|
LaserShark posted:Didn't some WH lackey hedge so hard on this that a Fox commentator called them out on it? "That isn't a denial" sort of thing? A lot of speculation that he has to do this now, since Democrats might actually might make him (Mueller) testify or subpoena his documents. Seeing a lot of takes similar to this one out there https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/1086431038505508864 https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/1086432638875754496
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Which was the really breaking bit about the report. We knew he was told to lie and coordination happened, having hard evidence of that is a much bigger deal. Yeah, if Buzzfeed had just reported that Cohen claimed Trump did it then the story would have been "another thing to ask Cohen when he testifies to Congress/How credible is Cohen?" It wouldn't have been the "bombshell" people treated it as, just another unconfirmed thing on the pile. Which it still is. Buzzfeed implied Mueller had evidence to prove it, which would have been HUGE if true but Mueller put a bullet in that. And unfortunately Buzzfeed and anyone who jumped too hard on the story gives The Right a little easy cover for their "fake news" bull. A bad day for any major media outlet is a bad day for all media, sadly. Even though it seems like most media did their job and treated this as uncorroborated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
CHEF!!! posted:Yeah, that got a good laugh out of me. I always view those posters as basically saying "NY TImes and Washington Post run a bunch of lovely op-eds! That discounts them in their entirety!" I feel endlessly annoyed by posters that seem to not know what op eds are and seem to only read that section
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
steven crowder fans. very cool. https://twitter.com/libbycwatson/status/1086433588827115521?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RonanFarrow/status/1086434635003895810 i bet you this is why it's 'not accurate' even though i don't think this even directly contradicts buzzfeed. it's just donald trump didn't personally, in writing, tell cohen to lie. his lawyers and execs at his company did, at his direction
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
DEBATE ME COWARD
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Yeah, if Buzzfeed had just reported that Cohen claimed Trump did it then the story would have been "another thing to ask Cohen when he testifies to Congress/How credible is Cohen?" It wouldn't have been the "bombshell" people treated it as, just another unconfirmed thing on the pile. Which it still is. lol if you think this is close to over, this story is just getting started
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
as Susan points out here, we know (1) cohen lied to Congress and (2) he did so in direct consultation with Trump's lawyers https://twitter.com/TheViewFromLL2/status/1086435391882842112 it's just inaccurate to say donald trump directly told him to lie
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:All y'all in this thread are so ready to drop hot takes on the state of the media and accept framing, it's a developing story, give it a bit. the one person who could unequivocally reject the buzzfeed story came out and said it was not accurate. that's not "framing" - that's a cold hard slap in the face to buzzfeed's credibility. yes, the NYT has poo poo op-eds and good ole Maggie should be tarred and feathered, but their investigative journalism remains some of the best in the world. an investigative journalism department like that can't just be grown in a year or two - it takes years to develop the culture, credibility and connections that a shop like the NYT or WaPo has. Seph fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jan 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
Hahaha I loving knew it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
One reading of this is that it was actually the Trump kids who ordered Cohen, which would fit with the 'white house officials he was in contact with' and 'executives of the foundation' stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:36
|
|
|
Seph posted:the one person who could unequivocally reject the buzzfeed story came out and said it was not accurate. that's not "framing" - that's a cold hard slap in the face to buzzfeed's credibility. again, not true “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.” this is a complaint about some unknown specific elements of their reporting in a way so vague that the reporting could be 99% correct and this statement from the SCO could still be technically true
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:36
|
|
|
Its also weird that Mueller's office no commented the story before it was released, and then release this statement a day later. Did they misunderstand the contents story when asked for comments?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Hahaha I loving knew it. Well when you’re hopelessly pessimistic 100% of the time you’re bound to be occasionally correct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
eke out posted:again, not true One way to parse that is that it's a statement that Buzzfeed did not get this story from the Special Counsel, but rather from some other source (SDNY). i.e., not a disputation of the facts of the story, but of the implication that it was sourced to Mueller's office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
it is good to see that Glenn Greenwald now completely trusts and respects the Special Counsel's office, and is certain their statements about investigative reporting are definitely true and not politically motivated
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
In a world where the media is constantly under attack from the president, make sure your goddamn reporting regarding the president is accurate ffs
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
eke out posted:https://twitter.com/RonanFarrow/status/1086434635003895810 That's actually a HUGE difference. Specifically the "memorialized" part. They start with the same basic premise that Trump instructed Cohen to lie but there's two VERY different stories. "Cohen claims Trump instructed him to lie to Congress." "Mueller has evidence to confirm Trump instructed Cohen to lie to Congress." The former is scandalous and leads to questions, including those of Cohen's credibility. The latter is a bombshell that conjures up memories of John Dean announcing there are recordings and could well end Trump's presidency. The story isn't dead because presumably Cohen will still make these claims. But if there's no corroborating evidence or witnesses then its just "he said/he said." STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Jan 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:All y'all in this thread are so ready to drop hot takes on the state of the media and accept framing, it's a developing story, give it a bit. Are you...are you using the example of a comic book character to address this thing today?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:One way to parse that is that it's a statement that Buzzfeed did not get this story from the Special Counsel, but rather from some other source (SDNY). i.e., not a disputation of the facts of the story, but of the implication that it was sourced to Mueller's office. We now know that there were both pending SDNY investigations into Trump as well as FBI counter-intel investigations into the Russians involved in the Trump tower meeting that were advanced enough that all communications were being intercepted from the Russians involved. The journos involved have basically said that their source was likely one of those. In general both the SDNY activities pre Preet Bharara's firing and the FBI counter intel investigations have been largely very quiet. The second one we only even learned about a month ago from court filings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:That's actually a HUGE difference. They start with the same basic premise that Trump instructed Cohen to lie but there's two VERY different stories. Yeah. This story made a splash because it claimed there was finally, loving finally hard evidence of Trump doing the things we all know he did. Without that it's just more of the same poo poo we've seen over and over. Mueller's tweet doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but it also doesn't mean that it does exist, and that's what sucks. Give Trump a pinprick of an out and there he goes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Its also weird that Mueller's office no commented the story before it was released, and then release this statement a day later. Did they misunderstand the contents story when asked for comments? It’s worth noting that we have no idea what Miller’s office was asked to comment on, and that under normal journalistic standards Buzzfeed would have not shown Muller the article, just some general background information. Having dealt with the media in a handful of cases, it’s not uncommon for a quote to be taken out of context, or for a story to be presented one way in an interview but written with an entirely different angle for publication. Unless you can be 100% certain that the reporters aren’t going to misconstrue your words, ‘no comment’ is almost always the best course of action for high-profile stories like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:That's actually a HUGE difference. They start with the same basic premise that Trump instructed Cohen to lie but there's two VERY different stories. if you believe ronan farrow, who talked to some of the same sources apparently, the key dispute is whether trump personally told Cohen to lie. farrow thinks they went too far in implying that, because the instructions instead came from the executives and lawyers he was coordinating with (who all work directly for trump). this alternative is not the same as "there's no corroborating evidence" - it's just that it's Don jr. and alan weisselberg and don mcgahn and co whose names will be on the communications telling him to lie, and trumpworld will pretend the president knows nothing about why these rogues decided to betray him
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
Well if Trump is anything like our good friend Baby Hitler he’s good at giving unwritten orders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Rudy is back on the press tour This was kind of answered later on, but I wanted to add a detail: The lawyer who sat with Mueller for those 20 hours was Don McGahn, who was not Donald Trump's lawyer, he was the White House Counsel. Meaning that he has no legal obligation to confidentiality for anything that Trump did before entering the White House, or anything he does outside of the White House. (Lawyers for an organization have the organization as a client, not the employees, if Bill Gates tells a Microsoft lawyer that he killed a drifter to get an erection, that isn't privileged communication). If Trump blabbed to McGahn about any of this stuff, and the Special Counsel questioned it about him, he wouldn't be able to claim confidentiality. The lawyer that according to Giuliani, discussed the testimony with Cohen was John Dowd, who was Trump's personal attorney. I am not a lawyer, and this is some pretty complicated material, but here is where this gets really, really complicated. Rudy Giuliani, the President's current lawyer, made a statement about whether John Dowd, the president's former lawyer, talked about testimony with Michael Cohen, an even more former lawyer. That is a lot of lawyers. When John Dowd was talking to Michael Cohen, were they two lawyers representing a single client, with privileged legal communication? If Cohen was not at the time Trump's lawyer, and he wasn't Dowd's client, then Dowd can be questioned about whether he instructed Cohen to lie, and he has to either answer or take the fifth. Furthermore, because Giuliani has made public statements about Cohen and Dowd speaking, that might also compromise the privilege. I am really not sure on any of this, though. glowing-fish fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jan 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
eke out posted:again, not true you're right it could still be 99% accurate based on a generous interpretation, or it could be 0% accurate based on the how most people are reading it let me take out all the fluff to make it more clear: "Buzzfeed's description of specific statements... and characterization of documents and testimony... are not accurate"
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
eke out posted:it is good to see that Glenn Greenwald now completely trusts and respects the Special Counsel's office, and is certain their statements about investigative reporting are definitely true and not politically motivated [countless court documents detailing Manafort's crimes and Russia's attempts to influence the election] Glenn: yeah but where's the evidence idiot sheep  [vague one sentence statement disputing details of a Buzzfeed story] Glenn: HAHA you losers got owned. i'm right once again
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
It's not entirely unfeasible that the Mueller Investigation would deny that it came from them to protect their investigation work either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
Catastrophizing isn't really appropriate here. The statement is extremely measured. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, as much as right wing media wants people to think so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:It's not entirely unfeasible that the Mueller Investigation would deny that it came from them to protect their investigation work either. This seems unlikely, imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Are you...are you using the example of a comic book character to address this thing today? Listen we both know the lab is experimenting on humans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
What’s annoying is that this has handed Trump a huge win at a time when he really needed something, so unnecessary and frustrating
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:I think you may have misunderstood. I wasn't trying to make any real statement. Just jokes. Jokes? On SA? You motherfucker!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1086427977011920897
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
Good job Buzzfeed, you done failed and now I have listen to idiots spout fake news even more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:52
|
|
|
Dog Friday posted:What’s annoying is that this has handed Trump a huge win at a time when he really needed something, so unnecessary and frustrating michael cohen already pled guilty to lying for trump on this issue, this is not a huge win. a huge win is opening the government with funding for a wall, or actually having any of his indicted associates win their legal battles
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:52
|
|
|
Even if BuzzFeed is right in the end, it was idiotic of them to drop this without being able to fully corroborate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
Cervix-A-Lot posted:Good job Buzzfeed, you done failed and now I have listen to idiots spout fake news even more. You don't have to...
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
God loving dammit. I knew it. I expressed concern earlier because it was taking too long to be independently verified and I just had this gut feeling about the story. God drat poo poo rear end bitch gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 02:53
|
|
