Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Speaking of BuzzFeed [View all]

coeur_de_lion

(3,676 posts)
6. I guess the important thing to remember here is that
Sat Jan 19, 2019, 09:59 PM
Jan 2019

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|

“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,” he wrote.

People familiar with the matter said the special counsel’s 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.
Speaking of BuzzFeed [View all] H2O Man Jan 2019 OP
Raise a glass to abrupt ends. woofless Jan 2019 #1
Right! H2O Man Jan 2019 #2
Lighting up what? BannonsLiver Jan 2019 #11
Kick dalton99a Jan 2019 #3
I agree with you malaise Jan 2019 #4
Once again... Liberal Jesus Freak Jan 2019 #5
I guess the important thing to remember here is that coeur_de_lion Jan 2019 #6
. Fuzzpope Jan 2019 #7
I am wondering if their sources Mr.Bill Jan 2019 #8
They said law enforcement officials with knowledge of the investigation. marylandblue Jan 2019 #10
K&R good point! Claiming that Mueller's team is leaking information discredits the investigation. Jeffersons Ghost Jan 2019 #9
K&R Scurrilous Jan 2019 #12
Glad l was able to read what you wrote. It reminded me to try Enoki33 Jan 2019 #13
Thanks for this. mountain grammy Jan 2019 #14
I doubt Anyone on Mueller's side leaked. Makes sense Mueller's statement is consistent Pepsidog Jan 2019 #15
You are one of the Crown Jewels Of DU. sellitman Jan 2019 #16
K&R suffragette Jan 2019 #17
"So, Michael, Jared and I have been talking," says the Orange One, pnwmom Jan 2019 #18
It was amazing to me how quickly the story was questioned and corrected. kentuck Jan 2019 #19
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Speaking of BuzzFeed»Reply #6