TrumPutinGate

#22,951
#22,951
1972 Grad said:
Are you positive they had a chance to kill it? I am not positive of anything, and that is why I am waiting for this to end.
Click to expand...
Ben Smith, the editor, told Rachel Maddow that he forwarded the story to Mueller spokesman, Peter Carr, before the story was published and requested comment and Carr declined... but then they release a statement the next day? It makes more sense than not, that Smith is telling the truth, and he gave Carr a chance to comment on it before it was published. Nobody wants to take a chance at being undercut like this.
 
#22,952
#22,952
BowlBrother85 said:
Ben Smith, the editor, told Rachel Maddow that he forwarded the story to Mueller spokesman, Peter Carr, before the story was published and requested comment and Carr declined... but then they release a statement the next day? It makes more sense than not, that Smith is telling the truth, and he gave Carr a chance to comment on it before it was published. Nobody wants to take a chance at being undercut like this.
Click to expand...

Just recognize all your theories are grounded in what BF says.

You don't know what SC policy is about news stories. It's entirely possible their policy is to never comment pre-publication. BF was in effect asking SC office to confirm their reporting; in effect acting as a source. It's possible that opens them up to legal consequences and could be considered leaking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nuclearjunky, BowlBrother85 and NorthDallas40
#22,953
#22,953
volinbham said:
in general I'm inclined to believe that collusion did not occur. however I'm open to be proven wrong by findings.

my most likely (over 50%) scenario is that Russia fed Steele some plausible crap and either people bought it or thought it was sufficient to thwart Trump that they went forward. We just learned the Orr told a bunch of people including those seeking the original FISA authorization that the dossier was payed for by Clinton and unverified. That information was omitted (I'd have to think willfully) from the FISA application.

Trump probably F'd up a few things but I doubt they were in cahoots with Russia. I'm open to being proven wrong and I do not have a high degree of confidence in my current beliefs.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I do feel it necessary on occasion to combat conjecture with some of my own.

I will defer to Mueller, ultimately, if we ever get to see a report.
 
#22,954
#22,954
BowlBrother85 said:
Ben Smith, the editor, told Rachel Maddow that he forwarded the story to Mueller spokesman, Peter Carr, before the story was published and requested comment and Carr declined... but then they release a statement the next day? It makes more sense than not, that Smith is telling the truth, and he gave Carr a chance to comment on it before it was published. Nobody wants to take a chance at being undercut like this.
Click to expand...
4B1659E2-79AB-42DB-BBE9-34CB26892094.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
#22,955
#22,955
volinbham said:
Just recognize all your theories are grounded in what BF says.

You don't know what SC policy is about news stories. It's entirely possible their policy is to never comment pre-publication. BF was in effect asking SC office to confirm their reporting; in effect acting as a source. It's possible that opens them up to legal consequences and could be considered leaking.
Click to expand...
That is a good point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
#22,956
#22,956
Stew Cook said:
Fair enough. I do feel it necessary on occasion to combat conjecture with some of my own.

I will defer to Mueller, ultimately, if we ever get to see a report.
Click to expand...

sure - all we have is conjecture. Stating it as fact is where the problem arises.

Not sure if the comment about seeing the report is about how long it's taking or if it will be buried somehow but I have no concerns about the latter other than it may be redacted to hell and back
 
#22,965
#22,965
This suggests the testimony was coordinated, but given the statement yesterday the SCO seemingly doesn't have direct evidence to prove it.

 
#22,966
#22,966
ajvol01 said:
I'm not talking about the Buzzfeed story from yesterday.

Just a gentle reminder to our liberal friends they need to be a tad more patient/skeptical with every new daily Trump bombshell that comes down the pike.
Click to expand...
lucycharliebrown.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: golfballs, NurseGoodVol, ajvol01 and 1 other person
#22,968
#22,968
NorthDallas40 said:
You’ve got a perfect record with us then.
Click to expand...

Mueller speaks

1547905234178.jpeg

Special counsel Robert Mueller's office disputed an explosive story from BuzzFeed News as "not accurate" Friday night, after the news outlet reported the President had directed his personal attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, for which Cohen was later prosecuted.
"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," said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller's office, in a statement.
It's highly unusual for the special counsel's office to provide a statement to the media -- outside of court filings and judicial hearings -- about any of its ongoing investigative activities.
In response, BuzzFeed said in its own statement, "We are continuing to report and determine what the special counsel is disputing. We remain confident in the accuracy of our report."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html
 
#22,970
#22,970
Mick said:
Mueller speaks

View attachment 190060

Special counsel Robert Mueller's office disputed an explosive story from BuzzFeed News as "not accurate" Friday night, after the news outlet reported the President had directed his personal attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, for which Cohen was later prosecuted.
"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," said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller's office, in a statement.
It's highly unusual for the special counsel's office to provide a statement to the media -- outside of court filings and judicial hearings -- about any of its ongoing investigative activities.
In response, BuzzFeed said in its own statement, "We are continuing to report and determine what the special counsel is disputing. We remain confident in the accuracy of our report."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html
Click to expand...
well let's all remember that time Dan Rather stood by his source also
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01 and Orange_Vol1321
#22,975
#22,975
1972 Grad said:
I have to admit that I laughed my ass off watching him get de-horsed and have to walk off the bus.
Click to expand...
Was it 7 congress members and 86 family members? Why the hell are family going? Into Afghanistan too, on the tax payers dime.
Doesn’t Nazi Nancy know she can’t have a toddy in Afghanistan?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top