remark (blue highlighted text) that you are among the few for whom it strains credulity
that one'd act to ensure be aired precise and accurate expressions and representations of one's own or others' words and deeds.
Accordingly, I shall not expect to see you invoke such a rhetorical tactic.
Nonsense. The "totality of matters" is that the Special Counsel's office almost never issues statements of regarding news stories, and that doing so is extraordinary, something the entire chattering class has noted. Are they, too, all "given to disregarding the totality of matters," by your estimation?
Taking such an extraordinary step to correct the fringes of a story that's basically right DOES strain credulity.
There's no reason to repeat that further; if you wish to continue arguing about it, refer back to this post every time you feel you need to.
You lose that wager, and nothing Giuliani has said is germane to THIS matter. Your red herrings do not apply.
Your saying it's only a "few" doesn't mean it's actually only a "few."
You're stealing bases. I said, er, precisely what I meant, and this is not it. You do not get to impute your read of things onto me.
What "rhetorical tactic"? According to you, it's not a "rhetorical tactic" from the Special Counsel's office, but a mundane correction anyone should expect. Right? Why do you suddenly apparently think they are playing games for which "rhetorical tactics" are necessary?
Red:
Perhaps among folks given to disregarding the totality of matters, you may be correct. As go legal and political matters, that be extant incidences of hairsplitting strains credulity among few jurists, juries, attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants or discussants. To wit, we recently witnessed Rudy Giuliani attempt to "split the hair" of the attorney client relationship to try asserting that Trump's attorney unilaterally took various actions -- executing the Stormy Daniels NDA, for instance -- and utterances, such as those Cohen delivered to Congress or those made on the "tape" in which the two coordinate effecting the "Stormy" NDA, absent Trump's knowledge...all the while Cohen was Trump's employee at the Trump Organization (vice president) and Trump's personal attorney, thus having no personal use for taking those actions and making those remarks bereft of Trump's tacit or express behest to do so.
***SNIPPED FOR RIDICULOUS AND OSTENTATIOUS WORDINESS (and character limit)*****
That said, I'll accept by your above remark (blue highlighted text) that you are among the few for whom it strains credulity that one'd act to ensure be aired precise and accurate expressions and representations of one's own or others' words and deeds. Accordingly, I shall not expect to see you invoke such a rhetorical tactic.
People familiar with the matter said after BuzzFeed published its story — which was attributed to “two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter” — the special counsel’s office reviewed evidence to determine if there were any documents or witness interviews like those described, reaching out to those they thought might have a stake in the case.
They found none, these people said. That, the people said, is in part why it took Mueller’s office nearly a day to dispute the story publicly. In the interim, cable news outlets and other media organizations, including The Washington Post, dissected its possible implications — even as their reporters were unable to independently confirm it.
Told of the special counsel’s failure to find support for the story, Mittenthal, the BuzzFeed spokesman, said, “Our high-level law enforcement sources, who have helped corroborate months of accurate reporting on the Trump Tower Moscow deal and its aftermath, have told us otherwise. We look forward to further clarification from the Special Counsel in the near future.”
Red:
We can stop now for with regard to my comments to which you've referred....
Harshaw, I think you'll be interested in what Andrew McCarthy has to say: "Debunking BuzzFeed and the Wages of Investigative Secrecy" https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/buzzfeed-report-michael-cohen-mueller-investigation-secrecy/
Crazy as it sounds, I'm now allowing for the possibility that Buzzfeed's sources are associated with SDNY - not SCO's office - and that's the discrepancy. Remember, it's SDNY that raided Cohen's offices and residences, and confiscated all his documentation and electronic devices - including his tapes.Exactly. Every source of news I've seen have clearly stated that they have not been able to corroborate BuzzFeeds reporting and have also pointed out the more absurd aspects of the story, such as trump company workers emailing everyone about what lies Cohen is going to tell to congress. It seems just absurdly stupid that they'd start an email chain with perjured talking points.
I'm very much confused at this point. I highly doubt that Buzzfeed doesn't have at least most of the story correct. Based on Mueller's statement it's also very doubtful they got everything completely correct. My best guess is that Mueller doesn't like that Buzzfeed described the evidence as so air tight and Mueller wants everyone to calm down so he can finish everything up in due time. People were discussing impeachment based on an article that might have ever so slightly oversold the evidence he has. So he might have wanted to push back a tiny bit. But I'm just not sure. If Buzzfeed is way off then they are going to have a hard time int he future.
Crazy as it sounds, I'm now allowing for the possibility that Buzzfeed's sources are associated with SDNY - not SCO's office - and that's the discrepancy. Remember, it's SDNY that raided Cohen's offices and residences, and confiscated all his documentation and electronic devices - including his tapes.
Quite possibly. And if you notice, Mueller treats Cohen substantially differently than SDNY. I think SDNY has way more on Cohen than Mueller, and they want a piece of him - badly!I think this is on the nose.
Mueller went to the step of criticizing this because they wanted to make sure everyone knew that his team wasn’t the source of the (largely true) leak.
Crazy as it sounds, I'm now allowing for the possibility that Buzzfeed's sources are associated with SDNY - not SCO's office - and that's the discrepancy. Remember, it's SDNY that raided Cohen's offices and residences, and confiscated all his documentation and electronic devices - including his tapes.
Like I stated in my post, "that's the discrepancy".That's not what the story said, nor is it what the reporters and BuzzFeed have said.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?