- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 106,265
- Reaction score
- 97,652
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Hmm...I believe that an honest man can do an honest job for dishonest people.
Trump supporters will say anything.
Hmm...I believe that an honest man can do an honest job for dishonest people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
cool. well, let's see who lied and why.
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.
Irrelevant rat-hole tangent post! Respond to at your own peril!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.