TrumPutinGate

#23,226
#23,226
evillawyer said:
Do you think Mueller's team cares one way or the other about whether a news article about their investigation is true or false?

They care about being able to do what they need to do to complete their investigation in an accurate and fair way. As I mentioned earlier, this article had congressmen threatening to have Mueller turn over evidence on this issue before his investigation was over. That's what Mueller was trying to avoid. Now he may not want to turn over evidence because this was a cockamamie article that was radically false, but it could also be because this story was largely true, but Mueller still has angles that he is pursuing and early disclosure would potentially harm the investigation. So let's come back when the investigation is over and see what the story really was.
Click to expand...
Yes I absolutely believe the SCO cares about a runaway story claiming sourcing to their investigation that they know is false and can easily see them trying to get out in front of it and prevent damaging their investigation. That’s freaking common sense.
 
#23,227
#23,227
NorthDallas40 said:
Yes I absolutely believe the SCO cares about a runaway story claiming sourcing to their investigation that they know is false and can easily see them trying to get out in front of it and prevent damaging their investigation. That’s freaking common sense.
Click to expand...

So if this is a wildly false story with no basis in fact, why not use "false" or "completely false" instead of "not accurate"?
 
#23,229
#23,229
NorthDallas40 said:
Hey you’re the one parsing the tea leaves. I just read it and laughed very loudly and the clear Buzzfeed pawning.
Click to expand...

I've worked with press shops before in connection with highly public litigations. These releases go through rounds of edits and each word is chosen wisely. Probably no fewer than 6 or 7 attorneys looked at this before it was released. I'm sure there was a reason "not accurate" was used instead of false.
 
#23,230
#23,230
evillawyer said:
I've worked with press shops before in connection with highly public litigations. These releases go through rounds of edits and each word is chosen wisely. Probably no fewer than 6 or 7 attorneys looked at this before it was released. I'm sure there was a reason "not accurate" was used instead of false.
Click to expand...
I’ll take your word for it that you did. I’m also pretty sure you and buzzfeed are going to get static in reply from the SC office.
 
#23,232
#23,232
evillawyer said:
BuzzFeed just reaffirmed it's reporting. Not saying they're right, but they're certainly not backing down.

Click to expand...


So Team Mueller has to be lying. If BF is saying they got it all right then Mueller has to be wrong.

"we’ve seen no indication that any specific aspect of our story is inaccurate"

I can see why you'd take BuzzFeed's side.
 
#23,233
#23,233
volinbham said:
So Team Mueller has to be lying. If BF is saying they got it all right then Mueller has to be wrong.

"we’ve seen no indication that any specific aspect of our story is inaccurate"

I can see why you'd take BuzzFeed's side.
Click to expand...
I love the spin here........keep up the fight man.
 
#23,236
#23,236
volinbham said:
If BuzzFeed is right; Mueller is wrong. Why would Mueller intentionally mislead the public?
Click to expand...
Mueller understands that frogs in a pot of slowly heating water will not notice the change until nothing can be done. He would much prefer that the frogs feel a sudden and drastic change so they will react appropriately.

Stated another way.
I knew Trump was a little dirty when I voted for him.
Okay, he's a little dirtier than I thought.
Okay, he's a little dirtier than I thought.
Okay, he's a little dirtier than I thought.
Okay, he's a little dirtier than I thought.
Okay, he's a little dirtier than I thought.
Yea, he's kind of filthy but I knew that all along.

or.......
I knew Trump was a little dirty when I voted for him.
Good God, I had no idea he was that filthy.
 
#23,237
#23,237
Stew Cook said:
Someone is using alternative facts, although that could be a copyright violation.
Click to expand...

Buzzfeed

we’ve seen no indication that any specific aspect of our story is inaccurate

Team Mueller

BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the special counsel's office (1), and characterization of documents (2) and testimony (3) obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's congressional testimony are not accurate,"

These 2 statements cannot both be true. Who to believe, who to believe. Quite the conundrum.
 
#23,238
#23,238
luthervol said:
Mueller understands that frogs in a pot of slowly heating water will not notice the change until nothing can be done. He would much prefer that the frogs feel a sudden and drastic change so they will react appropriately.

Stated another way.
I knew Trump was a little dirty when I voted for him.
Okay, he's a little dirtier than I thought.
Okay, he's a little dirtier than I thought.
Okay, he's a little dirtier than I thought.
Okay, he's a little dirtier than I thought.
Okay, he's a little dirtier than I thought.
Yea, he's kind of filthy but I knew that all along.

or.......
I knew Trump was a little dirty when I voted for him.
Good God, I had no idea he was that filthy.
Click to expand...

In trying to decipher this I'm concluding you condone SCO trying to quash a story they know to be true because it gives away the game before they're done? Any means necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#23,240
#23,240
volinbham said:
Buzzfeed

we’ve seen no indication that any specific aspect of our story is inaccurate

Team Mueller

BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the special counsel's office (1), and characterization of documents (2) and testimony (3) obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's congressional testimony are not accurate,"

These 2 statements cannot both be true. Who to believe, who to believe. Quite the conundrum.
Click to expand...

I guess it could come down to minor detail discrepancies, if they are both being truthy. I'm still where I was in the beginning, wanting to see the goods.
 
#23,241
#23,241
Velo Vol said:
As was hashed over last night, to some degree, they can be. BuzzFeed is reporting on a view of the evidence from the NY office. SCO is commenting on the evidence it has.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that's why it's the only time in 2 years the Special Counsel has issued a press release. 😒
 
#23,242
#23,242
Velo Vol said:
As was hashed over last night, to some degree, they can be. BuzzFeed is reporting on a view of the evidence from the NY office. SCO is commenting on the evidence it has.
Click to expand...

BF article specifically says SCO has some of the evidence they refer to IIRC. Mueller would know if they had it and if they don't that is indeed a specific thing about the reporting that is wrong but BF says they can't find a specific thing wrong with their reporting.

Also I'm highly skeptical that SDNY would have some information that not only have they not shared with SCO but that SCO doesn't know exists. I'd be shocked if SCO did not confer with SDNY prior to the statement and it's hard to believe they would go ahead with the statement if SDNY had all this evidence.

Some have speculated that the story is accurate but Mueller wants to keep that from the public now so he put out the statement. If true I have a problem with SCO intentionally misleading the public about the investigation.

The simpler explanation is the BF got it wrong and had bad sources.
 
#23,243
#23,243
evillawyer said:
Do you think Mueller's team cares one way or the other about whether a news article about their investigation is true or false?

They care about being able to do what they need to do to complete their investigation in an accurate and fair way. As I mentioned earlier, this article had congressmen threatening to have Mueller turn over evidence on this issue before his investigation was over. That's what Mueller was trying to avoid. Now he may not want to turn over evidence because this was a cockamamie article that was radically false, but it could also be because this story was largely true, but Mueller still has angles that he is pursuing and early disclosure would potentially harm the investigation. So let's come back when the investigation is over and see what the story really was.
Click to expand...
Where was this wait and see approach from you when the story broke? I seem to recall you acting as if it was gospel. Now that some shade may have been thrown on it you are advising everyone to wait and see. Perhaps you will remember that next time some more news breaks.
 
#23,244
#23,244
volinbham said:
BF article specifically says SCO has some of the evidence they refer to IIRC. Mueller would know if they had it and if they don't that is indeed a specific thing about the reporting that is wrong but BF says they can't find a specific thing wrong with their reporting.

Also I'm highly skeptical that SDNY would have some information that not only have they not shared with SCO but that SCO doesn't know exists. I'd be shocked if SCO did not confer with SDNY prior to the statement and it's hard to believe they would go ahead with the statement if SDNY had all this evidence.

Some have speculated that the story is accurate but Mueller wants to keep that from the public now so he put out the statement. If true I have a problem with SCO intentionally misleading the public about the investigation.

The simpler explanation is the BF got it wrong and had bad sources.
Click to expand...
If the article were true as presented SCO would have stuck with no comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#23,246
#23,246
Velo Vol said:
It's possible there are some ambiguous statements which SDNY source characterizes one way but the SCO is more conservative in its conclusions.
Click to expand...

Or the anonymous sources fed BS to Buzzfeed and they published it without getting additional confirmation.
 
#23,249
#23,249
volfanhill said:
Where was this wait and see approach from you when the story broke? I seem to recall you acting as if it was gospel. Now that some shade may have been thrown on it you are advising everyone to wait and see. Perhaps you will remember that next time some more news breaks.
Click to expand...

Find where I said this was certainly true. I defended the writers as top notch and BuzzFeed as having won numerous awards. Certainly I would have put money on it being true given their track record. Still view the SC's statement as more likely issued to put a wet blanket on any premature movement from Dems to demand records and conduct hearings before Mueller is done with his investigation. The use of "not accurate" as opposed to "false" suggests that they didn't get the story entirely wrong. How substantive BuzzFeed's error was is anyone's guess (except for Mueller).

Don't you agree that Mueller's team does nothing if Dem congressmen had simply said "well this sounds interesting, can't wait to see if Mueller's reports says the same thing"? Not in Mueller's interest to have congressional hearings going into this fairly limited issue while he's still trying to finish his work. So my view is that there was something inaccurate in what BuzzFeed wrote (probably an interpretation of how strong the evidence is or whether Trump "directed" Cohen to lie as opposed to something less forceful) and Mueller seized upon that to issue the statement and keep the Dems at bay until he completes his report.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top