• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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.

Why should Buzzfeed, something I have never gone to or looked at, be toast from one wrong article. It that is so, why should not every network, including CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, all be toast. They have all run big stories that turned out to be wrong. And what id the story is true, but that the person feeding Buzzfeed the info have mischaracterized the documents and statements.
 
Why should Buzzfeed, something I have never gone to or looked at, be toast from one wrong article. It that is so, why should not every network, including CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, all be toast. They have all run big stories that turned out to be wrong. And what id the story is true, but that the person feeding Buzzfeed the info have mischaracterized the documents and statements.

if your organization posts a potentially groundbreaking article that is demonstrably false, that does a lot to destroy your credibility. if it's false, let's hear the backstory.
 
Why should Buzzfeed, something I have never gone to or looked at, be toast from one wrong article. It that is so, why should not every network, including CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, all be toast. They have all run big stories that turned out to be wrong. And what id the story is true, but that the person feeding Buzzfeed the info have mischaracterized the documents and statements.

It isn't one article. Buzzfeed has twice published the Prague meeting as being a known thing, which went unconfirmed and fizzled out.

Again, per my first point, it may be as Haberman says a true article that is only confirmed far down the road. But this marks a pattern for them and if only for now, makes them unsafe to use as a source, especially since the claims in these articles are so large in scale.

I don't know exactly what's going on at Buzzfeed, but they're clearly not practicing the same journalistic practices that are used over at WaPo and NYTimes, and it's getting them in trouble.
 
Last edited:
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.


There is even a good chance that Cohen won't show up for said hearing. (grin)

Reuters reported 2 days ago that his lawyer commented to the press:

"... Lanny Davis, an attorney who has been advising Cohen on his media strategy, said in an interview with MSNBC that some remarks made by the Republican president about Cohen amounted to witness tampering and deserved to be criminally investigated.

“There is genuine fear and it has caused Michael Cohen to consider whether he should go forward or not, and he has not made a final decision,” Davis said. ..."


A day after that statement, Cohen shows up with a sling around one arm, claiming he had shoulder surgery.

Claiming genuine fear, ever-lasting pain from a recent shoulder surgery and now Mueller's comment ... I can see where Cohen might be a no-show. :lol:
 
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 we'll learn then. Its already been discussed that Cohen won't likely be able to answer any questions that would touch the Mueller investigation.
 
if your organization posts a potentially groundbreaking article that is demonstrably false, that does a lot to destroy your credibility. if it's false, let's hear the backstory.

Well, it's not accurate (yet) to call the article "demonstrably false," but having the Special Counsel come out of a self-imposed media blackout to say that the characterization of the evidence in your article is "inaccurate" certainly isn't encouraging.
 
I don't think we'll learn then. Its already been discussed that Cohen won't likely be able to answer any questions that would touch the Mueller investigation.

Yeah, but "I can't answer that question in an open hearing" is sort of telling, too.
 
There is even a good chance that Cohen won't show up for said hearing. (grin)

Reuters reported 2 days ago that his lawyer commented to the press:

"... Lanny Davis, an attorney who has been advising Cohen on his media strategy, said in an interview with MSNBC that some remarks made by the Republican president about Cohen amounted to witness tampering and deserved to be criminally investigated.

“There is genuine fear and it has caused Michael Cohen to consider whether he should go forward or not, and he has not made a final decision,” Davis said. ..."


A day after that statement, Cohen shows up with a sling around one arm, claiming he had shoulder surgery.

Claiming genuine fear, ever-lasting pain from a recent shoulder surgery and now Mueller's comment ... I can see where Cohen might be a no-show. :lol:

As far a witness tampering, Trump continues too put his toe up to the line, but maybe not far enough to actually be found guilty of anything. Just like his saying on TV that he had the Russian thing on his mind when firing Comey. Is that enough to prove intent of obstruction, maybe, maybe not. He is not the sharpest tack in the box, but he is sly enough to know how far to go in his tweeting or comments.
 
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.

In regard to #2, the Mueller team's refutation of the specific claim that Trump instructed Cohen to lie to Congress has little to do with whatever they might claim regarding Russia. It is in their interest not to have the public jumping to conclusions and clamoring for them to confirm every rumor that somebody spreads.

On #3, when did it become Mueller's job to refute every salacious news story about Trump, particularly those having nothing to do with Russian collusion? Mueller is not the traffic cop for the media. It's why they have news directors and editors.
 
Well, it's not accurate (yet) to call the article "demonstrably false," but having the Special Counsel come out of a self-imposed media blackout to say that the characterization of the evidence in your article is "inaccurate" certainly isn't encouraging.

cool. well, let's see who lied and why.
 
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.

It is worded exactly as they wanted to word it. Unquestionably every word of that carefully worded statement was gone over with a fine tooth comb. If its weird it was because it was intended to be weird.
 
In regard to #2, the Mueller team's refutation of the specific claim that Trump instructed Cohen to lie to Congress has little to do with whatever they might claim regarding Russia. It is in their interest not to have the public jumping to conclusions and clamoring for them to confirm every rumor that somebody spreads.

On #3, when did it become Mueller's job to refute every salacious news story about Trump, particularly those having nothing to do with Russian collusion? Mueller is not the traffic cop for the media. It's why they have news directors and editors.

Um...that's the point. In nearly two years, this is the only time the Special Counsel felt it necessary to refute a news article related to the Special Counsel investigation. How did you miss that?

And of course, after two years of slamming the Special Counsel, Republicans have shown that they trusted him all this time.
 
cool. well, let's see who lied and why.

Everything...for now!...is sufficiently vague that concluding that anybody lied is premature.
 
Everything...for now!...is sufficiently vague that concluding that anybody lied is premature.

it appears that someone did. i want to know who and why.
 
it appears that someone did. i want to know who and why.

Even the two Buzzfeed reporters in the byline have contradicted each other on the issue of corroboration. So while I hate to dig a deeper hole for them than they have dug for themselves, yea....somebody is lying. They got out over their skis in a big way. I am not even sure they understood that the immediate reaction from pols in DC would be:
- we need the Mueller report now
and
- impeach now

And suddenly Buzzfeed was in the middle of a Buzzsaw that they should have seen coming before it was slicing them off at the knees.
 
Even the two Buzzfeed reporters in the byline have contradicted each other on the issue of corroboration. So while I hate to dig a deeper hole for them than they have dug for themselves, yea....somebody is lying. They got out over their skis in a big way. I am not even sure they understood that the immediate reaction from pols in DC would be:
- we need the Mueller report now
and
- impeach now

And suddenly Buzzfeed was in the middle of a Buzzsaw that they should have seen coming before it was slicing them off at the knees.

the Mueller report will come when it comes. as for impeachment, i don't see it under most circumstances. we're operating under the cult model now, and no crime will rise to the level of 2/3 of the senate voting to convict.
 
Irrelevant rat-hole tangent post! Respond to at your own peril!

tenor.gif

He was responding directly to something you said in your post. How is that "irrelevant"? What you said in your post was germane to your point, so it wasn't an irrelevant tangent, and neither is his response to it.

Do you think by simply ignoring things you don't want to talk about, they aren't really there? Sometimes it really seems that way.
 
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.

We have learned that Mueller needs to say whether the president is under criminal investigation. If so, for what and the evidence he has which supports the belief. Otherwise, we will keep having this kind of Buzzfeed stuff, which is to the detriment of the country.

A statement by Cohen to Congress affirming the story is not a substitute. Cohen, after all, is a convicted perjurer and to Congress at that.
 
Even the two Buzzfeed reporters in the byline have contradicted each other on the issue of corroboration. So while I hate to dig a deeper hole for them than they have dug for themselves, yea....somebody is lying. They got out over their skis in a big way. I am not even sure they understood that the immediate reaction from pols in DC would be:
- we need the Mueller report now
and
- impeach now

And suddenly Buzzfeed was in the middle of a Buzzsaw that they should have seen coming before it was slicing them off at the knees.

we don't need the report now.
But we do need to know now whether the president is under criminal investigation, and for what crime. and the evidence which exists which supports that belief.
 
Um...that's the point. In nearly two years, this is the only time the Special Counsel felt it necessary to refute a news article related to the Special Counsel investigation. How did you miss that?

And of course, after two years of slamming the Special Counsel, Republicans have shown that they trusted him all this time.

The Buzzfeed story could have only come from theMueller investigation. That is not the case with respect to other stories.
The way to look at is that Mueller is trying to keep his 'no leak' reputation intact.
 
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.

No, what we learned is that the Fake News/Lyng left got caught promoting yet, another "WE GOT TRUMP NOW!!!" ,lie, and the Special Counsel wanted to distance himself from it before Barr takes over...because Mueller's days of "anything he feels like, dancers, MMA fighters, Trump's 3rd grade soccer coach, etc., ad nauseum " under Rod ,The FISA ABUSE CO-CONSPIRATOR Rosenstein, are DECIDEDLY OVER. Big Time.
 
Buzzfeed is still standing by their article, directly challenging the Special Counsel’s office. Interesting.
 
Last edited:
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.

Buzzfeed reported that Mueller possessed documentary evidence that Trump asked Cohen to lie and this appears to be what Mueller said is “incorrect”, not that Cohen isn’t claiming he was asked to lie. Lenny Davis, who represents Cohen, confirmed this is Cohen’s claim in a television interview after the Buzzfeed story appeared.
 
Back
Top Bottom