Inside the Mueller team's decision to dispute BuzzFeed's explosive story on Trump and Cohen
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by DonViejo (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Washington Post
Inside the Mueller teams decision to dispute BuzzFeeds explosive story on Trump and Cohen
By Matt Zapotosky and
Devlin Barrett
January 19 at 7:25 PM
When a BuzzFeed reporter first sought comment on the news outlets explosive report that President Trump had directed his lawyer to lie to Congress, the spokesman for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III treated the request as he would almost any other story.
The reporter informed Muellers spokesman, Peter Carr, that he and a colleague had a story coming stating that Michael Cohen was directed by President Trump himself to lie to Congress about his negotiations related to the Trump Moscow project, according to copies of their emails provided by a BuzzFeed spokesman. Importantly, the reporter made no reference to the special counsels office specifically or evidence that Muellers investigators had uncovered.
Well decline to comment, Carr responded, a familiar refrain for those in the media who cover Muellers work.
The innocuous exchange belied the chaos it would produce. When BuzzFeed published the story hours later, it far exceeded Carrs initial impression, people familiar with the matter said, in that the reporting alleged that Cohen, Trumps former lawyer and self-described fixer, told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie, and that Muellers office learned of the directive through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents.
In the view of the special counsels office, that was wrong, two people familiar with the matter said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. And with Democrats raising the specter of investigation and impeachment, Muellers team started discussing a step they had never before taken: publicly disputing reporting on evidence in their ongoing investigation.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inside-the-mueller-teams-decision-to-dispute-buzzfeeds-explosive-story-on-trump-and-cohen/2019/01/19/d89dba5b-fa0f-445b-9fd3-72f0e911e28d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c92901ce8866
Tactical Peek
(1,207 posts)Link to tweet
"WaPo on what happened: BuzzFeeds initial request for comment, over which Muellers team didnt object, didnt say they were planning to report Cohen *told Mueller* Trump directed him to lie, just that they were going to report Trump directed Cohen to lie."
Grasswire2
(13,565 posts)Cohen could have told that info to SDNY, couldn't he?
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)If you remember All the Presidents Men, Woodward and Bernstein made a similar gaffe early in the investigation where they reported that a White House staffer had told the Grand Jury about some malfeasance by CREEP. After the story was refuted, it turned out they made a mistake about the Grand Jury; although the staffer confirmed to them that the CREEP malfeasance had happened, he hadnt told the Grand Jury because, although he was ready to, they hadnt asked him about it.
Nixon was still guilty as sin. (Let the reader understand.)
onenote
(42,598 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)We should have stuck with the FBI investigation rather than letting BFs story take over news on trumps corruption, and Mueller saying BF is full of chit.
This didnt help getting trump out of office, sadly, no matter how we spin it.
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)...rather, that Cohen didnt tell the special counsels office himself that Trump told him to lie. He may have told it to SDNY, and they may have evidence from there.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)onenote
(42,598 posts)Tactical Peek
(1,207 posts)The reporters ran it by SCO spokesman Carr saying their story would include that Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress, and Carr said he would have no comment and let it go. So the Russian asset President is on the hook for that.
They then write a story saying that Cohen told the SCO that Trump told him to lie etc, and about other evidence etc, which for some reason required Mueller's team to get protective about details we don't know about the investigation and so forth, but that doesn't challenge the 'Trump told Cohen to lie' facet.
Call me an optimist, if it all weren't so dismal.
erlewyne
(1,115 posts)Other than a great job, He knows a hell of a lot more.
He wants to keep himself separate from all the soothsayers.
He does not leak because leaking is counterproductive.
I posted this because I wanted to compliment Tactical Peek
for this thread.
Roy Rolling
(6,908 posts)The Mueller team doesn't leak to reporters. Never
Any story that suggests the Mueller team leaked a secret to reporters must be countered.
Mueller is scripting this whole investigation, revealing on his own schedule. He wants Michael Cohen to tell Congress and the world Trump told him to lie, not have the testimony leak before the hearing.
It's the same way movie details and publicity are embargoed before a film's release. Trump thinks his bullshit, reality-TV experience will dominate the narrative. He puts out his surrogates, they unconvincingly deliver their lines, and Trump followers lap it up as real.
The whole public isn't so gullible and Mueller is using a superior tactic. I'm convinced he has media strategists and entertainment probfessionals employed by his team. Trump should've never fuc*ed with the media. He's on the D-list.
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)He was aware of the testimony Cohen was going to give, knew it was false, and -- as the ultimate decider -- gave his approval.
Legally, he was responsible.
I doubt that Mueller wants to encourage anyone to have the idea that only a direct order to lie matters -- that what Trump did isn't tantamount to suborning perjury.
AndJusticeForSome
(537 posts)I think one of the issues is the "interviews" with "multiple witnesses" from the Trump Org.
As I posted earlier,
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211693956
It seems that those particular interviews were not conducted by Mueller.
To my knowledge, the only Trump Org witness that Mueller has interviewed so far was Allen Weisselberg.
The way the article is worded may have mistakenly suggested Weisselberg was responsible for that info.
That's my current take on it anyway.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)at Trump Org. was scheduled to be interviewed quite a while back by House Intelligence Committee. Also read that they were going to interview her in NYC. IMO, I would be surprised if the FBI/Mueller hasn't interviewed her as well as other Trump Org. people by now.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rhona-graff-longtime-trump-assistant-be-interviewed-house-intelligence-committee-n832056
canetoad
(17,136 posts)Thanks for posting.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)about Mueller's Investigation?!
"Inside the Mueller teams decision to dispute BuzzFeeds explosive story on Trump and Cohen"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/inside-the-mueller-teams-decision-to-dispute-buzzfeeds-explosive-story-on-trump-and-cohen/2019/01/19/d89dba5b-fa0f-445b-9fd3-72f0e911e28d_story.html?utm_term=.ccbd8dbaf70b
Important info in article not included in OP:
"Two people familiar with the matter said lawyers at the special counsels office discussed the statement internally, rather than conferring with Justice Department leaders, for much of the day. In the advanced stages of those talks, the deputy attorney generals office called to inquire if the special counsel planned any kind of response, and was informed a statement was being prepared, the people said." (my bold)
So does this mean that the countless articles published by the media regarding the Mueller's team investigation are vetted by Rosenstein and/or DOJ? In other words, if inaccurate assertions are made in a story, then Rosenstein/DOJ tells Mueller's team to issue a public statement saying the story or parts of story are false? Correct me if I am wrong, but I find this hard to believe. So, I just find this a little strange. After all, there's been tons of speculation reported about the investigation without a peep out of Special Counsel's office...up until now.
Am I crazy to think the possibility exists that Whitiker "encouraged" Rosenstein to call Mueller's team to ensure a response/denial would be made public by the Special Counsel's Office, refuting BuzzFeed's reporting? (Of note: I remember Comey stating (before he was fired) in an open congressional hearing that some reporting about the investigation had not been accurate - but I don't remember him releasing a statement to the press saying any particular article was not accurate. In fact, I believe he made the point that he couldn't do that because then those stories he didn't refute would be taken as gospel, and he didn't want to set that precedent.)
With my tinfoil hat securely on my head, I do wonder if this unusual step (Rosenstein's office calling Mueller yesterday "to inquire if the special counsel planned any kind of a response" was because of the explosive effect this BuzzFeed bombshell story had and the amped up dialogue about impeachment? This Washington Post story implies that this Rosenstein phone call to Mueller wasn't preceded by earlier calls by Rosenstein asking Mueller if the story was accurate or not.
Furthermore, I don't believe that Rosenstein knew for a fact if the BuzzFeed story was false. After all, this article includes this paragraph below which states that after BuzzFeed's article was published, even Mueller's team "reviewed evidence to determine if there were any documents or witness interviews like those described" in the BuzzFeed article!!
"People familiar with the matter said after BuzzFeed published its story which was attributed to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter the special counsels office reviewed evidence to determine if there were any documents or witness interviews like those described, reaching out to those they thought might have a stake in the case."
Of course, my overriding concern is that Whitiker wasn't trying to control the public surge/momentum of calls for articles of impeachment in the House.
Any thoughts?
SunSeeker
(51,516 posts)Particularly after reading this story about Whitaker's wife (!!) emailing a journalist that the Mueller investigation is wrapping up soon:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/politics/marci-whitaker-trump-mueller/index.html
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)WTH?!
SunSeeker
(51,516 posts)I understand the message that Slate wants to send its readers. You hate Trump - noted. I also understand that I cannot stop people from writing what they want, if they toss in a few words like allegedly or likely. But I cannot understand the zeal in trying to destroy an individual who has done nothing to deserve this tearing down. Someone who has never had an ethics complaint. Someone who supported his family though a variety of enterprises, some more successful than others, but never sinister or shady. Are you hoping that all future appointees qualifications are to have sat at a desk and pushed paper around for 30 years? Is life experience, both good and bad, somehow disqualifying? Matt is a really good person and is only serving his country. Hes also going to be back in the private sector at some point. It is a small comfort to me that the people who will want to work with him in the future are, lets hope, really unlikely readers of Slate and similar publications. I happen to like things about Slate and Im also not a fire-breathing Republican dragon, so it does distress me somewhat to read these things. I have ignored a lot of it, because it is all innuendo and/or outright BS, but you should know this is just too much. If you have a conscience, I hope you will consider reporting in a more ethical and fair manner than this article demonstrates.
Literally none of the awful things you and your co-author say are true. There is zero evidence that Matt is homophobic and if you knew how the US Attorneys office worked and how multiple law enforcement agencies participated in the McCoy case, you would not print that. Mr. McCoy has for years attempted to spin it this way and it has never taken hold, except perhaps, to the very negatively motivated and gullible. To imply that Matt had visibility and knowledge of $25 million dollars of wrongdoing is preposterous. Would you characterize a sternly worded letter as threatening? [note: obviously, yes, you did, but really?] It was well-documented that Matt is a capable and affable person. He was at the right hand of Sessions for over a year. But sure, imply that he got the current appointment because of something he said over a year prior before he worked for anyone. The particularly on television part LOL. What does that even mean? Nothing, thats what. It does sound really suspicious if you put it that way AND when you ignore that he simply was well-liked and competent. Its not in this particular article, but the he auditioned for the job on CNN part of the past months reporting has been among the most absurdly and tragically funny part of this whole experience. Who could have imagined this turn of events? No one. Not us, that is for sure. The idea that it was some calculated plan is silly. Work through that sequence maybe, and see if it seems plausible.
It isnt really or shouldnt be that controversial to state that the Mueller investigation should stay within the parameters given. Particularly when that is said more than a year prior as the investigation is just beginning. Why would a person need to recuse oneself for that mild statement? If abundance of caution is the standard, anyone who ever spent 5 minutes contemplating the topic would need to do so. And by all means, assume that a person who speculated on a hypothetical scenario would then put some dark plan into motion, when by all accounts, the investigation is wrapping up and they [sic] eyes of the nation are upon them. Yeah, thats pretty realistic. Oh, and I guess you missed that the Supreme Court decided not to take up the temporary appointment challenge. Most organizations had given up on that angle of attack quite a while ago. Kudos to your perseverance, misguided though it may be. Finally, I dont know how you print that he is lying about the academic All-American thing, while yourself writing all of these untruths. It is truly bizarre. All of that has been explained, if you cared to find out.
About the only thing that I can applaud you for is having the guts to link your email address. I hope youll consider whether the viciousness of your reporting is warranted. Given your apparent mindset, Im sure there are many ways for your [sic] to turn the mental cartwheels to justify this. Because Trump! Its a simplistic ending to any discussion and absolves you of actual journalistic integrity. Because Trump! And integrity! And if he had a conscience himself he wouldnt be there! Thats sarcasm, btw. Matt is a conscientious and thoughtful person of integrity. I feel like I could write your articles for you. Theyre that clichéd.
PS this is my work email and phone. Please do not use it in any ill manner. I like my job and I need to continue to earn a living, particularly in light of this shutdown. Thanks!
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/marci-whitaker-email-matthew-whitaker-attorney-general.html
As Stern notes:
At the end of her email, Marci Whitaker wrote, PS this is my work email and phone. Please do not use it in any ill manner. I like my job and I need to continue to earn a living, particularly in light of this shutdown. Thanks! Presumably this means that Whitaker is not earning a paycheck while the government is shut down. We have asked the Department of Justice for confirmation and will update this post if we receive a response. (After sending this inquiry to the DOJ press office, I received an automated response reading, Due to the lapse in appropriations, messages submitted through this web form may not be returned until funding is restored.)
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)To add insult of injury, she works at DOJ?!?!!
deurbano
(2,894 posts)"That seems to be a violation of Special Counsel regulations, which say that Muellers office shall not be subject to day-to-day supervision of any official, whether DAG or Acting Attorney General:
The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
Maybe Mueller and Peter Carr dont care. But it should set off all sorts of alarm bells that as soon as a media report states what has long been clear that Trump suborned perjury Muellers office is getting calls about how to respond to the press, which last I checked was not an investigative or prosecutorial step at all. All the more so given that Carr appears to have bent over backward not to reveal any investigative details to the press, adhering rigorously to any DOJ guidelines on that front."
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2019, 03:55 AM - Edit history (2)
about this. My gut tells me that Whitiker could be behind this.
Some might say, "If the Special Counsel part of the story is not accurate, so what if the Mueller spokesman corrected it on the record AND Rosenstein's office called to ensure they would?"
From the beginning, I've been told that the Mueller Investigation is a prosecutor's task to find the facts, evidence whereever it leads...that it is not a politically driven enterprise. So, why did Rosenstein call to ensure that a public response would be made on THIS particular story. Doesn't sound like his standard operating procedure to date. Hence, my Whitiker concerns.
SunSeeker
(51,516 posts)DeminPennswoods
(15,265 posts)He isn't micro-managing the SCO per se, but Mueller has to request approval for things potentially outside the written scope of the memo that appointed him. I'm sure Rosenstein gets regular updates on where various aspects of the SCO investigation stand also.
The Buzzfeed story was threatening to push the SCO investigation into the open.TBH, I think the SCO pushback has simple explanation, they just aren't ready or don't want to make anything public or answer any questions yet.
SunSeeker
(51,516 posts)Mueller's team does not leak.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)According to WaPo, more anonymous sources familiar with......
Maeve
(42,271 posts)Don't want the frog jumping out of the pot before we get him properly simmered....
The Wizard
(12,536 posts)DonViejo
(60,536 posts)The consensus of Forum Hosts agrees this is an article analyzing how the Mueller team responded, not LBN. The article may be posted in the General Discussions Forum