Three things we learned from the Special Counsel refuting Buzzfeed's article

[Cardinal]

Yesterday, Buzzfeed released a seemingly credible article alleging that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. This was a groundbreaking story and would have meant that Trump committed a Federal crime. Later in the day, Peter Carr, a spokesperson for the Special Counsel office, took the unusual step of refuting the story.

“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.”

Buzzfeed stood by its story while Republicans gleefully latched onto the spokesperson's dismissal of the article.

What have we learned?

1)Buzzfeed may not be ready for the big times. By this, I mean that they may not be ready to be used as a breaking news source in the Breaking News MSM section. Maybe their sources aren't good. Maybe their sources are so niche that nobody else is able to confirm their claims. Either way, this is, to my knowledge, the third time that a major Buzzfeed article fizzled out in the space of a year. A President can lie 8000 times, but a news outlet can't afford to get it wrong even once.

As Maggie Haberman said, it does happen that an article isn't credibly verified for months, and it may be that everything Buzzfeed has ever published ultimately turns out to be true and everybody will be eating their condemnation of them. It's been argued that Carr wasn't necessarily refuting the specific claim in the article, but who can know for sure? Whatever the case, it's wise to stick with traditional outlets such as the Washington Post and the New York Times until we're more certain.

2)Republicans believe Mueller. Despite their frequently stated claims that he's conducting an illegal witch hunt and is out to destroy Trump, what they demonstrated yesterday is that underneath that facade they know Mueller is believable and trustworthy. I've suspected this for a long time, but to see them validate that suspicion so quickly and unanimously was...really something. And all of this means that...

3)By extension, they believe all the other stories that have come out by credible newspapers about Trump, such as his business dealings, his crimes, his lies and his ethics violations, despite all their exclamations about "fake news." The Special Counsel office has never come out to publicly refute a news story until now. If Republicans trust Mueller, then they trust that he would have refuted any of the other news articles had they been false.

The first point may not necessarily matter. Or it will. Either way, we'll find out on February 7 when Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee. On that day one of the Congressmen will ask Cohen straight-out if Trump ordered him to lie to Congress. Cohen's answer will either validate Buzzfeed, or it will make yesterday Buzzfeed's Al Capone vault moment, relegating them to the dustbin of history.

 

[Mycroft]

Yesterday, Buzzfeed released a seemingly credible article alleging that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. This was a groundbreaking story and would have meant that Trump committed a Federal crime. Later in the day, Peter Carr, a spokesperson for the Special Counsel office, took the unusual step of refuting the story.

“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.”

Buzzfeed stood by its story while Republicans gleefully latched onto the spokesperson's dismissal of the article.

What have we learned?

1)Buzzfeed may not be ready for the big times. By this, I mean that they may not be ready to use as a breaking news source in the Breaking News MSM section. Maybe their sources aren't good. Maybe their sources are so niche that nobody else is able to confirm their claims. Either way, this is, to my knowledge, the third time that a major Buzzfeed article fizzled out in the space of a year. A President can lie 8000 times, but a news outlet can't afford to get it wrong even once.

As Maggie Haberman said, it does happen that an article isn't credibly verified for months, and it may be that everything Buzzfeed has ever published turns out to be ultimately true and everybody will be eating their condemnation of them. It's been argued that Carr wasn't necessarily refuting the specific claim in the article, but who can know for sure? Whatever the case, it's wise to stick with traditional outlets such as the Washington Post and the New York Times until we're more certain.

2)Republicans believe Mueller. Despite their frequently stated claims that he's conducting an illegal witch hunt and is out to destroy Trump, what they demonstrated yesterday is that underneath that facade they know Mueller is believable and trustworthy. I've suspected this for a long time, but to see them validate that suspicion so quickly and unanimously was...really something. And all of this means that...

3)By extension, they believe all the other stories that have come out by credible newspapers about Trump, such as his business dealings, his crimes, his lies and his ethics violations, despite all their exclamations about "fake news." The Special Counsel office has never come out to publicly refute a news story until now. If Republicans trust Mueller, then they trust that he would have refuted any of the other news articles had they been false.

The first point may not necessarily matter. Or it will. Either way, we'll find out on February 7, when Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee. On that day, one of the Congressmen will ask Cohen straight out if Trump ordered him to lie to Congress. Cohen's answer will most likely validate Buzzfeed, or it will make yesterday Buzzfeed's Al Capone vault moment, relegating them to the dustbin of history.

Given Cohen's credibility (actually, his lack of credibility) and the fact that he won't tell Congress anything that Mueller doesn't want him to tell Congress, I wouldn't get my hopes up that he would actually answer that question or that he'll actually give a believable answer.

 

[Superfly]

Yesterday, Buzzfeed released a seemingly credible article alleging that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. This was a groundbreaking story and would have meant that Trump committed a Federal crime. Later in the day, Peter Carr, a spokesperson for the Special Counsel office, took the unusual step of refuting the story.

“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.”

Buzzfeed stood by its story while Republicans gleefully latched onto the spokesperson's dismissal of the article.

What have we learned?

1)Buzzfeed may not be ready for the big times. By this, I mean that they may not be ready to use as a breaking news source in the Breaking News MSM section. Maybe their sources aren't good. Maybe their sources are so niche that nobody else is able to confirm their claims. Either way, this is, to my knowledge, the third time that a major Buzzfeed article fizzled out in the space of a year. A President can lie 8000 times, but a news outlet can't afford to get it wrong even once.

As Maggie Haberman said, it does happen that an article isn't credibly verified for months, and it may be that everything Buzzfeed has ever published turns out to be ultimately true and everybody will be eating their condemnation of them. It's been argued that Carr wasn't necessarily refuting the specific claim in the article, but who can know for sure? Whatever the case, it's wise to stick with traditional outlets such as the Washington Post and the New York Times until we're more certain.

2)Republicans believe Mueller. Despite their frequently stated claims that he's conducting an illegal witch hunt and is out to destroy Trump, what they demonstrated yesterday is that underneath that facade they know Mueller is believable and trustworthy. I've suspected this for a long time, but to see them validate that suspicion so quickly and unanimously was...really something. And all of this means that...

3)By extension, they believe all the other stories that have come out by credible newspapers about Trump, such as his business dealings, his crimes, his lies and his ethics violations, despite all their exclamations about "fake news." The Special Counsel office has never come out to publicly refute a news story until now. If Republicans trust Mueller, then they trust that he would have refuted any of the other news articles had they been false.

The first point may not necessarily matter. Or it will. Either way, we'll find out on February 7, when Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee. On that day, one of the Congressmen will ask Cohen straight out if Trump ordered him to lie to Congress. Cohen's answer will most likely validate Buzzfeed, or it will make yesterday Buzzfeed's Al Capone vault moment, relegating them to the dustbin of history.

Nice post. Enjoyed the read, and you make excellent points.

I love the comparison to Al Capone's vault.

 

[OscarLevant]

Yesterday, Buzzfeed released a seemingly credible article alleging that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. This was a groundbreaking story and would have meant that Trump committed a Federal crime. Later in the day, Peter Carr, a spokesperson for the Special Counsel office, took the unusual step of refuting the story.

“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.”

Buzzfeed stood by its story while Republicans gleefully latched onto the spokesperson's dismissal of the article.

What have we learned?

1)Buzzfeed may not be ready for the big times. By this, I mean that they may not be ready to use as a breaking news source in the Breaking News MSM section. Maybe their sources aren't good. Maybe their sources are so niche that nobody else is able to confirm their claims. Either way, this is, to my knowledge, the third time that a major Buzzfeed article fizzled out in the space of a year. A President can lie 8000 times, but a news outlet can't afford to get it wrong even once.

As Maggie Haberman said, it does happen that an article isn't credibly verified for months, and it may be that everything Buzzfeed has ever published turns out to be ultimately true and everybody will be eating their condemnation of them. It's been argued that Carr wasn't necessarily refuting the specific claim in the article, but who can know for sure? Whatever the case, it's wise to stick with traditional outlets such as the Washington Post and the New York Times until we're more certain.

2)Republicans believe Mueller. Despite their frequently stated claims that he's conducting an illegal witch hunt and is out to destroy Trump, what they demonstrated yesterday is that underneath that facade they know Mueller is believable and trustworthy. I've suspected this for a long time, but to see them validate that suspicion so quickly and unanimously was...really something. And all of this means that...

3)By extension, they believe all the other stories that have come out by credible newspapers about Trump, such as his business dealings, his crimes, his lies and his ethics violations, despite all their exclamations about "fake news." The Special Counsel office has never come out to publicly refute a news story until now. If Republicans trust Mueller, then they trust that he would have refuted any of the other news articles had they been false.

The first point may not necessarily matter. Or it will. Either way, we'll find out on February 7, when Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee. On that day, one of the Congressmen will ask Cohen straight out if Trump ordered him to lie to Congress. Cohen's answer will most likely validate Buzzfeed, or it will make yesterday Buzzfeed's Al Capone vault moment, relegating them to the dustbin of history.

All that is happening is that Buzzfeed is saying the allegation has been corroborated, and Mueller and Farrow are saying it's not.

I think the truth will have to do a lot with who the "two federal law enforcement officers" buzzfeed is basing the story on, and the circumstances surrounding it.

I"m not seeing anyone saying the allegation is incontrovertibly false.

As for "fake news", there is far more fakery coming from the white house than anywhere else.

I believe the house judiciary committee should investigate and get to the bottom of this story.

 

[Cardinal]

Given Cohen's credibility (actually, his lack of credibility) and the fact that he won't tell Congress anything that Mueller doesn't want him to tell Congress, I wouldn't get my hopes up that he would actually answer that question or that he'll actually give a believable answer.

Irrelevant rat-hole tangent post! Respond to at your own peril!

 

[Mycroft]

Irrelevant rat hole tangent post. Respond to at your own peril.

Well, if that's how you want to characterize a direct response to one of the statements in your own OP, so be it.

 

[independentusa]

Yesterday, Buzzfeed released a seemingly credible article alleging that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. This was a groundbreaking story and would have meant that Trump committed a Federal crime. Later in the day, Peter Carr, a spokesperson for the Special Counsel office, took the unusual step of refuting the story.

“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.”

Buzzfeed stood by its story while Republicans gleefully latched onto the spokesperson's dismissal of the article.

What have we learned?

1)Buzzfeed may not be ready for the big times. By this, I mean that they may not be ready to use as a breaking news source in the Breaking News MSM section. Maybe their sources aren't good. Maybe their sources are so niche that nobody else is able to confirm their claims. Either way, this is, to my knowledge, the third time that a major Buzzfeed article fizzled out in the space of a year. A President can lie 8000 times, but a news outlet can't afford to get it wrong even once.

As Maggie Haberman said, it does happen that an article isn't credibly verified for months, and it may be that everything Buzzfeed has ever published turns out to be ultimately true and everybody will be eating their condemnation of them. It's been argued that Carr wasn't necessarily refuting the specific claim in the article, but who can know for sure? Whatever the case, it's wise to stick with traditional outlets such as the Washington Post and the New York Times until we're more certain.

2)Republicans believe Mueller. Despite their frequently stated claims that he's conducting an illegal witch hunt and is out to destroy Trump, what they demonstrated yesterday is that underneath that facade they know Mueller is believable and trustworthy. I've suspected this for a long time, but to see them validate that suspicion so quickly and unanimously was...really something. And all of this means that...

3)By extension, they believe all the other stories that have come out by credible newspapers about Trump, such as his business dealings, his crimes, his lies and his ethics violations, despite all their exclamations about "fake news." The Special Counsel office has never come out to publicly refute a news story until now. If Republicans trust Mueller, then they trust that he would have refuted any of the other news articles had they been false.

The first point may not necessarily matter. Or it will. Either way, we'll find out on February 7, when Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee. On that day, one of the Congressmen will ask Cohen straight out if Trump ordered him to lie to Congress. Cohen's answer will most likely validate Buzzfeed, or it will make yesterday Buzzfeed's Al Capone vault moment, relegating them to the dustbin of history.

The denial is kind of weirdly worded. It does not say that the article is exactly wrong, just that Buzzfeed's characterizations of the documents and statements were inaccurate. I am willing to wait to see what the correct characterizations of what Cohen said and what documents show at the end of the Mueller investigation. I do not know if this is Mueller stating do not try and guess what we have, or if it was some kind of leak that Mueller is trying to plug.

 

[Cardinal]

The denial is kind of weirdly worded. It does not say that the article is exactly wrong, just that Buzzfeed's characterizations of the documents and statements were inaccurate. I am willing to wait to see what the correct characterizations of what Cohen said and what documents show at the end of the Mueller investigation. I do not know if this is Mueller stating do not try and guess what we have, or if it was some kind of leak that Mueller is trying to plug.

There is sufficient ambiguity either way that it's reasonable to walk away from Buzzfeed's article until we know more.

 

[Mach]

Regarding #2 Republicans with a brain trust him, but that won't stop or even slow the party from opposing Mueller both in terms of personal attacks, and in opposing what he says/finds/reports.
Just as we know many of the the pro-Trump trolls on this forum know what they are posting is complete B.S., it has no impact on the outcome right now (50% of the population don't value, or can't differentiate, true from false). They are happy to deny, deny, deny. Reputation/shame are relative. If their comrades are lying just like them, and like it...they have a bubble of good reputation and good behavior.

Regarding #3 that's clever/funny, but it's obviously a stretch. We have no way to know why Mueller's team has responded, but we know for certain there is no way they would respond to every major news article about the matters they are investigating if they were wrong...that would be insane. Their last remark on this was general "don't believe everything you read in the press on this".

I think Mueller's team responded because Special Counsel was specifically mentioned in their reporting source. Also because of where the investigation is right now, and the dramatic implications Buzzfeed's claim had on the matter...directly implicating Trump in a clear felony, as related to the SC investigation, as having come (leaked) from that investigation directly. They took issue with being named in that way, on something this serious.

Some days I think they will have nothing, some days I think they will have it all...the near-silence is hard to stand.

 

[Lutherf]

Yesterday, Buzzfeed released a seemingly credible article alleging that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. This was a groundbreaking story and would have meant that Trump committed a Federal crime. Later in the day, Peter Carr, a spokesperson for the Special Counsel office, took the unusual step of refuting the story.

“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.”

Buzzfeed stood by its story while Republicans gleefully latched onto the spokesperson's dismissal of the article.

What have we learned?

1)Buzzfeed may not be ready for the big times. By this, I mean that they may not be ready to use as a breaking news source in the Breaking News MSM section. Maybe their sources aren't good. Maybe their sources are so niche that nobody else is able to confirm their claims. Either way, this is, to my knowledge, the third time that a major Buzzfeed article fizzled out in the space of a year. A President can lie 8000 times, but a news outlet can't afford to get it wrong even once.

As Maggie Haberman said, it does happen that an article isn't credibly verified for months, and it may be that everything Buzzfeed has ever published turns out to be ultimately true and everybody will be eating their condemnation of them. It's been argued that Carr wasn't necessarily refuting the specific claim in the article, but who can know for sure? Whatever the case, it's wise to stick with traditional outlets such as the Washington Post and the New York Times until we're more certain.

2)Republicans believe Mueller. Despite their frequently stated claims that he's conducting an illegal witch hunt and is out to destroy Trump, what they demonstrated yesterday is that underneath that facade they know Mueller is believable and trustworthy. I've suspected this for a long time, but to see them validate that suspicion so quickly and unanimously was...really something. And all of this means that...

3)By extension, they believe all the other stories that have come out by credible newspapers about Trump, such as his business dealings, his crimes, his lies and his ethics violations, despite all their exclamations about "fake news." The Special Counsel office has never come out to publicly refute a news story until now. If Republicans trust Mueller, then they trust that he would have refuted any of the other news articles had they been false.

The first point may not necessarily matter. Or it will. Either way, we'll find out on February 7, when Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee. On that day, one of the Congressmen will ask Cohen straight out if Trump ordered him to lie to Congress. Cohen's answer will most likely validate Buzzfeed, or it will make yesterday Buzzfeed's Al Capone vault moment, relegating them to the dustbin of history.

With all due respect, while those things may be what YOU learned I don't think they're necessarily what WE learned.

Nobody has had any real reason to discredit Mueller's honesty. What a lot of us are questioning is the purpose of his investigation. He was engaged by a highly biased political class to "investigate" the newly elected president. The obvious reason for that investigation was to find a reason to impeach Trump. There was no other reason to engage a special counsel.

The other thing that was glaringly exposed yesterday was the bias in the media at large but in the left wing cable media in particular to glom on to stories that align with their belief. While neither MSNBC nor CNN confirmed the Buzzfeed story they were more than giddy about the opportunity to speculate on "what if it's true"! They acted like a teenager who just got asked to the prom by their dream date.

The one thing WE all did learn from this is that "Fake News" damned sure does exist and that Donald Trump definitely isn't misleading when he makes that assertion.

 

[Bucky]

Well, if that's how you want to characterize a direct response to one of the statements in your own OP, so be it.

What is irresponsible are the Democrats and fake news media that keep saying, "if this is true."

Give me a break. Every negative Hillary story was met with "completely false" or "completely uncorroborated" by the fake news media.

 

[Rexedgar]

I would recommend that whatever side your politics fall, everyone should take a deep breath and not run with the first thing that you think validates your belief. I am nearing my second year here and have fallen victim to the “this is the straw that will break the camel’s back” mentality. I have also been guilty of running with a headline and then being handed my buttocks by a diligent poster who read the entire article. To the topic: I find it odd that the Mueller investigation comes out with a press release since their MO has been pretty much “radio silence.”

 

[Helix]

if the sources actually gave buzzfeed news a fake story, then i don't see a need to protect their anonymity. let's see who they are and get the backstory.

 

[Cardinal]

Regarding #2 Republicans with a brain trust him, but that won't stop or even slow the party from opposing Mueller both in terms of personal attacks, and in opposing what he says/finds/reports.
Just as we know many of the the pro-Trump trolls on this forum know what they are posting is complete B.S., it has no impact on the outcome right now (50% of the population don't value, or can't differentiate, true from false). They are happy to deny, deny, deny. Reputation/shame are relative. If their comrades are lying just like them, and like it...they have a bubble of good reputation and good behavior.

Making arguments that are specifically irrational is part of the trump supporter trolling tactic. They know what they're saying is unreasonable and illogical in the extreme, and watching their opponents tear their hair out as a result is all part of the lulz. But when you get down to it, yesterday demonstrated that they know Mueller's investigation is truthful, trustworthy, and not a witch hunt.

Regarding #3 that's clever/funny, but it's obviously a stretch. We have no way to know why Mueller's team has responded, but we know for certain there is no way they would respond to every major news article about the matters they are investigating if they were wrong...that would be insane. Their last remark on this was general "don't believe everything you read in the press on this".

I think Mueller's team responded because Special Counsel was specifically mentioned in their reporting source. Also because of where the investigation is right now, and the dramatic implications Buzzfeed's claim had on the matter...directly implicating Trump in a clear felony, as related to the SC investigation, as having come (leaked) from that investigation directly. They took issue with being named in that way, on something this serious.

Some days I think they will have nothing, some days I think they will have it all...the near-silence is hard to stand.

I don't think the third point is a stretch, but I concede that it should have been constrained to refer exclusively to articles concerning the Special Counsel.

 

[Cardinal]

With all due respect, while those things may be what YOU learned I don't think they're necessarily what WE learned.

Nobody has had any real reason to discredit Mueller's honesty. What a lot of us are questioning is the purpose of his investigation. He was engaged by a highly biased political class to "investigate" the newly elected president. The obvious reason for that investigation was to find a reason to impeach Trump. There was no other reason to engage a special counsel.

You just disputed the integrity of his investigation right there. But if you accepted Carr's statement yesterday then you respect the integrity of his investigation. I can't tell if you're simply unaware of your contradiction or if you're just trolling. Either way, whatever.

The other thing that was glaringly exposed yesterday was the bias in the media at large but in the left wing cable media in particular to glom on to stories that align with their belief. While neither MSNBC nor CNN confirmed the Buzzfeed story they were more than giddy about the opportunity to speculate on "what if it's true"! They acted like a teenager who just got asked to the prom by their dream date.

The one thing WE all did learn from this is that "Fake News" damned sure does exist and that Donald Trump definitely isn't misleading when he makes that assertion.

 

[Cardinal]

if the sources actually gave buzzfeed news a fake story, then i don't see a need to protect their anonymity. let's see who they are and get the backstory.

I think we're all just spinning our wheels on this incident until February 7. I don't think it's likely we'll learn more before then.

 

[Harshaw]

Yesterday, Buzzfeed released a seemingly credible article alleging that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. This was a groundbreaking story and would have meant that Trump committed a Federal crime. Later in the day, Peter Carr, a spokesperson for the Special Counsel office, took the unusual step of refuting the story.

“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.”

Buzzfeed stood by its story while Republicans gleefully latched onto the spokesperson's dismissal of the article.

What have we learned?

1)Buzzfeed may not be ready for the big times. By this, I mean that they may not be ready to be used as a breaking news source in the Breaking News MSM section. Maybe their sources aren't good. Maybe their sources are so niche that nobody else is able to confirm their claims. Either way, this is, to my knowledge, the third time that a major Buzzfeed article fizzled out in the space of a year. A President can lie 8000 times, but a news outlet can't afford to get it wrong even once.

As Maggie Haberman said, it does happen that an article isn't credibly verified for months, and it may be that everything Buzzfeed has ever published turns out to be ultimately true and everybody will be eating their condemnation of them. It's been argued that Carr wasn't necessarily refuting the specific claim in the article, but who can know for sure? Whatever the case, it's wise to stick with traditional outlets such as the Washington Post and the New York Times until we're more certain.

2)Republicans believe Mueller. Despite their frequently stated claims that he's conducting an illegal witch hunt and is out to destroy Trump, what they demonstrated yesterday is that underneath that facade they know Mueller is believable and trustworthy. I've suspected this for a long time, but to see them validate that suspicion so quickly and unanimously was...really something. And all of this means that...

3)By extension, they believe all the other stories that have come out by credible newspapers about Trump, such as his business dealings, his crimes, his lies and his ethics violations, despite all their exclamations about "fake news." The Special Counsel office has never come out to publicly refute a news story until now. If Republicans trust Mueller, then they trust that he would have refuted any of the other news articles had they been false.

The first point may not necessarily matter. Or it will. Either way, we'll find out on February 7, when Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee. On that day, one of the Congressmen will ask Cohen straight out if Trump ordered him to lie to Congress. Cohen's answer will most likely validate Buzzfeed, or it will make yesterday Buzzfeed's Al Capone vault moment, relegating them to the dustbin of history.

You try to make this about "Republicans," but what you're actually doing is revealing what YOU hope to be the case, i.e., that Mueller's team would have refuted anything else that wasn't true, ergo, anything not refuted by Mueller must be true.

There's no basis to conclude any such thing -- it doesn't logically follow a priori, and there's no particular evidence to support the idea.

If that's what you choose to believe, faulty as it is, then that's what you'll do. But this smarmy "Republicans MUST believe this, too" is really shoddy. You should have the guts just to say that it's what YOU hope is true.

Similarly, in your point 2), you act as though it's impossible that a) the Mueller investigation is "illegal" (which I don't believe) and even out to destroy Trump at the same time as b) Carr's statement is true, or indeed anything that comes out of the Mueller investigation is untrue. Again, this logically doesn't follow; it can be an illegal witch hunt at the same time as producing true things. This is you, again, trying trap Republicans into something you personally hope is true, rather than just saying it's what you personally hope.

I would point out that you, Cardinal, spent a great deal of time running down Michael Cohen as a liar, which of course he is, but you, Cardinal, have taken a great deal of what he's said since he "flipped" as Gospel, and even by the terms of this post are prepared to take his testimony on February 7 as Gospel IF he says Trump directed him to lie to Congress. So you, Cardinal, are guilty of the exact sort of thing you're trying to pin on "Republicans" here, and you're even doing it in the same post.

Perhaps you'd like to go on record re: Cohen now -- if he denies in his testimony that Trump directed him to lie to Congress, will you take that as the end of the matter?

Or, perhaps you wouldn't like to, which I find more likeLY.

 

[Mach]

What I found odd about the Buzzfeed reporting is that we already had this discussion when Cohen was charged, this was all brought up months ago.
He plead to lying..which was a strange thing where it was a separate filing and felt like they were laying groundwork...getting it "on the books" so to speak, for something down the line. But we had no idea if/what/when. (this was also highlighted last night, I had forgotten but remembered it all when they mentioned it). Remember this? Did Trump tell him, was the big speculation/hope, but Cohen clearly rejected it...we we're kind of left hanging..what did this filing mean. Filed away for "we'll see this later" is what I assumed.

But Cohen was explicit:

Cohen confessed in his guilty plea that he lied to Congress about the Moscow real estate deal he pursued on Trump’s behalf during the heat of the 2016 Republican campaign. He said he lied to be consistent with Trump’s “political messaging.”

Now, this was NOT part of the court filing, so he could conceivable lie or have been asked to lie *to the public*, for some sort of investigative secret strategy. Or, he could be right.
I recall during all of that, with Flynn AND Cohen having done similar things (along with others!), that the idea of having taken Trump's lead in lying about it, seemed plausible. I mean, they wanted to keep their jobs and felt like throwing Trump under the buss was 100% a firing. Lying...all with the same story, just a *chance* they get in trouble. But POTUS may pardon? Rationalization I could imagine.
It coudl also be done as part of a conspiracy to lie...and also potentially suborning perjury, but the strongest evidence right now is that they did it to fit in. Bad leaders compel people to do bad things, even without having to tell them.

if the sources actually gave buzzfeed news a fake story, then i don't see a need to protect their anonymity. let's see who they are and get the backstory.

Chilling effect.
Burning bridges.
I don't think it will be in their best interest, that might hurt their reputation more than the flak from this (if it doesn't pan out).

 

[Helix]

I think we're all just spinning our wheels on this incident until February 7. I don't think it's likely we'll learn more before then.

i don't think that Cohen's testimony before congress will be exceptionally meaningful. if this story is actually false, let's find out more about who the sources are and why they lied. if they did, the credibility of Buzzfeed News is gone, and i would guess that they have some desire to explain themselves.

 

[MovingPictures]

Yesterday, Buzzfeed released a seemingly credible article alleging that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. This was a groundbreaking story and would have meant that Trump committed a Federal crime. Later in the day, Peter Carr, a spokesperson for the Special Counsel office, took the unusual step of refuting the story.

“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.”

Buzzfeed stood by its story while Republicans gleefully latched onto the spokesperson's dismissal of the article.

What have we learned?

1)Buzzfeed may not be ready for the big times. By this, I mean that they may not be ready to be used as a breaking news source in the Breaking News MSM section. Maybe their sources aren't good. Maybe their sources are so niche that nobody else is able to confirm their claims. Either way, this is, to my knowledge, the third time that a major Buzzfeed article fizzled out in the space of a year. A President can lie 8000 times, but a news outlet can't afford to get it wrong even once.

As Maggie Haberman said, it does happen that an article isn't credibly verified for months, and it may be that everything Buzzfeed has ever published ultimately turns out to be true and everybody will be eating their condemnation of them. It's been argued that Carr wasn't necessarily refuting the specific claim in the article, but who can know for sure? Whatever the case, it's wise to stick with traditional outlets such as the Washington Post and the New York Times until we're more certain.

2)Republicans believe Mueller. Despite their frequently stated claims that he's conducting an illegal witch hunt and is out to destroy Trump, what they demonstrated yesterday is that underneath that facade they know Mueller is believable and trustworthy. I've suspected this for a long time, but to see them validate that suspicion so quickly and unanimously was...really something. And all of this means that...

3)By extension, they believe all the other stories that have come out by credible newspapers about Trump, such as his business dealings, his crimes, his lies and his ethics violations, despite all their exclamations about "fake news." The Special Counsel office has never come out to publicly refute a news story until now. If Republicans trust Mueller, then they trust that he would have refuted any of the other news articles had they been false.

The first point may not necessarily matter. Or it will. Either way, we'll find out on February 7 when Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee. On that day one of the Congressmen will ask Cohen straight-out if Trump ordered him to lie to Congress. Cohen's answer will either validate Buzzfeed, or it will make yesterday Buzzfeed's Al Capone vault moment, relegating them to the dustbin of history.

My hunch is that there's more to the 'Trump Tower Moscow' project than what is currently known, as that seems to be indicated in court documents.

But, it's clear Buzzfeed screwed the pooch. They reported hearsay "evidence" without seeing the documents first hand, and put too much faith in whoever their source was - which clearly wasn't the Mueller team.

 

[Lutherf]

You just disputed the integrity of his investigation right there. But if you accepted Carr's statement yesterday then you respect the integrity of his investigation. I can't tell if you're simply unaware of your contradiction or if you're just trolling. Either way, whatever.

Hmm...I believe that an honest man can do an honest job for dishonest people.

 

[MovingPictures]

if the sources actually gave buzzfeed news a fake story, then i don't see a need to protect their anonymity. let's see who they are and get the backstory.

Agreed.

If the final report does not include this episode, the source should and likely will be revealed.

 

[Helix]

What I found odd about the Buzzfeed reporting is that we already had this discussion when Cohen was charged, this was all brought up months ago.
He plead to lying..which was a strange thing where it was a separate filing and felt like they were laying groundwork...getting it "on the books" so to speak, for something down the line. But we had no idea if/what/when. (this was also highlighted last night, I had forgotten but remembered it all when they mentioned it). Remember this? Did Trump tell him, was the big speculation/hope, but Cohen clearly rejected it...we we're kind of left hanging..what did this filing mean. Filed away for "we'll see this later" is what I assumed.

But Cohen was explicit:


Now, this was NOT part of the court filing, so he could conceivable lie or have been asked to lie *to the public*, for some sort of investigative secret strategy. Or, he could be right.
I recall during all of that, with Flynn AND Cohen having done similar things (along with others!), that the idea of having taken Trump's lead in lying about it, seemed plausible. I mean, they wanted to keep their jobs and felt like throwing Trump under the buss was 100% a firing. Lying...all with the same story, just a *chance* they get in trouble. But POTUS may pardon? Rationalization I could imagine.
It coudl also be done as part of a conspiracy to lie...and also potentially suborning perjury, but the strongest evidence right now is that they did it to fit in. Bad leaders compel people to do bad things, even without having to tell them.



Chilling effect.
Burning bridges.
I don't think it will be in their best interest, that might hurt their reputation more than the flak from this (if it doesn't pan out).

Buzzfeed News is toast anyway if the story is false. let's see the sources and examine their motivation for lying, if they actually did lie.

 

[HumblePi]

The denial is kind of weirdly worded. It does not say that the article is exactly wrong, just that Buzzfeed's characterizations of the documents and statements were inaccurate. I am willing to wait to see what the correct characterizations of what Cohen said and what documents show at the end of the Mueller investigation. I do not know if this is Mueller stating do not try and guess what we have, or if it was some kind of leak that Mueller is trying to plug.

This is my viewpoint also. Mueller's spokesman said: "Buzzfeed's "characterization of documents and testimony" in the report is "not accurate". Like you said that's not really saying it's not true. It's very narrow language and not a total denial, it went along the edges.

In Mueller's own words in the sentencing memo; "The information provided by Cohen about the Moscow Project in these proffer sessions is consistent with and corroborated by other information obtained in the course of the SCO's investigation"

We can glean more of what the Mueller's investigation obtained from Michael Cohen which prompted their appeal to the court before sentencing, to go easy on him and the special counsel recommended no prison for him. Anyone can read this document here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5453418-Mueller-Cohen-filing.html

This is the paragraph that got my attention.

 

[Mr Person]

With all due respect, while those things may be what YOU learned I don't think they're necessarily what WE learned.

Nobody has had any real reason to discredit Mueller's honesty. What a lot of us are questioning is the purpose of his investigation. He was engaged by a highly biased political class to "investigate" the newly elected president. The obvious reason for that investigation was to find a reason to impeach Trump. There was no other reason to engage a special counsel.

Muellers investigation began on May 17, 2017. Mueller is a republican appointed by a republican overseen by a republican, a prosecutor with a sterling career and reputation. There was every reason to investigate the campaign given how they surrounded themselves with criminal scum who committed Russia-related crimes and given how intent Trump was on claiming that the whole Russian thing was a hoax (before admitting there were attempts to interfere).

The investigation is just as broad as every special counsel investigation, thanks to the CFR.

Stop lying in a bid to deflect.

The one thing WE all did learn from this is that "Fake News" damned sure does exist and that Donald Trump definitely isn't misleading when he makes that assertion.

No. What we learned was that politics will be hopelessly broken so long as Trump supporters are willing to tell any lie to try to *get* the left, and we also learned that "so long" is increasingly likely to be forever.