Trump calls release of BuzzFeed report 'a sad day for journalism'; Giuliani urges DOJ pursuit of lea

[JackA]

The statement from the Mueller investigation simply said the article was "NOT ACCURATE".

What part of the story - a small part, a large part, or all of it, was not specified so there is no way of saying anything specific beyond what the Mueller statement told us.

The story was “not accurate” both as to the assertion that Cohen told Mueller he was asked by Trump to lie and to the assertion that Mueller possessed other evidence that Cohen was asked by Trump to lie. So said the statement. BuzzFeed continues to say otherwise. But there is really no question about the meaning of Mueller’s statement.

 

[holbritter]

No. They said the story was NOT ACCURATE.

We do not know if it was mostly accurate but inaccurate in part.

We do not know if it was mostly inaccurate but had a bit of accuracy in it.

We do not know if it was 100% inaccurate.

We do not know if it was 90% accurate.

Or pick any numbers in between.

All we know from the Mueller statement is the story was not accurate.

Do you hold this standard for all statements and stories from anyone? What's the percentage of accuracy before you consider it false?

 

[marke]

Although there are already many threads about the Buzzfeed article, this seems to be a good place to discuss the idea that it is "bunk".

I don't think so. To say it is "bunk", to me, is to say it is wholly incorrect.

I was one of the first "NeverTrumpers" (a membership I proudly claim) on DP to urge caution over the Buzzfeed article.

That said, it is too quick to call it "bunk" based on the statement from Mueller's team. It seems they did take issue with a statement about them, and the only thing you can find for that is indeed in the main claim: that Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress.

Now, that is big if that is untrue. It is the whole premise of the new calls to start impeachment proceedings.

However, if he were told to lie by someone in Trump's orbit, that is still a big deal. Not a big deal for Trump, but someone else. So big if true.

Buzzfeed did screw up here. Until proven otherwise, I'm trusting them now just a little more than The Conservative Treehouse or Gateway Pundit or anything by streiff over at Red State. When you start implicating the president in a crime, you better have the goods.

No goods here. Fail, but still not necessarily "bunk".

Buzzfeed style reporting: "Trump murders little girl and drinks her blood! Details at eleven." Other leftist fake news organizations pick up the lie and publish it in their own rags, being careful to warn: "Certain details are not yet verified but if this story turns out to be true it is the worst evidence of Trump's criminal behavior ever to surface and he clearly needs to go to jail. Experts say Trump is acting suspiciously guilty by insisting he did not do that."

 

[holbritter]

No, its not accurate as set forth. That does not make it total bunk.

I am not trying to sell this as true, I am merely stating that you trying to sell it as a total fabrication is not true. Since Mueller's office said its not accurate, they did specifically did not offer a more global dismissal. They could have. Attorney's tend to be very precise in their language.... the message in their statement is don't take the BuzzFeed report as truth as elements of it are either not true or misleading.... likely dealing with the hard evidence backing up the claim as.....

What Buzzfeed is reporting is consistent with much of what we know about Trump's behavior, Cohen's behavior and their relationship. We know Cohen lied to Congress and has lied on behalf of and at the behest of Trump in the past. We also know that Trump has no problem not telling the truth. It is not an off-the-wall story by any means. The crux of this is whether Trump commanded Cohen to lie and what hard evidence actually exists to support this.

In fact the Buzzfeed reporters are top shelf. While they aren't the NYT, they are a reputable 3rd tier news organization. There is likely a fair amount of truth in the report, just not enough to say "this is so, let's impeach."

In essence, we ain't there yet, but most likely (based upon all of the other stuff we know), we will be.

Does this apply at all times?

 

[haymarket]

The story was “not accurate” both as to the assertion that Cohen told Mueller he was asked by Trump to lie and to the assertion that Mueller possessed other evidence that Cohen was asked by Trump to lie. So said the statement. BuzzFeed continues to say otherwise. But there is really no question about the meaning of Mueller’s statement.

Where are you getting this additional information from?

 

[haymarket]

Do you hold this standard for all statements and stories from anyone? What's the percentage of accuracy before you consider it false?

Were discussing the Mueller statement. And we do not know how accurate or inaccurate it was. It is beyond foolish to speculate about percentages at this point.

 

[JackA]

Where are you getting this additional information from?

The statement itself.

 

[haymarket]

The statement itself.

All the statement says is the report was NOT ACCURATE. It appears that made the rest of it up.

Quote Originally Posted by JackA View Post
The story was “not accurate” both as to the assertion that Cohen told Mueller he was asked by Trump to lie and to the assertion that Mueller possessed other evidence that Cohen was asked by Trump to lie. So said the statement. BuzzFeed continues to say otherwise. But there is really no question about the meaning of Mueller’s statement.

You went much much further than the Mueller statement went.

 

[JackA]

All the statement says is the report was NOT ACCURATE. It appears that made the rest of it up.



You went much much further than the Mueller statement went.

Well, not accurate means not accurate. The statement said BuzzFeed’s “characterization” (an all encompassing word) of Choen’s claim and of the existence of other evidence in support of the claim were “not accurate.” I don’t see how this can be read as anything other than a blanket denial.

It is true that Trump acquiesced in the lie by not contradicting Cohen.

 

[haymarket]

Well, not accurate means not accurate. The statement said BuzzFeed’s “characterization” (an all encompassing word) of Choen’s claim and of the existence of other evidence in support of the claim were “not accurate.” I don’t see how this can be read as anything other than a blanket denial.

It is true that Trump acquiesced in the lie by not contradicting Cohen.

Let us see what the Google Definition of ACCURATE is

ac·cu·rate
/ˈakyərət/Submit
adjective
1.
(of information, measurements, statistics, etc.) correct in all details; exact.
"accurate information about the illness is essential"
synonyms: correct, precise, exact, right, errorless, error-free, without error, faultless, perfect, valid, specific, detailed, minute, explicit, clear-cut, word for word, unambiguous, meticulous, authoritative, reliable, canonical;

So all we know is that the Buzzfeed story contained something was not correct in all its details which made it less that perfect, less than faultless and had error in it. We do NOT know how much less than perfect it was or the extent or what exactly the error was.

 

[TheParser]

President Trump, of course, is 100% right about it being a sad day. In reality, it's been a sad two years for American "journalism."


Genuine journalism no longer exists in the United States.


It's all propaganda.

It seems that real journalism exists only in some foreign countries where journalists risk their lives to bring the truth to serious readers/viewers.

(The straw that broke the camel's back is, of course, the "news" about those secondary students and the Native American. If the students had not been wearing MAGA hats, the media would not have given them the time of the day.)

 

[JackA]

Let us see what the Google Definition of ACCURATE is



So all we know is that the Buzzfeed story contained something was not correct in all its details which made it less that perfect, less than faultless and had error in it. We do NOT know how much less than perfect it was or the extent or what exactly the error was.

Fair point. But if BuzzFeed was accurate in a material part of its reporting, the Mueller statement was “cute by half”, as the saying goes, which hasn’t been Mueller’s style.

 

[tres borrachos]

Why don't we all just wait until the Mueller investigation is complete, which is what most of us have been saying all along?

This thread is a combination of "witch hunt", "MSM is enemy of the people", "Trump is innocent" and "Trump is guilty".

Nobody knows anything, Mueller isn't obligated to tell us anything, and nobody has any clue which parts of the story were true and which were false and which were mischaracterized and so on.

 

[haymarket]

Fair point. But if BuzzFeed was accurate in a material part of its reporting, the Mueller statement was “cute by half”, as the saying goes, which hasn’t been Mueller’s style.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not know if Mueller has established any style in these matters as to the best of my recollections, they are loathe to say anything about media reports of what they are investigating. Perhaps they did and I do not recall it.

I do not know this - and its only surmise on my part - but my best guess is that Mueller saw the really savage reports that the story got from mainstream media with loud talk of IMPEACHMENT and talks of House investigations to proceed and not wait for the report - and he very much wants to be driving this semi-truck and is not willing to had over the wheel to anyone else right now. So they issued their rather terse statement and let people do with it what the will.

I also think it was a bit machiavellian of him since it was favorably received by Trump and gains him some breathing space in that regard. And with the constant speculation about his possible firing, that is a wise move on his part and does not compromise him in the least.

 

[haymarket]

Why don't we all just wait until the Mueller investigation is complete, which is what most of us have been saying all along?

This thread is a combination of "witch hunt", "MSM is enemy of the people", "Trump is innocent" and "Trump is guilty".

Nobody knows anything, Mueller isn't obligated to tell us anything, and nobody has any clue which parts of the story were true and which were false and which were mischaracterized and so on.

The other day I watched a Cyndi Lauper concert on AXIOS - she sang "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" - which I always liked. I think that is the answer to your question.... but in this case it applies to boys also.

 

[JackA]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not know if Mueller has established any style in these matters as to the best of my recollections, they are loathe to say anything about media reports of what they are investigating. Perhaps they did and I do not recall it.

I do not know this - and its only surmise on my part - but my best guess is that Mueller saw the really savage reports that the story got from mainstream media with loud talk of IMPEACHMENT and talks of House investigations to proceed and not wait for the report - and he very much wants to be driving this semi-truck and is not willing to had over the wheel to anyone else right now. So they issued their rather terse statement and let people do with it what the will.

I also think it was a bit machiavellian of him since it was favorably received by Trump and gains him some breathing space in that regard. And with the constant speculation about his possible firing, that is a wise move on his part and does not compromise him in the least.

That’s right. Mueller’s style has been tight lipped and playing the book. Certainly not “Machiavellian”. To issue a misleading statement would be out of character, and if any material part of BuzzFeed’s story was accurate, then Mueller’s one word, blanket characterization is misleading.

 

[haymarket]

That’s right. Mueller’s style has been tight lipped and playing the book. Certainly not “Machiavellian”. To issue a misleading statement would be out of character, and if any material part of BuzzFeed’s story was accurate, then Mueller’s one word, blanket characterization is misleading.

I don't think it is misleading since it is so sparse and short. All it says is the Buzzfeed report is NOT ACCURATE. Anything else is people filling in the blanks and that is on them.

 

[yankintx]

No one knows with the exception of Cohen, Mueller's team, SDNY, and Trump.

We may learn more when Cohen testifies in front of the House Commitee. I do believe its time Mueller show his hand, he has had 18 months.

 

[upsideguy]

Does this apply at all times?

sorry, I don't buy in to simple statements. You do have to realize that accuracy and truth are different things. Accuracy implies precision; truth implies fair representation. Something that is woefully inaccurate is not likely truthful, but truthful statements do not have to be accurate.

I put up several illustrations in this thread, but another good illustration is the auditing professional. Firms like Ernst & Young* (where I began my career) PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte & Touche and KPMG, are multi-billion dollar businesses who's core service is the attestation function of financial statements. They do not opine on the accuracy of the statements, but the fairness of the statements taken as a whole. Truth in their world is less than accurate.


* - by the way, the claim that I started at Ernst & Young is not accurate, they were Ernst & Whinney at the time. Come to think of it, I actually worked as an intern for KPMG in college, wait they were Peat Marwick Mitchell at the time. Yes, and my first two years out of school were with the NY office of KPMG...wait, that actually was KMG, which had yet to merge with Peat Marwick to become KPMG, and KMG was really MainHurdman in the states, but I was hired by Main LaFrantz, which later became MainHurdman. Of course, I also had odd jobs in college, so would it be more accurate to say I started my career as a busboy at the AmericanaInn? That would be more accurate.... see how that works You see, sometimes accuracy is not a desirable goal.

Suffice to say, I started my career at Ernst & Young. It is more truth than the accurate statement as the statement is clear and informative. Its not truth when the statement is misleading.

 

[Vern]

Looks like the BuzzFeed story was total bunk. It was debunked by Mueller, himself...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...-botched-report-alleging-he-told-cohen-to-lie

I think "total bunk" may be a bit strong. Trump has been caught lying about the Moscow tower. I would consider this a better example of "total bunk" because everybody knew it was false when you posted it

Criminal referral backs up Nunes on dossier claims, as Dems push rebuttal memo | Fox News


This is just going to keep getting worse until all of the source documents are revealed and transcripts of the proceedings are all made public. The way I see it there are only two possible outcomes and neither of them is good. Either the FISA court was misled about the evidence presented to grant the warrant or the threshold which must be met for such a warrant to be granted needs a thorough and complete overhaul.

Seriously, is anyone comfortable with a system which allows the work of political agents doing opposition research to be considered as credible evidence worthy of granting a warrant authorizing government surveillance of U.S. citizens? This is crazy!

Yea, a criminal referral from a GOP senator in no way backed up anything Nunes said. We already knew nunes was a liar and trump stooge (trump stooge 1). the funny thing is he's the one that debunked the lying conservative narrative that "the Russia investigation started because of the dossier".

 

[Jack Fabulous]

I think "total bunk" may be a bit strong. Trump has been caught lying about the Moscow tower. I would consider this a better example of "total bunk" because everybody knew it was false when you posted it



Yea, a criminal referral from a GOP senator in no way backed up anything Nunes said. We already knew nunes was a liar and trump stooge (trump stooge 1). the funny thing is he's the one that debunked the lying conservative narrative that "the Russia investigation started because of the dossier".

There is no amount of spin that you can put on what I said that makes it untrue, Vern. The FISA court was never told.

What is even funnier is the fact that you dug that quote up in an attempt to deflect from the fact that BuzzFeed and large swaths of the MSM got caught with their fly open.

 

[Anthony60]

I don't think it is misleading since it is so sparse and short. All it says is the Buzzfeed report is NOT ACCURATE. Anything else is people filling in the blanks and that is on them.

Mueller had to do something, otherwise he and his gang are open to a leak investigation. That's the last thing he wants. His hand was forced.

 

[Vern]

There is no amount of spin that you can put on what I said that makes it untrue, Vern. The FISA court was never told.

What is even funnier is the fact that you dug that quote up in an attempt to deflect from the fact that BuzzFeed and large swaths of the MSM got caught with their fly open.

Jack, I dug up that quote because I wanted you to see exactly what total bunk looks like. See how you're whining about it instead of addressing it. And I don't really know what you think you're referring to with "The FISA court was never told". You seem to think you've rebutted something I've posted. Let make this simple for you. Here's your dear leader tweeting the official lying conservative narrative that the dossier started the Russia investgation

Remember it was Buzzfeed that released the totally discredited “Dossier,” paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the Democrats (as opposition research), on which the entire Russian probe is based! A very sad day for journalism, but a great day for our Country!

Here's where "trump stooge 1" told us that Papadopolous was the reason for the investigation

The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/372022-read-the-controversial-memo-just-released-by-republicans
https://thehill.com/policy/national...ulos-info-triggered-fbis-russia-investigation

see how my points are clear, non whiny, and backed up. I guess I shouldn't brag. What I do is easy because I'm posting facts.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Jack, I dug up that quote because I wanted you to see exactly what total bunk looks like. See how you're whining about it instead of addressing it. And I don't really know what you think you're referring to with "The FISA court was never told". You seem to think you've rebutted something I've posted. Let make this simple for you. Here's your dear leader tweeting the official lying conservative narrative that the dossier started the Russia investgation

Remember it was Buzzfeed that released the totally discredited “Dossier,” paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the Democrats (as opposition research), on which the entire Russian probe is based! A very sad day for journalism, but a great day for our Country!

Here's where "trump stooge 1" told us that Papadopolous was the reason for the investigation

The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/372022-read-the-controversial-memo-just-released-by-republicans
https://thehill.com/policy/national...ulos-info-triggered-fbis-russia-investigation

see how my points are clear, non whiny, and backed up. I guess I shouldn't brag. What I do is easy because I'm posting facts.

All of this because you find it inconvenient that the FISA court was never told about the origins of the intelligence used to secure a surveillance warrant for Carter Page? Is that it, or are you just disappointed that BuzzFeed got it wrong and impeachment hearings won't be getting under way any time soon?

Look at the bright side... at least now you know how Charlie Brown felt every time Lucy snatched the ball away at the last instant.

 

[Vern]

All of this because you find it inconvenient that the FISA court was never told about the origins of the intelligence used to secure a surveillance warrant for Carter Page? Is that it, or are you just disappointed that BuzzFeed got it wrong and impeachment hearings won't be getting under way any time soon?

Jsck, I'm aware of the "backup" false conservative narrative concerning the FISA warrant. It has nothing to do with anything I've posted. It doesn't even have anything to do with the previous thread you started that showed everybody what "total bunk" looks like. Jack, try to make a clear point when you reply. thanks in advance.