Mueller's investigation

User avatar
Sluffy1
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 4:35 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7801

Post by Sluffy1 » Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:55 am

This remind me of and feels like Comey on Hillary just before the election.
I'm hoping it's a minor detail... a big fat nothingberder

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 32062
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7802

Post by Addie » Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:34 am

I agree. Since Ben Smith took over the news section, it's been about serious investigative reporting. Their work alone on global Russian money laundering and related state-sanctioned murders, deserves a Pulitzer.
HST's Ghost wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:12 am
Buzzfeed always seems associated with click-bait listicles but their news section is serious and seriously edited AFAIK...and one of the reporters on the article in question won a Pullitzer two years ago...

User avatar
Danraft
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7803

Post by Danraft » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:17 am

I've had a bit,of exposure to Leopold. He is a FOIA fixated machine and there is much to learn from him there. But, the breadth of his inquiries and the random appearance of the responses to his requests and appeals to responses, as well as the specific knowledge needed to interpret the responses and the redactions, obviate any expectation of him being a trusted source of meaning.

I hope that makes sense.

He is generally considered a "source" more than a reporter. He is prolific and valuable to Buzzfeed.
The Mercury Project

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 5988
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7804

Post by Slim Cognito » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:50 am

If only Mueller had used the Politifact register. Is the mischaracterized stuff half true or pants on fire wrong? The way I see it, if you disregard the Buzz Feed story, we haven't lost any ground. It's not like Mueller stated everything regarding Cohen is worthless. We're back to the same spot we were a week ago, and that's still not good for trump. We've still got the *Manafort gave info to the Russians* story, the one that caused Rudy to change his story to "I never said the campaign didn't collude," and there's a decent chance the raid at PM's house uncovered a link to trump.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15473
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7805

Post by Reality Check » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:00 am

IMO this tepid, cleverly worded statement about one article by the Office of the Special Counsel is not going to stop this freight train that is going downhill at a high rate of speed.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 2207
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7806

Post by p0rtia » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:14 am

Ellie Mystel nailing it on AMJoy. Bottom line: Media (pro-left media) are falling all over themselves to back track as if 45 never told a lie and Cohen wasn't working on 45's behalf.
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 2207
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7807

Post by p0rtia » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:15 am

Reality Check wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:00 am
IMO this tepid, cleverly worded statement about one article by the Office of the Special Counsel is not going to stop this freight train that is going downhill at a high rate of speed.
I agree about the train, but I don't think the statement is tepid. I think it is clearly saying, "No smoking gun."
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16577
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7808

Post by Suranis » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:22 am

I think it shows why Congresses statements saying "if its true..." were always very wise. And I think they should still investigate this.

But I'm not too upset either way.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15473
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7809

Post by Reality Check » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:36 am

p0rtia wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:15 am
:snippity: I agree about the train, but I don't think the statement is tepid. I think it is clearly saying, "No smoking gun."
Without more specific information I cannot really draw any conclusions about what Buzzfeed got right or wrong.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Danraft
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7810

Post by Danraft » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:51 am

Buzzfeed stands by their story. That's their entire statement.

Information wise, yes, we are back where we were.

Trust in media journalism has suffered a blow.
The Mercury Project

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 13008
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7811

Post by Kendra » Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:03 am

Reality Check wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:36 am
p0rtia wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:15 am
:snippity: I agree about the train, but I don't think the statement is tepid. I think it is clearly saying, "No smoking gun."
Without more specific information I cannot really draw any conclusions about what Buzzfeed got right or wrong.
From reading Mueller's statement, there's a part of the story that isn't 100 percent correct? Maybe something like Cohen had been told to lie, but by some other than trump and/or there's no concrete proof in writing? :confused:

Maddow, as always brought some interesting perspective on it, especially why Mueller's team made such a point of the guilty plea from Cohen for lying to congress with no prison term for that charge and maybe it's a tactical move for something else?

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10384
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7812

Post by Mikedunford » Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:21 am

The Special Counsel's statement is pretty broad. It says that "specific statements" AND the characterization of documents AND testimony were inaccurate. Add to that mix Ronan Farrow saying that he declined to run with a similar story because he had a source "central to the story" who was actively disputing the claim that Trump actively ordered Cohen to lie.

To my eye, that adds up to the crux of the Buzzfeed article - which was that the Special Counsel has testimony and documents proving that Trump ordered Cohen to lie to Congress - is probably not correct.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7813

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:27 am

Mikedunford wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:21 am
The Special Counsel's statement is pretty broad. It says that "specific statements" AND the characterization of documents AND testimony were inaccurate. Add to that mix Ronan Farrow saying that he declined to run with a similar story because he had a source "central to the story" who was actively disputing the claim that Trump actively ordered Cohen to lie.

To my eye, that adds up to the crux of the Buzzfeed article - which was that the Special Counsel has testimony and documents proving that Trump ordered Cohen to lie to Congress - is probably not correct.

The critical word here may be "proving". There may be documents that strongly suggest what is alleged.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10384
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7814

Post by Mikedunford » Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:59 am

There may be a lot of things.

But what there is consists of: (1) an anonymously sourced story by two reporters, one of whom has a bit of a mixed reputation; (2) a statement from the Special Counsel's office, which has an impeccable reputation, disputing central aspects of that story; and (3) a Tweet from a reporter with a reputation that ain't exactly shabby saying that he had declined to run with a similar story because he got pushback about the veracity of the central claim of the story from sources he trusts.

Absent further verification, I'd say that a pretty convincing case has been made that the Buzzfeed article's central claim is not correct, and not correct in important ways.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2758
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7815

Post by woodworker » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:14 pm

MikeD:

I have to disagree with you. I don't know whether the story is true or not, but I do know that over the last several years, stories which we were absolutely positively certain were wrong have turned out to be true. I am not quite ready to stick a dagger in it yet.

Also, IIRC you opined that the idea of a conspiratorial plan for Russia/Trump/Trump campaign to coordinate their activities (I may have misstated your position, and if I did, I apologize) and I think that two years most of us would have agreed that was "categorically" ridiculous. Now, no so much.
Pence / Haley -- 2020 "I Won't Call Her Mother" and "We Will Be The Best Team Ever, But Never Alone Together"

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10384
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7816

Post by Mikedunford » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:21 pm

woodworker wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:14 pm
MikeD:

I have to disagree with you. I don't know whether the story is true or not, but I do know that over the last several years, stories which we were absolutely positively certain were wrong have turned out to be true. I am not quite ready to stick a dagger in it yet.

Also, IIRC you opined that the idea of a conspiratorial plan for Russia/Trump/Trump campaign to coordinate their activities (I may have misstated your position, and if I did, I apologize) and I think that two years most of us would have agreed that was "categorically" ridiculous. Now, no so much.
There are stories that we thought were not true that turned out to be true, but I don't think we've yet had one where there was an explicit denial from a trustworthy source.

I'd also note that I'm not saying that this shows that Trump didn't order Cohen to lie - but it does cast doubt on Buzzfeed's claim, which is that the special counsel has unequivocal testimony and documentary evidence to that effect. I mostly agree with Popehat's take on the current situation. The special counsel probably thinks Trump was involved at some level prior to Cohen lying to Congress, and probably has evidence suggesting this to be true, but not at the unequivocal level of proof of Buzzfeed's claims.

As to the overall conspiracy w/ Russia:
I'm still not seeing a great deal of clear evidence of Trump's personal involvement in a conspiracy. And I think that what I've been saying for about the last 2 years is that there might have been some involvement between Russia and the campaign - Russia certainly wouldn't turn down the chance to compromise people - but that the campaign wasn't central to Russia's plans. And that there would be relatively little reason for either the campaign or Russia to directly involve Trump, because he's useless, so why bother. At least so far, I think that's still a viable option.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15473
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7817

Post by Reality Check » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:27 pm

Don't forget that Buzzfeed published the Steele Dossier, which to my knowledge has not been refuted and quite a bit of it has been verified.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 13008
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7818

Post by Kendra » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:28 pm

Just sticking this here.


One of the more interesting developments overnight is the newfound confidence Team Trump has expressed about Mueller’s integrity. After endless attacks, they suddenly embrace his honesty. I’m sure they will approach his final report with the same reverence...

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 32062
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7819

Post by Addie » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:32 pm

It's almost comical, innit? :P
Kendra wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:28 pm
Just sticking this here.


One of the more interesting developments overnight is the newfound confidence Team Trump has expressed about Mueller’s integrity. After endless attacks, they suddenly embrace his honesty. I’m sure they will approach his final report with the same reverence...

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10384
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7820

Post by Mikedunford » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:50 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:27 pm
Don't forget that Buzzfeed published the Steele Dossier, which to my knowledge has not been refuted and quite a bit of it has been verified.
I'm not bashing their overall reporting. A lot of it's been quite good. And Leopold hasn't been bad in recent years, which is why I said his reputation is "mixed." But Farrow's reputation is outstanding, Mueller's team's reputation is also outstanding, and both are challenging the core claim in this particular story.

Again, I'm not saying that the denials mean Trump didn't instruct Cohen to lie. But the core claim was that the special counsel had direct, firsthand accounts and documents proving that Trump instructed Cohen to lie, and right now it seems like there's considerably more evidence against that than in favor.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 13008
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7821

Post by Kendra » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:57 pm

Addie wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:32 pm
It's almost comical, innit? :P
Kendra wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:28 pm
Just sticking this here.

https://tw itter.com/joshscampbell/status/1086634595423059968
One of the more interesting developments overnight is the newfound confidence Team Trump has expressed about Mueller’s integrity. After endless attacks, they suddenly embrace his honesty. I’m sure they will approach his final report with the same reverence...
Yes, and not goes right over Thu heads.

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 2207
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7822

Post by p0rtia » Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:13 pm

Reality Check wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:36 am
p0rtia wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:15 am
:snippity: I agree about the train, but I don't think the statement is tepid. I think it is clearly saying, "No smoking gun."
Without more specific information I cannot really draw any conclusions about what Buzzfeed got right or wrong.
Agreed. I also make no judgements on who is right or wrong to what degree. My point is that given a fair reading of the English words, plus the very act of publicly rebutting the story, the OSC is plainly saying "there is no corroborating evidence."
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 2520
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7823

Post by Gregg » Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:19 pm

I think the closer truth is that Cohen did tell someone that Trump told him to lie to Congress, but that there is no way of collaborating it. When the story first ran I was asking myself ''Was there someone so stupid as to write and e-mail to someone else saying 'make sure to help Cohen get his story straight before he goes to the hill' and thought that was a stretch, even for the Trump campaign/West Wing".

I'm trying to be optimistic.
Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 32062
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7824

Post by Addie » Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:39 pm

IF the BuzzFeed report ends up being factual, this piece may come in handy.
VOX - Sean Illing: Does the BuzzFeed report show that Trump obstructed justice? I asked 9 legal experts.

If the report is true, they said, then yes.

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15632
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: Mueller's investigation

#7825

Post by kate520 » Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:11 pm

Also, too, Cohen worked for Trump for years and likely did many illegal things for him. He would know where others don’t how Trump transmits his commands. We’ve seen live on national TV the bold, reality TV star’s :roll: direction to hackers to deliver Hil’s emails, which they did.

For all we know, “won’t someone rid me of this turbulent insistance on the truth about communication with our mortal enemies?” *is* a direct order from trump.
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”