|
Yeah, I fully admit the whole WaPo part of the story lost me and could be missing a key part of the story that I'm confused on. I did see the reports that the DOJ pressured the SCO and while I think that's certainly a meaningful and troubling aspect of the story I'm not sure it actually speaks to the question of Buzzfeed's reporting. Unless we're assuming the SCO lied as a result of the DOJ pressure to undermine Buzzfeed. Its obviously a problem that DOJ applied that pressure at all, and maybe that the SCO responded in any way (although that seems tough to judge not knowing the details of what's true and not). But assuming the SCO was making an honest (if vague and solicited) statement it still leaves us in the same place RE: Buzzfeed and the original story. I'm not sure I'm willing to take the step that "since many of the people criticizing Buzzfeed were doing so in bad faith and since the Trump Admin was obviously pushing to discredit Buzzfeed it means that Buzzfeed gains credibility in response."
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:33 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Yeah, I fully admit the whole WaPo part of the story lost me and could be missing a key part of the story that I'm confused on. I did see the reports that the DOJ pressured the SCO and while I think that's certainly a meaningful and troubling aspect of the story I'm not sure it actually speaks to the question of Buzzfeed's reporting. Unless we're assuming the SCO lied as a result of the DOJ pressure to undermine Buzzfeed. Its obviously a problem that DOJ applied that pressure at all, and maybe that the SCO responded in any way (although that seems tough to judge not knowing the details of what's true and not). But assuming the SCO was making an honest (if vague and solicited) statement it still leaves us in the same place RE: Buzzfeed and the original story. The problem is that the SCO's response wasn't just vague, it was vague to the point of being meaningless -- they object, not to any specific statements or documents, but to the "description" of statements and the "characterization" of documents, neither of which amount to points of fact. It was initially viewed, justifiably under the circumstances, as a direct and unprecedented repudiation of the Buzzfeed story, mostly because the SCO never responds to anything. But it later turned out that the SCO had not initially intended to respond to this until provoked by internal DOJ prodding, which was couple with extremely heavy and, in retrospect, now suspect characterization of the SCO response filtered through the Wapo by DOJ sources. To quote: quote:The Post reported that with the Department of Justice, which oversees Mueller’s investigation, “the statement was viewed as a huge step, and one that would have been taken only if the special counsel’s office viewed the story as almost entirely incorrect. The special counsel’s office seemed to be disputing every aspect of the story that addressed comments or evidence given to its investigators.” Which sounds bold and impressive but is a lot less impressive when you later learn that the SCO response being characterized was solicited by the same outside-the-SCO sources leaking to the Wapo. Once you take away the impact of it coming directly from the always silent SCO, the actual statement from Mueller -- "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,” is ambiguous as fuuuuuuck. If that had come from Trump's team, we'd be tearing it apart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
I guess, and maybe I'm just completely wrong in this regard, I've been taking this as soon as the SCO statement came out Buzzfeed started walking back their claims/implications that there was direct evidence linking Trump to Cohen's perjury and started refocusing the reporting on proving that Cohen lied at all and that the Moscow project was more than they've admitted. And maybe that's a misreading that I formed from the SCO and/or my own suspicions from the original article but while the DOJ/WaPo stuff is certainly a matter of concern it doesn't seem to actually add credibility to Buzzfeed's piece as people seem to be suggesting. Not to mention that they're still out there on their own with the story. I mean, its definitely a think we probably have to just wait and see how it all plays out since Buzzfeed isn't officially backing off. But I guess I'm reacting to the people who seem to feel like Buzzfeed is "winning" this in some way. Which I understand probably comes from a broader dissatisfaction with the way some mainstream media has handled other stories like the Covington Catholic thing. But still doesn't strike me as terribly helpful as I don't much care for "one side is bad so the other side must be good" thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:
Is there evidence of all of this aside from Rosenstein apparently asking? ie, could the SCO been planning on responding regardless of Rosenstein?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/PeterWelch/status/1087829080316301313
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 13:11
|
|
|
Lol, Trump's could never have pulled off a building like this. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azeenghorayshi/here-are-the-trump-moscow-plans 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 13:54
|
|
|
We now live in a world were we have to admire people for admitting they messed up, no matter how dumb their original take was. https://twitter.com/PeterWelch/status/1087857790901735426 "Admire" is probably too strong a word.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
He was obviously talking about wage labor. Dumb issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
Everyone backing off on being to hard on this kid because we didn't don't know the full story is bullshit. Him and his friends put on MAGA hats then went out and hosed around with protesters. Same thing as if he'd been just silently standing there in a Nazi uniform. gently caress him and gently caress everyone for backtracking like their doing now because some people had the audacity to say some bad word to the racists that hurt their feelings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Everyone backing off on being to hard on this kid because we didn't don't know the full story is bullshit. Him and his friends put on MAGA hats then went out and hosed around with protesters. Same thing as if he'd been just silently standing there in a Nazi uniform. There is a literal grift campaign from the kids parents who have connections to the national GOP. They received (bought) CNN and NBC spots for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:There is a literal grift campaign from the kids parents who have connections to the national GOP. They received (bought) CNN and NBC spots for a reason. Do you have a source that spells this all out? Not doubting, just looking for something I can share.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Hey, another Incel got caught planning to do a mass shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1088122870981713925quote:“If his $5.7 billion is about border security, then we see ourselves fulfilling that request, only doing it through what I like to call using a ‘smart wall’,” Clyburn said. Aw hell yeah, who could be against a "smart wall?" It has "smart" right in the name and everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Good gambit. When Trump inevitably refuses, it will reinforce the notion that he doesn't give two shits about actual border security. The wall is about him and his ego, full stop--it sure as hell will do nothing to curb border crossings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
It's utter garbage, because it concedes that Trump's racism monument has a valid reason for it's existence and only quibbles about implementation details. But yes, Republicans won't accept the offer because it's also an obvious prelude to fully caving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
Mierenneuker posted:We now live in a world were we have to admire people for admitting they messed up, no matter how dumb their original take was. I don't think "until 1866 it was legal to make people work for free" is a good description of slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:I don't think "until 1866 it was legal to make people work for free" is a good description of slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CBCAlerts/status/1088138726545461248 Trump recognizing Juan Guaido is honestly a very surprising move given how much he was willing to fellate Maduro.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:I don't think "until 1866 it was legal to make people work for free" is a good description of slavery. Not least of all because it remained legal after 1866.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Kith posted:https://twitter.com/CBCAlerts/status/1088138726545461248 This definitely won't end up like the Chavez fiasco where Maduro can leverage tensions with the U.S. to make himself seem heroic and put egg on the U.S. government's face when he stays in power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
god the CIA is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Gotta commend his cleary-eyed vision and no nonsense wording of his nonsense
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Well that explains Trump specifically mentioning venezuelans a few days ago and saying that he has plans for something for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/markmobility/status/1088197844257902593?s=21 Heh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/StratSentinel/status/1088205259971932160
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Do you have a link to the actual cnn article saying this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
YodaTFK posted:Do you have a link to the actual cnn article saying this? https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1088240538380390400
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
It falls upon the state department I suppose to make an edict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
holy poo poo what a loving dumbass administration we have
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
I suppose Trump's hoping that Maduro takes them hostage so he can use it as pretext for war? Not sure how well that's going to fly with the country when he basically dared them to do it and they're busy hating him over the shutdown. It's obviously a selfmade distraction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/status/1088242909290344449 This bodes well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I suppose Trump's hoping that Maduro takes them hostage so he can use it as pretext for war? thats too crafty/clever for trump. i could see bolton saying that poo poo though. Kith posted:https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/status/1088242909290344449 do we even have an ambassador there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1088200188089565184 are third-degree burns newsworthy
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
The question isn't whether AOC is here. It whether one of you dudes is feeding her stuff. Signal boosting is real.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I suppose Trump's hoping that Maduro takes them hostage so he can use it as pretext for war? So, how many days before we see consulate officials killed and #but_her_emails trending?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:The question isn't whether AOC is here. It whether one of you dudes is feeding her stuff. Signal boosting is real. A future Goonmander-In-Chief?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
Kith posted:https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1088200188089565184 blah blah the devil can quote scripture. *worships a piss drinker that says Two Corn Thigh Ins*
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:A future Goonmander-In-Chief? Imagine 4 Green New Deals at the edge of a cliff
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/unormal/status/1088327495391289344
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:33 |
|
|
not that there's much you can do what with a baby in the wh, but i'm worried this will have the same effect as the last time the rwm mocked trump for caving (which resulted in the current shutdown) he comes out looking like a complete loser
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 09:56
|
|
