Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2019, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)
Mueller's team does not leak.
The article mentioned a leak or talked about the way Mueller team obtained some evidence in a way that the team recognized never happened.
So I suppose the Mueller team had to say something or else people would keep reporting fake leaks.
While it is almost certainly true that trump directed Cohen to lie, it didn't happen quite the way the article said it did.
Here is a Washington Post article that explains why Mueller's office responded in the way that they did:
[link: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=.2b280e2e3c92|
BuzzFeeds description of specific statements to the Special Counsels Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohens congressional testimony are not accurate, he wrote.
People familiar with the matter said the special counsels office meant the statement to be a denial of the central theses of the BuzzFeed story particularly those that referenced what Cohen had told the special counsel, and what evidence the special counsel had gathered.
The Buzzfeed article may have been mostly accurate but the mistakes they made caused an uproar -- that 5% you speak of can drown out the other 95% when we are thisclose to getting rid of Individual 1 for good. Individual 1 will grab at ANYTHING that is even slightly favorable to him.
So I am curious about this paragraph that you wrote:
One should consider if these are honest mistakes, careless errors, seemingly correct conclusions on realistic theories, or purposeful misleading efforts to discredit an individual, group or organization, or movement. Everyone has the right to their own opinion on this. I see no need to express my own at this time.
I really wish you would give us a hint about what you personally believe. Your opinion is valued here.