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

[RAMOSS]

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.

The near silence, except when there are indictments, is what makes me trust him to give the facts

 

[JackA]

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.

More likely the sources are informants. Given Buzzfeed’s fine record you can be sure there are sources.

 

[azgreg]

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.

Not necessarily. Remember, it was SDNY that raided Cohen's office and hotel room. They could have come across this information then. I will admit though that at this time it doesn't look good for BuzzFeed and might be sometime before we know for sure.

 

[JackA]

Buzzfeed is still standing by their article, directly challenging the Special Counsel’s office. Interesting.

But not very surprising considering the ruinous alternative. Also, BuzzFeed’s solid reputation (its work has earned a Pulitzer) is reason to not dismiss them lightly.

I retract my earlier comments as to the limited reach of Mueller’s denial and Lanny Davis’s confirmation. Davis only said, “the story stands on its own.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-bombshell-report_us_5c43dc2fe4b027c3bbc26244

 

[cabse5]

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.

Come on. Don't you think Mueller already knows that answer and would've pressed Cohen to get Trump? If Mueller didn't, he's incompetent.