Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, January 18, 2019

Special counsel Robert Mueller's office disputed an explosive story from BuzzFeed News as "not accurate" Friday night, after the news outlet reported the President had directed his personal attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, for which Cohen was later prosecuted.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It did take 22 hours for the SC to comment on this story. It'll be interesting to eventually find out what actually happened because the Cohen sentencing documents do state that Trump directed Cohen when it came to what he told government officials. Hmmmmmmmm.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-18 08:10 PM | Reply

Well, f*** me!
~Everyone jumping to judgment.

#2 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2019-01-18 08:11 PM | Reply

#3 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2019-01-18 08:11 PM | Reply

I can't begin to count how many times I've read "If the Buzzfeed story is true..." before all the leaping. In the nature of the public's limited access to what's actually going on makes it mandatory to read any comments about the future with that prefix attached even if the speaker leaves it off.

#4 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-18 08:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It is Buzzfeed. They are on par with CNN - all fake news, all the time. It is just funny of Liberals continue to fall for it.

#5 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 08:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 4

Disclaimer: Because I cannot stand Trump, I'd like to believe Cohen's revelation. But he is't very credible. This is a problem. Much proof will be required before I get my hopes up.

#6 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2019-01-18 08:18 PM | Reply

5: Give some examples of whom is "falling for" this.

#7 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2019-01-18 08:22 PM | Reply

#6

The reporting was not based on (allegedly) what Cohen himself said or originally divulged. It was based on documents, emails and other evidence that Mueller already had from multiple sources outside of Cohen, which when asked about it Cohen was supposed to have confirmed the information.

#8 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-18 08:23 PM | Reply

Buzzfeed has responded that they continue to stand behind their reporting because the SC really didn't say WHAT about the reporting they dispute, and until they understand what the SC is referring to it's impossible for them to comment about what they don't yet know.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-18 08:25 PM | Reply

8: Tony, I'd love to see from where that information came and then decide if I believe it.

#10 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2019-01-18 08:34 PM | Reply

#7 | POSTED BY WOE_IS_W

Refer to #8 in this thread. Now, Tony has been the main person here carrying on about the Russian conspiracy nonsense so this is not surprising. But, go to the actual thread on the Buzzfeed story and you will see all the usuals gushing how this is ironclad proof despite it being Buzzfeed. Even now that the SC has specifically said Buzzfeed is lying, they still cling to it. To be honest, I think only 1% of the Democrat party actually believe the Russia nonsense. The rest are just hoping that the SC fishing expedition uncovers totally unrelated crimes that force Trump to resign - but, they are not dumb enough to actually believe the Russia story.

#11 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 08:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"the Democrat party"

Who?

#12 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-18 08:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"To be honest, I think only 1% of the Democrat party actually believe the Russia nonsense."

Great.

Now we have Republican Math™ using Vernon's Calculator™.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-18 08:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 6

"the Democrat party"
Who?
#12 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

The Pelosi clownshow that contains the remnants of the former Democratic Party.

#14 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 08:41 PM | Reply

11: Obviously, just because Buzzfeed reports something, I'm not necessarily on board, unless there is corroborating evidence.
I don't care about "the usuals gushing". I want to know if there is actually irrefutable proof for what they're reporting. Otherwise, I will dismiss it.

#15 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2019-01-18 08:42 PM | Reply

Even now that the SC has specifically said Buzzfeed is lying,

You;re the only one lying. READ the SC statement:

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.
"Description" and "characterization" are mentioned but not a comprehensive denial of facts. It's a subjective dispute, not a wholesale refutation of the underlying foundation of the story.

Big difference. As Buzzfeed said, no one knows exactly what the SC is referring to at this point, but in no way was that statement a refutation of the entirety of Buzzfeed's reporting.

#16 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-18 08:43 PM | Reply

Now we have Republican Math™ using Vernon's Calculator™.
#13 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Math isn't your strong suit, or logic for that matter. How many times did you post in the Buzzfeed thread? BTW, as an uneducated white male, how many times have you been polled about your support for Trump?

#17 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 08:43 PM | Reply

The Pelosi clownshow that contains the remnants of the former Democratic Party.

#14 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-01-18 08:41 PM | FLAG:

Never heard of them. Are they new?

#18 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-18 08:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The Pelosi clownshow that contains the remnants of the former Democratic Party." - #14 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 08:41 PM

Those on the right side of the aisle, especially those who are cowards, are in no position to claim what is or what isn't the Democratic Party.

#19 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-18 08:46 PM | Reply

"Description" and "characterization" are mentioned but not a comprehensive denial of facts.
#16 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Yeah, keep polishing that turd, you don't look dumb enough yet.

#20 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 08:46 PM | Reply

Math isn't your strong suit
#17 | POSTED BY NOBIASPOSTER101 AT 2019-01-18 08:43 PM | FLAG:

What does math have to do with your made up statistics?

#21 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-18 08:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 08:46 PM | Flag: Turd polisher

#22 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-18 08:51 PM | Reply

Those on the right side of the aisle, especially those who are cowards, are in no position to claim what is or what isn't the Democratic Party.
#19 | POSTED BY HANS

Of course we are in a great position. Most of the Trump supporters used to belong to the Democratic Party. Now that it is the Pelosi Clownshow Democrat Party, we went with the guy that kept the same platform as the Democrats from the 1990's but we a bit more liberal on social issues. Trump makes 1992 Bill Clinton look like a Republican.

But, let's not hijack this thread. Please carry on with your Alex Jones level crazy telling us Buzzfeed was not just completed discredited, again.

#23 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 08:51 PM | Reply

"Of course we are in a great position." - #23 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 08:51 PM

No you're not, coward.

"Democrat Party"

There is no such thing.

#24 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-18 08:54 PM | Reply

OMG, I just realized that the ONLY part of the Buzzfeed story that the SC disputes is "...regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony....! Nothing about the other evidence or statements from other people outside of Cohen, and does anyone else believe it wouldn't have been included too in the SC statement if it were disputed or mischaracterized too?

The only dispute was regarding Cohen's CONGRESSIONAL testimony, not what he reportedly said in interviews either. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing and something a lot of righties fail miserably at.

So the only turd around here is 101 who I believe Danforth just flushed anyway....

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-18 08:55 PM | Reply

Spokesman Peter Carr says, "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."

Some folks are wondering if the leaks came out of SDNY because the BF article states:

"President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter."

When I first read the article, I wondered if the 2 law enforcement officials cited were somehow connected to Felix Sater, who is mentioned prominently in the article because he worked with Cohen, his childhood friend, trying to set up the Trump Tower Moscow deal. Sater has been an FBI informant in the past, and so I've been wondering if his handlers could be the 2 feds behind the article.

In any event, the BF article indicates the leak did not come from the SCO.

#26 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 09:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter."

"An investigation"? Who else is investigating Trump Tower Moscow? If someone is, wouldn't they have to turn any information they uncover over to the SCO?

#27 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 09:25 PM | Reply


@#16 ... Big difference. ...

"not accurate" does not mean "wrong."

Mr Mueller's statement was (unsurprisingly) very carefully worded.

I'm still watching as this one unfolds.

I would not be surprised if there is indeed some manner of fire behind the smoke. Describing it as a gas fire instead of a wood fire would not be accurate. But there may be a fire there, nonetheless.

Corollary: things like this are the reason why I want Mr Mueller to finish his investigation, so we can find out why so many people around Pres Turmp lie so frequently about Russia.

from my post on another thread: www.drudge.com )

#28 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 09:26 PM | Reply


[Also from the other thread...]

What I'm finding interesting in all this...

Those involved, directly or tangentially, are all selecting their words very carefully, with more than a couple non-denying denials.

For example, WH Dep Press Secretary Hogan Gidley on Fox News this morning when he was asked bluntly by Bill Hemmer, "Are you saying the President did not tell Michael Cohen to do that?"

Gidley's reply: "I'm telling you right now, this is exactly why the President refuses to give any credence or credibility to news outlets..."

Dep Press Sec Gidely went on and on, but did not answer the question, when all he really had to say was "that is correct."

Mr Hemmer replied, after patiently waiting, "That was not a denial of my question."

I thought that exchange to be quite interesting.

Still unexplained in this current set of events is --- why did Mr Giuliani do a sudden about face and say that only Pres Trump didn't collude, apparently implying that others in the campaign did. What prompted him to say that?

I'm thinking I may need to add that one to my list of unanswered curiosities.

( www.drudge.com )

#29 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 09:28 PM | Reply

Pushback from a Former Fed Prosecutor SDNY:

Mimi Rocah @Mimirocah1

There is a less than zero chance that someone in the SDNY US Attorney's Office leaked this. Anyone saying that absolutely does not understand the people and culture there.

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 09:28 PM | Reply


@#27 ... Who else is investigating Trump Tower Moscow? ...

Well, the long-time CFO of Trump Org is now a cooperating witness for the SDNY....

#31 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 09:30 PM | Reply

Gal, do you read the statement as only disputing things regarding Cohen's congressional testimony? I'm trying to parse the sentence and keep fighting with myself due to the punctuation. It certainly seems like the dispute over statements doesn't stand separate from being related to Cohen's testimony. What say you?

#32 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-18 09:32 PM | Reply

Susan Hennessey @Susan_Hennessey

The good news about the Buzzfeed story mystery is we won't have to wait long to find out. The very first question Michael Cohen will be asked in his congressional testimony is "Did the President ever instruct or encourage you to lie to Congress or federal investigators?"

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 09:33 PM | Reply

@gregorykorte

20m20 minutes ago

It would be wise to withhold judgment on both the BuzzFeed story and Mueller's denial of it. The story relies on anonymous sources and can't be confirmed by other outlets. But also, the vague denial makes it impossible to know whether Mueller is disputing all of it or just part.

Gregory Korte National correspondent for USA TODAY

twitter.com

- Most of the Trump supporters used to belong to the Democratic Party.

S'riously? Sheeple thinks everyone is as stupid as he. And I use the term "thinks" loosely.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-18 09:34 PM | Reply

That evil secret deep state liberal robert mueller just said the buzzfeed story isn't true.

I guess he'll lose all his evil secret deep state liberal credibility.

Remember when trump leaked out the one page of his tax returns he could find without criminality on it, and the press ate it up?

Trump leaks stuff about himself to the press when he thinks it will help him.

He used to call in to radio shows using a different name trying to disguise his voice to talk about "donald trump"

At the end of the day, mueller's report is what matters. And the people being able to see what's in it. Although the new AG hasn't said he'll LET us see what's in it, won't promise he won't change what's in it, and won't promise he would tell us if he did change it.

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-18 09:36 PM | Reply

#32 Tony, I'm puzzling over the wording myself. As you an LL point out, the statement is very carefully worded. Others have pointed out it took the SCO many hours to come out with this brief statement. Seeming to indicate they were taking their time and weighing their comments carefully.

#36 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 09:40 PM | Reply


@#34 ... t would be wise to withhold judgment on both the BuzzFeed story and Mueller's denial of it. ...

I'm withholding judgment on more than that.

But I do consider this to be one of the more interesting events in a while.

A wide-ranging set of people have chimed in, either to issue a non-denying denial, or to say something is inaccurate, or to throw someone else under the bus.

How many times has Mr Mueller publicly commented on a news story about his investigation?

How often does Mr Giuliani throw all on Pres Trump's campaign, except Pres Trump (his client), under the bus?

How often are there so many non-denying denials?

How often do all of the above come together for one event?

#37 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 09:45 PM | Reply

I prefer the slow roast to the quick chop anyway ;-)

#38 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-01-18 09:45 PM | Reply

Now taking $0.25 bets that Trump is never convicted of anything nor removed from office (other than through the electoral process or term limits of 8 years).

Just list your name and that you wanna bet me.
PayPal works for me.

#39 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-01-18 09:45 PM | Reply

Susan Hennessey @Susan_Hennessey

Difficult to parse each and every word here, but it is extremely unusual for the Special Counsel's office to issue a statement disputing a story and should be taken very seriously.

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 09:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The story relies on anonymous sources and can't be confirmed by other outlets."

That's what I heard people saying last night and this morning: if other outlets can't confirm the story, then it should not be trusted.

#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 09:52 PM | Reply

Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing and something a lot of righties fail miserably at.

I'm trying to decide how much of an understatement this really is.
Extremely understated, or enormously understated?

#42 | Posted by YAV at 2019-01-18 09:55 PM | Reply

...if other outlets can't confirm the story, then it should not be trusted.

Ronan Farrow

Verified account

@RonanFarrow
2h2 hours ago

I can't speak to Buzzfeed's sourcing, but, for what it's worth, I declined to run with parts of the narrative they conveyed based on a source central to the story repeatedly disputing the idea that Trump directly issued orders of that kind.

@RonanFarrow

Note that the general thrust of Cohen lying to Congress "in accordance with" or "to support and advance" Trump's agenda (per Cohen's legal memo) is not in dispute. The source disputed the further, more specific idea that Trump issued -- and memorialized -- repeated direct instructions.

Farrow evidently was in contact with at least one of the sources but his reticence was based on a technical characterization, not the underlying facts that said that Trump asked Cohen to lie. Cohen already admitted this in his plea agreement.

#43 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-18 10:11 PM | Reply


@#43 ... Farrow evidently was in contact with at least one of the sources but his reticence was based on a technical characterization, not the underlying facts that said that Trump asked Cohen to lie. Cohen already admitted this in his plea agreement. ...

Now take that concept and multiply it by a million or so, and you have an idea of the challenge that Mr Mueller is facing as he tries to parse the words of what everyone tells him/

A good investigator knows the types of questions to ask in order to get past that type of ambiguity.It is the reason why follow-up questions are often so important....

#44 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 10:17 PM | Reply

TFF:

Says the snowflake with No Comment! on the day's biggest story.
#4 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2019-01-18 02:44 PM | FLAG:

#4 Deflection noted. Now run back to your ------------ frenzy over the latest Buzzfeed clickbait.

#7 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-01-18 02:53 PM | FLAG:

"...the latest Buzzfeed clickbait."

Keep whistling past that graveyard.

#8 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-01-18 02:54 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 2

*hands a box of moist towelettes to Danforth*

#9 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-01-18 02:59 PM | FLAG:

The reason that I had "No Comment! on the day's biggest story"...wait for it...was that I knew it was pure BS.

And you all ate it up.

#45 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-18 10:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#45 - nothing says it's pure BS. You're as guilty with your proclamation of it being pure BS as those on the side saying it's gospel truth. The difference is there arne't that many (any?) saying it's undisputed and should be taken as being 100% accurate.

There's only one side that's saying it's 100% garbage. You may feel good about that. That's fine, but you aren't any different than that of which you're poking.

That goes for anyone that's taking this as "it's either a or b, and nothing in between!"

#46 | Posted by YAV at 2019-01-18 10:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#45

The story is not BS because it's based on what Mueller has already told us in Cohen's court documents. The only dispute is over the article's characterization of things surrounding what it said about Cohen's congressional testimony.

You hold on to that BS idea about Trump telling Cohen to lie. Cohen already plead to that very thing and Mueller made a sentencing recommendation to the court vouching for Cohen's honesty in his dealings with and statements to the SC.

#47 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-18 10:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And ROC knows that Mueller would never base his conclusion solely on what Cohen said anyway. Bob doesn't work that way if the words of others formerly with the DOJ/FBI familiar with him are to be believed.

#48 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-18 10:30 PM | Reply

There's only one side that's saying it's 100% garbage.

Yeah, when the Special Counsel's office takes the extraordinary step of issuing a public statement that a story that you all circle-jerked yourselves to a frenzy over is "not accurate", does that mean that Mueller's office is now on that "one side"?

Check out the Pew Report on the least trusted news sites and get back to me.

#49 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-18 10:31 PM | Reply


@#45 ... it was pure BS. ...

I am not convinced that I would give it the BS appellation at this point.

I would say that what BuzzFeed reported may not be precisely correct, that there are inaccuracies in their story.

Whether those inaccuracies were introduced by the BuzzFeed sources in order to cover their identities, or whether the sources were not fully informed on the matter, or did someone plant this story to tarnish BuzzFeed, or ... ?

But to your point, this is exactly why I like Mr Mueller's (and other investigators') approach, i.e., they require evidence from multiple sources for the same occurrence.

It will be interesting to watch this one unfold....

#50 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 10:33 PM | Reply

Having browsed the Buzzfeed based thread, there is no doubt that the underlying premise that you were jizzing all over was their reporting that "Trump specifically directed Cohen to lie to Congress". Mueller's office just came out and said that "was not accurate."

Parse it all you want, but basically Mueller's office just shot down that entire article.

But by all means, you may now resume your circle flapping.

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-18 10:35 PM | Reply

Take a listen to tonight's interview with Ben Smith:

Maddow Blog @MaddowBlog

Rachel #Maddow's full interview with @BuzzFeedBen , editor-in-chief of buzzfeed

twitter.com

#52 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 10:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


@#49 ... Yeah, when the Special Counsel's office takes the extraordinary step of issuing a public statement that a story that you all circle-jerked yourselves to a frenzy over is "not accurate", does that mean that Mueller's office is now on that "one side"? ...

No, it does mean exactly what Mr Mueller said. It is not accurate.

That does not mean it is wrong.

Mr Mueller did not say what part was not accurate, nor did he say that everything was not accurate.

To my point, maybe you should take your own advice and not jump to conclusions. ;)

#53 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 10:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3


@#51 ... Parse it all you want, but basically Mueller's office just shot down that entire article. ...

Not, Mr Mueller did not shoot down the entire article.

And you admit as much because you apparently felt the need to put the word "basically" in your comment to hedge your bets.

#54 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 10:41 PM | Reply

Not, Mr Mueller did not shoot down the entire article.

- should be -

No, Mr Mueller did not shoot down the entire article.

#55 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 10:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It is not accurate.
That does not mean it is wrong.

Like I said, parse it all you want.

When was the last time the Special Counsel's office came out to correct a story about their investigation?

I'll wait...

#56 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-18 10:46 PM | Reply

To put an even finer point to it, when was the last time the Special Counsel's office came out and said a highly inflammatory story relating to their investigation was "not accurate?"

#57 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-18 10:48 PM | Reply

#55 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

If Mueller felt it was "truthful" in any way, don't you believe he would act on it immediately?

In otherwords if materially there was any meat to this, why wouldn't Mueller act? They have supposedly had this information since raiding Cohen's office.

#58 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-18 10:49 PM | Reply

To put an even finer point to it, when was the last time the Special Counsel's office came out and said a highly inflammatory story relating to their investigation was "not accurate?"

Um .. never?

#59 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-18 10:50 PM | Reply

"If Mueller felt it was "truthful" in any way, don't you believe he would act on it immediately?
In otherwords if materially there was any meat to this, why wouldn't Mueller act? They have supposedly had this information since raiding Cohen's office. "

In what way do you imagine he should act?

#60 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 10:52 PM | Reply


@#56 ... Like I said, parse it all you want. ...

It is not me who does the parsing.

It is Mr Mueller who chooses the words.

Lawyers tend to choose words carefully when legal things are being written. But I should not have to tell you that. ;)


... When was the last time the Special Counsel's office came out to correct a story about their investigation? ...

I asked that question an hour or so ago. Check out message #37.

I'll wait for your answers to the questions I posed in #37...

#61 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 10:52 PM | Reply

When I was in the DA's office, we were instructed to ignore the press and that if something that was reported was totally wrong, the press office would issue a statement to refute the incorrect information and/or diffuse any issues that may arise from the incorrect news article.

IMO that is what just happened, but not soon enough to quell the ridiculousness that went on in the Buzzfeed thread.

#62 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-18 10:54 PM | Reply


@358 ... don't you believe he would act on it immediately? ...

Mr Mueller is an experienced investigator. As such he does not do knee-jerk reactions to evidence as it appears.

He needs to build a case that will stand up in a court of law. That takes time.

I am really very surprised that you seem to be completely unaware of this.

#63 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 10:56 PM | Reply

a highly inflammatory story(emphasis mine) relating to their investigation was "not accurate?"

That isn't what the statement says and you know it. Why are you here misrepresenting things just like Sniper or Sheeple? The statement is limited to only "characterization," "description of specific statements," "regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony."

Michael Cohen's testimony before Congress is now understood to have been lies that he told supposedly in conspiracy with Donald Trump. Just how does that make the entire story "not accurate"?

You're slipping counselor.

#64 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-18 10:56 PM | Reply

I asked that question an hour or so ago. Check out message #37.

More correctly, you posed that question, not answered it.

The answer is, Mueller's office hasn't as of yet, which makes this a direct refutation of the Buzzfeed article, plain and simple.

As for the rest of it, Rudy has definitely thrown everyone but the "royal" family (as I have noted in other threads) under the Bus.

#65 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-18 10:58 PM | Reply


@#62 ... ignore the press and that if something that was reported was totally wrong, the press office would issue a statement to refute the incorrect information and/or diffuse any issues that may arise from the incorrect news article. ...

That looks like what happened. Except that "refute the information" was done very generally, and not specifically.

The article was refuted, not specific parts of the article.

So, was the entire article wrong? Or part(s) of it.

Is Michael Cohen's name not Michael Cohen?

I remain in my opinion that you should go with the same advice you mete out to others, don't jump to conclusions. :)

#66 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 11:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Angry Staffer @AngrierWHStaff

I, for one, appreciate the precedent Trump set tonight of believing what the Special Counsel's office releases.

Methinks that might change in the near future.

¯_(ツ)_/¯
7:29 PM - 18 Jan 2019

#67 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 11:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


@#65 ... More correctly, you posed that question, not answered it. ...

Wait, what?!?!?!

Are you ++gasp++ parsing something?!?!?! Oh the horror!

;)

#68 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 11:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Like I said Tony, parse away, but even CNN disagrees with your rather desperate clinging to this story:

"The BuzzFeed story, by reporters Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier, asserted that Cohen had told special counsel investigators that "after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie -- by claiming that negotiations [for a Trump development project in Moscow] ended months earlier than they actually did -- in order to obscure Trump's involvement."

"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," said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller's office, in a statement.

The Special Counsel's Office, in a released statement, specifically says that the quoted segment "is not accurate."

We all know that Cohen is scum, but it is clear that the Buzzfeed clickbait is not accurate.

#69 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-18 11:04 PM | Reply

I wonder why the SCO didn't put the cabosh on the story when BF ran it by them prior to publication? Ben Smith said they sent the SCO a summary of what they intended to print. Why would the SCO let/want a false story to be released into the public sphere?

#70 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 11:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


@#67 ... I, for one, appreciate the precedent Trump set tonight of believing what the Special Counsel's office releases. ...

Yeah, I've been wallowing in that.


(I've always liked the word "wallow," ever since I heard it in the Doors' song "Light My Fire" ... wallow in the mire... ... but I digress...)

#71 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 11:08 PM | Reply

Buzfeed = Turd Producer
TONYROMA = Turd Polisher
DICKSTAIN = Turd Taster

Buzzfeed cooks up an entirely anonymously sourced turd article that no one else will publish, SC refutes it, TONYROMA polishes the turd for mass consumption by the Left. DICKSTAIN consumes the turd and reports it tastes like chocolate.

Seriously, we have reached Alex Jones level of idiocy here.

#72 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 11:08 PM | Reply

Brian Beutler @brianbeutler

And also about how the suborning happened. Did Cohen circulate his testimony and get edits and sign off? Is that meaningfully different than Trump telling him to perjure himself. Mueller's sentencing memo more consistent with the former, but both are damning.

Elizabeth de la Vega @Delavegalaw

Elizabeth de la Vega Retweeted Brian Beutler
Diff between "directing" a person to lie and coordinating false testimony wd likely not alter Trump's culpability, but for prosecutors, who may need to argue Cohen is entirely credible, the diff is key. It's critical that Cohen's account be, and be seen as, entirely accurate.

#73 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 11:11 PM | Reply

- (I've always liked the word "wallow," ever since I heard it in the Doors' song "Light My Fire" ... wallow in the mire... ... but I digress...)

A Doors fan can't be all bad. Did I ever mention I saw them in concert..twice? :)

#74 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-18 11:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

ROC you know that "not accurate" and "100% categorically false without an iota of truth" (my words, not yours) don't live in the same universe. I guess we'll know when we know.

#75 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-18 11:14 PM | Reply

Pure speculation on my part, but I think the inaccuracy lies in what is identified in #73 and by Ronan Farrow, who Tony cited earlier:

Ronan Farrow @RonanFarrow

I can't speak to Buzzfeed's sourcing, but, for what it's worth, I declined to run with parts of the narrative they conveyed based on a source central to the story repeatedly disputing the idea that Trump directly issued orders of that kind.

Note that the general thrust of Cohen lying to Congress "in accordance with" or "to support and advance" Trump's agenda (per Cohen's legal memo) is not in dispute. The source disputed the further, more specific idea that Trump issued -- and memorialized -- repeated direct instructions.

#76 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 11:15 PM | Reply

A Doors fan can't be all bad.
#74 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

No, they are not all bad. Sooner or later, they will all wake up/grow up and realize how ridiculous they have acted. Like Snoofy thinking he is street/black and liberally using the N-word on a public forum, they will look back on those days with embarrassment. It seems most have awoken from their Obama slumber to realize he was an endless war, empty suit. It is the cycle of life.

#77 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 11:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Note that the general thrust of Cohen lying to Congress "in accordance with" or "to support and advance" Trump's agenda (per Cohen's legal memo) is not in dispute. The source disputed the further, more specific idea that Trump issued -- and memorialized -- repeated direct instructions.
#76 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

You are basically admitting that this story is total nonsense. Up until Cohen got caught in unrelated tax crimes, his interests and Trump's interests were 100% aligned. So, any action to protect himself would also be an effort to protect Trump. The ONLY, and it needs to be emphasized ONLY thing material in this article is if Trump himself specifically ordered him to lie and whether those instructions were recorded. Per all other legitimate sources, that did not occur.

#78 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 11:21 PM | Reply


@#69 ... the Buzzfeed clickbait is not accurate. ...

Is Michael Cohen's name not Michael Cohen?

What part, specifically, of the article is not accurate.

That is my question. I'd ask it of Mr Mueller, but I suspect he is elsewise busy.

#79 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 11:21 PM | Reply


@#72 ... Seriously, we have reached Alex Jones level of idiocy here. ...

Nah, we've got a long way to go before we get there.

But keep posting....

#80 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 11:23 PM | Reply

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin on BuzzFeed: "People are going to take from this story is that the news media are a bunch of leftist liars who are dying to get the president, and they're willing to lie to do it...I just think this is a bad day for us"

Ouch...

#81 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-18 11:24 PM | Reply

^^^^^
twitter.com

#82 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-18 11:25 PM | Reply

Some commentators are saying this: Prior to January 3rd, Mueller knew that the GOP would not jump into any impeachment proceedings before the SC report was submitted. The Buzzfeed story, if taken as whole truth, does lay out multiple felonies that Congress could start proceedings over. Perhaps Mueller is telling Congress to pump the brakes before going down that road with faulty information and to let him finish first so that any impeachment proceedings would have all the details his investigation has compiled if indeed they are impeachment worthy.

Gal asked the operative question in 70: Why did the SC refuse to comment when given the story before publication and then come back 22 hours later with a statement? Reputable media always gives subjects a chance to comment on unnamed source stories before they are published even if comments are off the record because no outlet wants to be sued for libel. There's a reason why it took 22 hours for the SCO to comment and that itself speaks volumes that many aren't listening to.

#83 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-18 11:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Olivia Nuzzi @Olivianuzzi

Whatever ends up being the case about the Buzzfeed story, it sure is interesting to see the president and all of his supporters so eager to accept as fact the statement put out by the special counsel's office.

#84 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 11:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3


@#84 ... Whatever ends up being the case about the Buzzfeed story, it sure is interesting to see the president and all of his supporters so eager to accept as fact the statement put out by the special counsel's office. ...

Part of the reason I have been prodding people on this thread was to see how far into agreement with Mr Mueller they would go.

It has been an interesting exercise to see what people really think of Mr Mueller's credibility.

I note that I've not seen the phrase "witch hunt" mentioned once.

#85 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 11:33 PM | Reply


@#74 ... A Doors fan can't be all bad. Did I ever mention I saw them in concert..twice? :) ...

Never had the chance to see them. Best I could do was a bootleg concert file.

I first heard Light My Fire when it was released, as I was walking around town, helping my friend deliver the afternoon newspaper on his route. I had my radio, and we both stopped to listen to the song. It was that mesmerizing.

#86 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 11:39 PM | Reply

"The ONLY, and it needs to be emphasized ONLY thing material in this article is if Trump himself specifically ordered him to lie and whether those instructions were recorded. Per all other legitimate sources, that did not occur."

Actually Cohen's sentencing memo says some of the stuff he did he did for Trump's benefit and at Trump's "directives":

Ken Dilanian @KenDilanianNBC

Did we miss the meaning of this line in Cohen's 11/30 sentence memo?

"The campaign finance and false statements allegations...arose from Michael's fierce loyalty to Client-1. In each case, the conduct was intended to benefit Client-1, in accordance with Client-1's directives."
4:11 PM - 18 Jan 2019

#87 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 11:40 PM | Reply

"Two things here: BuzzFeed is not a serious news organization, they shouldn't be treated as such moving forward," Ferguson said. "This is embarrassing they put this out there."

"To try to defend BuzzFeed, I think, is ridiculous," he added.

Walsh contested, "BuzzFeed is an excellent news organization."

"Well, you can say that, but they just got their brains kicked in by the Special Counsel's office," Ferguson asserted.

LOL

BuzzFeed is Rush Limbaugh level reporting, defending it is hilarious on its own...

#88 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-18 11:50 PM | Reply

From Cohen's sentencing memo:

Fourth, Cohen described the circumstances of preparing and circulating his response to the
congressional inquiries, while continuing to accept responsibility for the false statements contained within it.

heavy.com

The question is: who did Cohen prepare and circulate his response to congressional inquiries with? Was Trump in the loop?

#89 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-18 11:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1



@#88 ... BuzzFeed is Rush Limbaugh level reporting, defending it is hilarious on its own... ...

But... but... but... but...

It was Rush Limbaugh who, with Ms Coulter, caused Pres Trump to renege and shut down the government.

Now you seem to be casting aspersions upon Mr Limbaugh?

Oh, the horror. The President of the United States is taking critical direction from someone you categorize as "hilarious."

#90 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-18 11:56 PM | Reply

Gal asked the operative question in 70: Why did the SC refuse to comment when given the story before publication and then come back 22 hours later with a statement?
#83 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

My guess is probably because it was Buzzfeed doing the publishing and the SC was pretty naive in thinking the story would not be picked up by all the other papers and re-reported as fact despite the fact that their own reporters were fed the same story and refused to run it because it lacked actual corroborating evidence - basically Steele Dossier 2.0. In my mind the SC was either naive in thinking the story would not be widely distributed or let it stew for 22 hours in an effort to undermine Trump. The reality is that the SC was forced to act because a story of this caliber would have the potential to disrupt the market, as would any serious impeachment effort done by a non-wingnut member of Congress. The SC was forced to act because of this market disruption potential. I hope Buzzfeed is sued out of existence based on their dangerous 'reporting' style. When CNN admonishes you, you know that you really stepped in it.

#91 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 12:14 AM | Reply


@#91 ... the SC was pretty naive ...

Therein is the error in your logic. If you and Mr Mueller were in a room, I doubt Mr Mueller would be the naïve one.

Keep going, though.

The hole you're digging will reach Alex Jones sooner than later.

#92 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-19 12:20 AM | Reply

It was Rush Limbaugh who, with Ms Coulter, caused Pres Trump to renege and shut down the government.
#90 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

No, that is you assigning cause to Trump's actions not based on anything factual. We don't know why Trump decided to force the shutdown - it could have been his plan all along. In fact, I have my own solution for Trump to get 100% of what his base wants:

1.) Have Congress pass legislation that guarantees back pay for the shutdown (done)
2.) Encourage lenders to provide loans to all 'essential' employees (as designated by Trump) at 3% interest collateralized by the US government
3.) Designate only TSA, DHS, Coast Guard, FDA, etc as essential employees open to the program
4.) Send warning letter to all food stamp recipient households that the program will stop running effective March (when money runs out) without Democrats approving the $5.7B for the wall

I assume the crying Democrat base of foodstamp recipients will force Nancy's hand well before March. If it doesn't, you simply run the government in this way for the next 2 years. Force each department to have its own budget bill passed rather than a comprehensive budget, the Dems will blink as their identity politic groups turn against each other. Foodstamp recipients vs. illegal aliens. Pell Grant/student loan college students vs. welfare recipients. They will not vote to not fund the military for instance but everything else forces the program to truly justify itself. This is long overdue

In fact, I think this could be a great way to shrink the government by simply not classifying the services as essential. By not paying the people and not making them able to borrow against the government guarantee, it will highly encourage them to simply quit. If we do this right up until 2020, I think we could get a balanced budget and the defunding of all the government nonsense would likely unleash economic growth north of 5%.

#93 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 12:28 AM | Reply

Legally, is there a difference between saying something is "not accurate" as opposed to saying it is false and/or misleading?

#94 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-19 12:31 AM | Reply

Therein is the error in your logic. If you and Mr Mueller were in a room, I doubt Mr Mueller would be the naïve one.
#92 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Apparently you never heard of the false Anthrax prosecutions, Uranium One, 9/11, Hell's Angels prosecution, trying to convince Russia to give up Snowden, etc. This guy has a track record to gigantic screw-ups. He was part of the useless Bush/Neocon Cabal. But given the Neocons are Democrats again, I can see why you put so much faith in him.

#95 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 12:33 AM | Reply

This is what I'd like to know more about:

From Cohen's sentencing memo:

Fourth, Cohen described the circumstances of preparing and circulating his response to the
congressional inquiries, while continuing to accept responsibility for the false statements contained within it.

Who did Cohen consult while preparing his Congressional response? Did someone write it for him as Trump once wrote that letter about the Trump Tower meeting for Don Jr? Did various people write comments, make changes to Cohen's statement? Was Trump one of those people?

#96 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-19 12:35 AM | Reply


@#93 ... No, that is you assigning cause to Trump's actions not based on anything factual. ...

So, instead of your deflection, why not say why Pres Trump, who had been in favor of the the budget passed, suddenly changed his mind after being excoriated by Ms Coulter and Mr Limbaugh, and shut down the government.

But the reality is that your comment is little more than a deflection, away from an uncomfortable thread topic towards a topic that is quite popular among Pres Trump's base (which, I note, you mention. Why are you so concerned about the Trump base?).

Keep digging, you'll get to Alex Jones eventually....

#97 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-19 12:41 AM | Reply

"We don't know why Trump decided to force the shutdown"

Except he agreed, heard from Limbaugh/Coulter, and then disagreed. You can pretend all you want.

"Encourage lenders to provide loans to all 'essential' employees (as designated by Trump) at 3% interest collateralized by the US government"

What a stunner: when Republicans fail, they turn to socialistic answers.

"I assume the crying Democrat base of foodstamp recipients will force Nancy's hand well before March."

You're going to look like even more of an idiot when Trump folds even easier than the umbrella he couldn't figure out.

"By not paying the people and not making them able to borrow against the government guarantee, it will highly encourage them to simply quit."

What a chickenschitt way to run a government.

"If we do this right up until 2020, I think we could get a balanced budget"

Great. Republican Math™ on stupid.

#98 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 12:41 AM | Reply

"America has never seen anything like this. All the media errors are always anti-Trump. ... That's what happens when the press stops trying to report fairly and becomes a bunch of lefty activists."

-- Dan Gainor, Media Research Center vice president

Amen, speaking truth to power

It's truly refreshing, like a breath of fresh air

#99 | Posted by Javelin at 2019-01-19 12:43 AM | Reply


@#95 ... Apparently you never heard of the ...

twitter.com

Robert Mueller is superb choice to be special counsel. His reputation is impeccable for honesty and integrity. Media should now calm down

You really need to up your game, you are only digging your hole deeper and deeper.


#100 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-19 12:45 AM | Reply

So, instead of your deflection, why not say why Pres Trump, who had been in favor of the the budget passed, suddenly changed his mind after being excoriated by Ms Coulter and Mr Limbaugh, and shut down the government.

Trump no longer follows Coulter on Twitter. That said, I think he heard from a vast majority of his base that he needs to build the wall. The non-mythical caravan and recent cop killing in California galvanized his base.

But the reality is that your comment is little more than a deflection, away from an uncomfortable thread topic towards a topic that is quite popular among Pres Trump's base (which, I note, you mention. Why are you so concerned about the Trump base?).

Trump's base is former Democrats like myself and the middle class with conservative social values. There is actually nothing uncomfortable for Trump - this is Buzzfeed destroying the Left's credibility (even CNN sees that), and putting another feather in his cap on fake news/liberal smearing. Sorry, it was a very good week for Trump - which means it was a very good week for the US.

#101 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 12:49 AM | Reply

Yeah, when the Special Counsel's office takes the extraordinary step of issuing a public statement that a story that you all circle-jerked yourselves to a frenzy over is "not accurate", does that mean that Mueller's office is now on that "one side"?

Define "not accurate".

I haven't followed this story very closely as I try to wait for the furor to die down to get a more accurate sense of reality when it comes to Mueller/Trump.

Because not accurate can be from piddling over details to flat out false. If it's not called flat out false that is, in and of itself, significant 'read between the lines' info.

#102 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-19 12:51 AM | Reply


@#99 ... Media Research Center ... It's truly refreshing, like a breath of fresh air ....

Our Mission: "To Create a Media Culture in America Where Truth and Liberty Flourish"
www.mrc.org

...MRC's sole mission is to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left...

Yes, a breath of fresh air if you can only tolerate to hear what you want to hear.


#103 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-19 12:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"All the media errors are always anti-Trump."

So are all the truths.

#104 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 12:51 AM | Reply

You really need to up your game, you are only digging your hole deeper and deeper.
#100 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

You are holding up Newt Gingrich as a pillar of virtue and honesty. Are you freaking kidding me? Maybe you should ask his cancer ridden wife he cheated on and then divorced how much she trusts what he says.

#105 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 12:52 AM | Reply

"If it's not called flat out false that is, in and of itself, significant 'read between the lines' info.'

True, but reading between the lines, one phrase stands out: the "characterization". That suggests even the notion is off-base.

#106 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 12:53 AM | Reply

That said, I think he heard from a vast majority of his base that he needs to build the wall. The non-mythical caravan and recent cop killing in California galvanized his base.

Which is about 99% mouth breathing morons.

F&%^ 'em. When Trump get's impeached I don't think it would hurt the US one iota if they all "drank the kool aid".

#107 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-19 12:54 AM | Reply

It's truly refreshing, like a breath of fresh air
#99 | POSTED BY JAVELIN

It is not only that - it is all positive government numbers are always forced to be re-stated upwards like Jobs and GDP. For Obama, it was ALWAYS the opposite with downward revisions ALWAYS occurring. All errors occurring in the same direction are not random.

#108 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 12:54 AM | Reply

"So, instead of your deflection, why not say why Pres Trump, who had been in favor of the the budget passed, suddenly changed his mind after being excoriated by Ms Coulter and Mr Limbaugh, and shut down the government."

Not a deflection, a distillation. Coulter and Limbaugh pull the strings on Trump.

Of course, they've got a lot of company. As you've admitted, his hands are tied by Democratic words when it comes to matters of war and peace.

#109 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 12:55 AM | Reply

F&%^ 'em. When Trump get's impeached I don't think it would hurt the US one iota if they all "drank the kool aid".
#107 | POSTED BY JPW

Get help - you are unhinged.

#110 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 12:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Trump's base is former Democrats like myself"

Riiiiiiiiight.

Have you ever posted on the Drudge Retort under any different name(s)? And if so, what name(s)?

#111 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 12:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

by Democratic words when it comes to matters of war and peace.
#109 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

No, NEOCONS and the MIC - which are both in the Democrat party at this point. You own that. You are the party of endless wars now.

#112 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 12:57 AM | Reply

"No, NEOCONS and the MIC - which are both in the Democrat party at this point. You own that."

I'm not a Democrat, nor have ever been.

But it takes a major type of idiot to believe Democrats control the military when a Republican is in the White House.

#113 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 12:58 AM | Reply

#111 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

What University did you attend and what degree did you receive?

#114 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 12:58 AM | Reply

"For Obama, it was ALWAYS the opposite with downward revisions ALWAYS occurring."

All that, and ODS as well.

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 12:59 AM | Reply

Democrats control the military when a Republican is in the White House.
#113 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

"Democrats" don't. The Neocons do - they have for 30 years. They just happen to have gone back to the Democrat party now because Trump wants to end their wars in the Middle East.

#116 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:00 AM | Reply

"What University did you attend and what degree did you receive?"

Awww, still butt hurt about being shown up again and again?

Your prior incarnation wasn't as dumb as this one.

#117 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 01:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


@#101 ... So, instead of your deflection, why not say why Pres Trump, who had been in favor of the the budget passed, suddenly changed his mind after being excoriated by Ms Coulter and Mr Limbaugh, and shut down the government.

You are really asking me to rationalize what Pres Trump says? You want me to say why Pres Trump says the things he says???

Really?

Are you friggin' kidding me? I have enough trouble dealing with the voices in my head, and you want me to also rationalize the voices in Pres Trump's head?!?!?!?!

You really need to take a step back and look at what is in front of you.

Hit the reset button

Or just continue digging deeper and deeper. You'll find Alex Jones sooner than you may think.

[aside: you are starting to sound a lot like a beta-test customer service bot that I encountered when I was reporting a problem about a serach engine.... Maybe this site should start to check for bots posting comments....]

#118 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-19 01:01 AM | Reply

"No, NEOCONS and the MIC - which are both in the Democrat party at this point."
"Democrats" don't. The Neocons do - they have for 30 years."

Will you please confer with both sides of your mouth, and decide which one is talking?

#119 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 01:02 AM | Reply

#118 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

I really don't care about your experience with bots on your beta-cuck support group website.

#120 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:04 AM | Reply


@#105 ... You are holding up Newt Gingrich as a pillar of virtue and honesty ...

Normally I would not do that, it was the Republicans who put him on the pedestal, not I.

But to your point, are you holding Pres Trump up as a pillar of virtue and honesty?

#121 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-19 01:05 AM | Reply

Will you please confer with both sides of your mouth, and decide which one is talking?
#119 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Read it again slowly. I know as an educated white male you already have an inferiority complex, but you can still ask someone to help read it for you. There is nothing inconsistent in what I posted. The NEOCONS are Dems now, they control the military - they have for 30 years. Why did the Dems welcome them with open arms? I suppose it is that they love anyone that dislikes Trump.

#122 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:06 AM | Reply

Get help - you are unhinged.

#110 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Sure. Because who else has take us (collectively, unfortunately) over cliff after cliff after cliff.

You tools keep pushing the same failed policy ideas over and over and over without learning from your failures.

So no, I wouldn't lose a second of sleep. I'd prefer you all go off to your own private island and slowly wither away playing out your "libertarian" hunger games fantasy. But if you simply disappeared in some f&^%ed up version of the rapture I would miss a few of you but not lament the lot of you.

#123 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-19 01:06 AM | Reply

"I know as an educated white male you already have an inferiority complex"

Last time you concluded I was uneducated.

Will you please confer with both sides of your mouth, and decide which one is talking?

#124 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 01:08 AM | Reply

Normally I would not do that, it was the Republicans who put him on the pedestal, not I.
But to your point, are you holding Pres Trump up as a pillar of virtue and honesty?
#121 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Who ever put Trump on a pillar of virtue and honesty? No one that I know. Making their heroes into Messianic figures is a Dem characteristic - Obama, RBG, etc.

#125 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:09 AM | Reply

You tools keep pushing the same failed policy ideas over and over and over without learning from your failures.
#123 | POSTED BY JPW

Which policy is that? Building a wall to control immigration? Re-doing unfair trade deals? Ending unending warfare in the Middle East? Yeah, I can see why you would be against that.

#126 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:11 AM | Reply


@#120 ... I really don't care about your experience with bots on your beta-cuck support group website....

Wow, that was off the rails.

Chill out a bit, and try to be more rational.

#127 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-19 01:11 AM | Reply

But if you simply disappeared in some f&^%ed up version of the rapture I would miss a few of you but not lament the lot of you.
#123 | POSTED BY JPW

You would be missing us a lot when your welfare check and foodstamps don't come in at the beginning of the month. Trump supporters are the great middle class of this country.

#128 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:13 AM | Reply

"Which policy is that?"

Tax cuts increase revenue, for one.

#129 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 01:14 AM | Reply

"Tax cuts increase revenue, for one.
#129 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

They did in 2018 vs. 2017. Maybe you want to pick a different example.

#130 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:16 AM | Reply


@#125 ... Who ever put Trump on a pillar of virtue and honesty? ...

Wow, a rational comment for a change. The bot is learning.

I ask that very same question every day. Except that I'd show the respect for the Office of the President, i.e., Who ever put Pres Trump on a pillar of virtue and honesty?

Really, who?

#131 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-19 01:16 AM | Reply

"Building a wall to control immigration?"

Yes, that's another. For the last seven years, overstayed visas have accounted for more illegal immigration than folks coming across the southern border. And the northern border has produced almost seven times the terror-list folks than the southern border. Add that to the fact illegal immigrants commit crimes at a much lower rate than folks already here, and your talking point is worthless.

#132 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 01:17 AM | Reply

Yes, that's another. For the last seven years, overstayed visas have accounted for more illegal immigration than folks coming across the southern border.
#132 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You are making that statement in the absence of actual data. VISA overstays are a known number - illegals via either border, is not. Stop pretending that we have any idea whatsoever how many illegals are in the US as well as how many are arriving by year because you don't have a fricken clue. And that is sad because this was by design by the Democrats - the latest move proving this is the blocking of the citizenship question on the census.

#133 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:21 AM | Reply


@#133 ... Stop pretending that we have any idea whatsoever how many illegals are in the US ...

So... you admit we do not know how much of an issue the "illegals" are?

#134 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-19 01:24 AM | Reply

So... you admit we do not know how much of an issue the "illegals" are?
#134 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

1 cop killed by an illegal is too many. 1 job taken by an illegal is too many. 1 illegal in prison for any crime is too many.

#135 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:26 AM | Reply

"You are making that statement in the absence of actual data."

So, you're willing to admit illegals break the law at a much lower rate than previously reported?

#136 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 01:27 AM | Reply

"1 cop killed by an illegal is too many. "

What about the much greater percentage of cops killed by folks already here?

#137 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 01:28 AM | Reply

"illegals via either border, is not."

But the number of folks on the terror list stopped IS known.

If almost seven times the terrorists come across our norther border, why isn't Trump talking about a wall on the northern border?

#138 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 01:30 AM | Reply

So, you're willing to admit illegals break the law at a much lower rate than previously reported?

We don't know that as we don't have the data - not to mention the huge number of crimes are not reported or no suspect apprehended.

What about the much greater percentage of cops killed by folks already here?
#137 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

If I could deport them too, I would. Just because we have a bunch of lowlifes already in this country doesn't mean we need to import more lowlifes. What kind of logic is that? If your house has cockroaches, do you let in termites just because you already have insects?

#139 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:32 AM | Reply

If almost seven times the terrorists come across our norther border, why isn't Trump talking about a wall on the northern border?
#138 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Because terrorism is only one function of the wall. Stopping drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc), stopping people from abusing our social services, and lowering wages are the other 3. A northern wall does not stop those. But, if you want to crack down on the Northern border - great. Canada won't let in US citizens with a DUI - we should reciprocate. Heck, I ban anyone that voted for Soyboy Trudeau.

#140 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:35 AM | Reply


@#135 1 cop killed by an illegal is too many. 1 job taken by an illegal is too many. 1 illegal in prison for any crime is too many.

> 1 cop killed by an illegal is too many.

1 cop killed by anyone is one too many.


> 1 job taken by an illegal is too many.

Our economy is currently based upon illegal immigrants. We need to fix that. How do we prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants?


> 1 illegal in prison for any crime is too many.

Any crime is one too many. The crime rate among illegal immigrants is lower than the crime rate among citiziens. So what's your point?

I agree that crime is a problem.

So if you want to reduce (or, hopefully, eliminate) crime I'm all with you.

But I ask you to tell me, if your goal is to reduce crime, how do we do that? Really. How do we do that?

#141 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-19 01:38 AM | Reply

Based on culling all the talking heads, here's a speculative guess. It appears that Buzzfeed has likely mischaracterized that Michael Cohen told the SC directly and bluntly that Donald Trump ordered him to lie, which I think is wrong because Trump only directed Cohen to lie and that is substantially different even though they can sound close to the same. Think of the difference between a screen writer and a movie director. The screen writer sets the scene and puts the words in your mouth. The director doesn't do that, their job is to make the scene visual and give directions on how and when they want the dialog projected.

Secondly, Buzzfeed implies that the SCO has other evidence that directly ties Trump and some in his administration into conspiring in Cohen's lies in trying to cover up the Moscow deal. And again, the truth is likely somewhere in between. The SCO does have evidence and testimony that implicates Trump and probably some of those around him, it just isn't as black and white as they make it seem.

In actuality, there is nothing new in the Buzzfeed story that wasn't pretty much laid out in Cohen's court documents. Cohen elocuted to Trump having directed him to lie when questioned about Moscow and other things and in the same documents Mueller vouches for Cohen's honesty and candor with what he had shared with the SCO. There likely are emails and other correspondence documenting some of what went on but probably not in the stark, direct way implied in the story. As former USA Chuck Rosenberg said tonight, "The dispute appears to be some mischaracterizations on the specifics might not be accurate. But the core of the story (That Trump directed Cohen to lie about Moscow) is accurate because the court documents establish that."

#142 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-19 01:42 AM | Reply


@#137 ... not to mention the huge number of crimes are not reported ...

So, you are resorting to imaginary statistics?

If we want to eliminate crime, as you and I both want to do, let's try to stay in the realm of factual information.

OK?

#143 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-19 01:42 AM | Reply

The crime rate among illegal immigrants is lower than the crime rate among citiziens. So what's your point?

This is a statement without facts to support it.

So if you want to reduce (or, hopefully, eliminate) crime I'm all with you.
But I ask you to tell me, if your goal is to reduce crime, how do we do that? Really. How do we do that?
#141 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Mandatory life in prison for committing any violent crime with a gun. Legalization of weed nationwide + build a wall + minimum 10 years in prison for ANY other drug related offense.

Unfortunately, a majority of crime is committed by a small minority of the population and the only way to control it is lock up these criminals.

#144 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:45 AM | Reply

"Stopping drugs..."

Once again, you're pretending a wall would do something it won't. Even Trump's government admits what you refuse to admit.

Let us know if you ever decide to return to reality.

#145 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 01:45 AM | Reply

Which policy is that? Building a wall to control immigration? Re-doing unfair trade deals? Ending unending warfare in the Middle East? Yeah, I can see why you would be against that.

#126 | Posted by nobiasposter101

How about tax cuts for the rich? Increase MIC spending? Cruising along on Dem policy-created economic waves and acting as if your policies created it but not he ensuing, predictable crash?

BTW of what you mention, two of the three are "C-C-C-Conservative" darlings despite GOP donor's best efforts. Immigration? Driven by your darling corporations who'd sell your job to Juan Rodriguez faster than you can sputter "but I voted Republican".

Unending wars? Who, exactly, were the geniuses who lit that fart on fire to begin with?

The only consistency with you -------- idiots is you expect the rest of us to ignore the past. Your little brains only take reality in small, short bites and so you expect everybody else to do so as well.

Well, some of us don't. Some of us remember how badly you've f---ed things up in the past and have no intentions of letting you get away with acting as if it's not your mess.

#146 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-19 01:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But the core of the story (That Trump directed Cohen to lie about Moscow) is accurate because the court documents establish that."
#142 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

This is turd polishing at its finest. An established liar asserts something in exchange for a reduced sentence and the Left falls all over themselves to believe it. This is no different than a jailhouse snitch (which Cohen is at this point).

#147 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:48 AM | Reply

"stopping people from abusing our social services"

I guess if math isn't your friend, you can make up any statistics you need.

#148 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 01:49 AM | Reply

Unending wars? Who, exactly, were the geniuses who lit that fart on fire to begin with?
#146 | POSTED BY JPW

Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia - your Dem cabal but mainly Obama/Hillary. Outside of them, the Necocons that controlled Bush but are now back in the Democrat party.

#149 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:51 AM | Reply


@#140 ... Because terrorism is only one function of the wall. Stopping drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc), ...

Most of the drugs come thorough the regulated entry points, and not through areas where a wall would stop them.

You really do not know that?

Let me ask you a question. It is not a question I often ask of a person. Indeed, it is The First Time I've asked this question on this august site...

And I mean this with the utmost respect...

Just, how clueless are you?

I mean, really.

#150 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-19 01:51 AM | Reply

Who ever put Trump on a pillar of virtue and honesty? No one that I know. Making their heroes into Messianic figures is a Dem characteristic - Obama, RBG, etc.

#125 | Posted by nobiasposter101

LOL so suddenly we're supposed to believe the right hasn't been a bunch of hypocritical, "family values" oriented moralizing c---s the past 3 decades? 4 decades?

BTW Obama as the "Messiah" was largely a right wing meme.

The lengths to which you soulless wastes of carbon and oxygen go to defend him? Still very much right wing but not laughable enough to be a meme.

#151 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-19 01:51 AM | Reply

"This is turd polishing at its finest. An established liar asserts something..."

But enough about Trump. Get back to the topic at hand.

#152 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 01:51 AM | Reply

"Just, how clueless are you?"

"This one goes to eleven."

#153 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 01:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

1 cop killed by an illegal is too many. 1 job taken by an illegal is too many. 1 illegal in prison for any crime is too many.

#135 | Posted by nobiasposter101

101 idiot posting on the DR is too many...

#154 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-19 01:52 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

If your house has cockroaches, do you let in termites just because you already have insects?

#139 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Depends. Are you the cockroach or the termite?

#155 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-19 01:54 AM | Reply

LOL so suddenly we're supposed to believe the right hasn't been a bunch of hypocritical, "family values" oriented moralizing c---s the past 3 decades? 4 decades?
#151 | POSTED BY JPW

If you believe there is a large overlap between those that voted GOP 4 decades ago and those that voted Trump in 2016, you are a moron. The Dem nightmare was always a GOP president gets elected and they implement a Christian theocracy - with Trump, the furthest thing from that happened and you still cry about it.

#156 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:58 AM | Reply

Depends. Are you the cockroach or the termite?
#155 | POSTED BY JPW

Typically mentally impaired liberal 'logic'. The correct answer for most rational people is - I don't want either.

#157 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 01:59 AM | Reply

I mean, really.
#150 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

I see that you don't actually address any of my post. Good bye - you have joined Snoofy and Dickstain on the pile of braindead libs not worth responding to any longer.

#158 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-19 02:00 AM | Reply

"the pile of braindead libs"

Don't look now, but "brain-dead" is a hyphenated word.

But, by all means, continue your rant about intellectual superiority.

#159 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-19 02:06 AM | Reply


@#158 ... I see that you don't actually address any of my post.

So you have admitted that you are unable to read.

I did address a part of your post when I said, "Most of the drugs come thorough the regulated entry points, and not through areas where a wall would stop them."

But I'll give you a "nice try" for you effort.

Have fun!

#160 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-19 02:08 AM | Reply

If you believe there is a large overlap between those that voted GOP 4 decades ago and those that voted Trump in 2016, you are a moron.

Really? Idiots who believe the Reagan kool aid aren't the same idiots who voted for Trump?

The Chreestian right hasn't sold their souls to support, continuously, the Trump train wreck?

Uneducated whites haven't supported Trump?

Trump's campaign, unfortunately, learned the lessons from the Obama elections better than the Dems did (who completely ignored them when the nominated Hillary). Playing the game gained them enough of the middle to win.

Otherwise, they won the typical republican mouth breathing, ignorant, ------- base.

#161 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-19 02:09 AM | Reply

But, by all means, continue your rant about intellectual superiority.

#159 | Posted by Danforth

Maybe we can get him to explain how he ended up paying 50% of his income in taxes if we push hard enough.

And why that drove him to expat status.

#162 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-19 02:11 AM | Reply

Typically mentally impaired liberal 'logic'. The correct answer for most rational people is - I don't want either.

#157 | Posted by nobiasposter101

Typically limited, pathetically simple "non-biased "Conservative"" 'logic'.

The correct answer for most thinking, intellectually capable people is - which problem do I snuff out first.

#163 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-19 02:15 AM | Reply

nobiasposter101

You should change your username again.

Drop the "no".

Embrace who you are.

#164 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-19 02:34 AM | Reply

As long as people blather on about "Hillary's mistakes"... when the fact is the clown brigade needed the Russians to do what they did and the Hillary this and that is absolute B.S, used to deflect from the crime committed but the clown brigade.

That orange pig is leaving office in disgrace that is all there is to it.

#165 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-01-19 05:13 AM | Reply

Bharara when BF story first came out:

Preet Bharara @PreetBharara

Yes if true this is a game-changing huge deal. Reserving judgment til there is more proof.

Sometimes when the most blockbuster incriminating stuff comes forward, you want to be most measured. Because the facts will speak for themselves and damn the guilty. Rhetoric won't be necessary.

Bharara yesterday after SCO's statement:

Preet Bharara @PreetBharara

Preet Bharara Retweeted 'Sources Say' is Greek for 'Fake News'
I see. Now we believe Mueller is a truth teller and fact checker. Agreed.

'Sources Say' is Greek for 'Fake News' @NolteNC

BOTTOM LINE OF WHAT HAPPENED:

Buzzfeed knew it published a lie. Rest of the media knew it was a lie, spread it anyway. The story was BS. They knew it. We all did.

BUT they figured there was no way they could be caught.

Because no one dreamed Mueller would fact check them.

#166 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-19 09:52 AM | Reply

Everyone who is assuming the SCO's statement means total vindication for the President is falling into the same trap as everyone who assumed the BF story was 100% accurate, because:

Michael Weiss @michaeldweiss

Breaking: No One Knows Anything Except Robert Mueller.

#167 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-19 09:56 AM | Reply

I suspect that much like grandma Pelosi, Mueller is playing Trump and his sycophants like a cheap fiddle

#168 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-01-19 10:01 AM | Reply

Unpacking The Special Counsel's Denial of the BuzzFeed Story

If true, the BuzzFeed report implicates Trump in clear criminal behavior that would likely lead to impeachment, conviction or both.

Today, the "if true" part of the story took center stage when Robert Mueller's Office of Special Counsel issued an ambiguous, narrowly worded denial of aspects of the BuzzFeed story.

The problem is that it is unclear exactly which aspects of the story the Special Counsel denied, or why.

philiprotner.com

#169 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-19 10:05 AM | Reply

"It is Buzzfeed. They are on par with CNN - all fake news, all the time." - #5 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 08:17 PM

Wow, the Usual idiots have brought out the full DR Left playbook: STS, WFW and HNT. - #24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-09 10:59 PM

And right on cue, the Queen of the Usual Idiots STS. - Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-08 02:40 PM

You forgot the link, thereby depriving STS champs of their favorite argument. (for STSers, it's from the evil Federalist) - Posted by nullifidian at 2018-12-08 01:47 PM

I'm sure the Usual Idiots will reflexively STS on this thread, but I strongly suggest that you read the article before commenting, it really captures her mastery of social media and her relatability. - Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-08 01:39 PM

STS because it doesn't support your ideology. - Posted by nullifidian at 2018-12-08 09:36 AM

STS incoming in 3,2,1... - Posted by nullifidian at 2018-12-06 09:58 AM

He nailed the STS comment, While I wasn't referring to the American Thinker article I just assumed (correctly it turns out) that it summarized the report. - Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-03 04:54 PM

STS incoming in 3, 2, 1... - Posted by nullifidian at 2018-12-03 03:38 PM

So now we have 3 leftists that confirm this article by using STS, calling the OP a "traitor" and screaming "Nazi". - Posted by nullifidian at 2018-12-01 08:05 PM

Apparently, Slaughter the Source is okay except when it isn't okay.

#170 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-19 10:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

People definitely disagree about what the SCO's statement means. Best to take a wait and see attitude about all things Mueller related:

George Little @georgelittledc

FWIW my take as a former government spokesman: the statement from the Special Counsel's office tonight is not a full-throated denial of the @BuzzFeed story, but a way of saying to the public: "the arc of the story has merit but we disagree with the nuance."

Matthew Miller @matthewamiller

You can spend hours parsing the Carr statement, but given how unusual it is for any DOJ office to issue this sort of on the record denial, let alone this office, suspect it means the story's core contention that they have evidence Trump told Cohen to lie is fundamentally wrong.

@peterbrightbill @standupguynyc

Replying to @matthewamiller @ddale8
No. Reading the statement as a lawyer, I note that the SC's Office says that Buzzfeed's "description" and "characterization" are not accurate. This is a broad and a vague statement. If they really meant that BF's reporting were untrue, they would have said so.

twitter.com

#171 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-19 10:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- "Replying to @matthewamiller @ddale8

No. Reading the statement as a lawyer, I note that the SC's Office says that Buzzfeed's "description" and "characterization" are not accurate. This is a broad and a vague statement. If they really meant that BF's reporting were untrue, they would have said so.

Well, there's real lawyers, then there's ROCheney, who "KNEW" this was all BS yesterday."

hahahahaha!

And then there's Dulli and Mackris and NOBRAINSPOSTER101.... who wouldn't care at all if Trump suborned perjury to Congress of not.

#172 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-19 02:09 PM | Reply

or not.

#173 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-19 02:09 PM | Reply

The impeachment football has been pulled away again Charlie Brown! So many wolf calls.

#174 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-01-19 02:32 PM | Reply

"Trump's base is former Democrats like myself"

A former Democrat in the same way that Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were former Democrats.

#175 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-19 02:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#102. JPW

The investigation is nearly two years running and this is the first time the SC has corrected a false media story about Trump (and there have been several). That they took such an unprecedented measure suggests to me that the story is BS. Add on to that no other media outlet has corroborated the Buzzfeed story only strengthens my perception that it's complete BS.

#176 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-19 02:53 PM | Reply

I want to add that I initially found the story to be believable and on the first thread I said if the story was true it should trigger articles of impeachment.

#177 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-19 02:55 PM | Reply

Rick Wilson @TheRickWilson

Everyone's been all in a kerfuffle about the BuzzFeed/Mueller issue, but I think it's important to remember that the arc of Trump's recent history is long and always bends towards Russia.

#178 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-19 03:46 PM | Reply

All that was said is that the story wasn't entirely accurate... didn't say it was wrong.

Death by a thousand cuts... loving it.....

Sooooooooo.....muuuuuuuchhhhhhh wiiiiiiinnnnn-nnnnnning!!!!

#179 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-01-19 09:08 PM | Reply

The investigation is nearly two years running and this is the first time the SC has corrected a false media story about Trump (and there have been several). That they took such an unprecedented measure suggests to me that the story is BS. Add on to that no other media outlet has corroborated the Buzzfeed story only strengthens my perception that it's complete BS.

#176 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-01-19 02:53 PM

"The campaign finance and false statements allegations ... arose from Michael's fierce loyalty to Client-1. In each case, the conduct was intended to benefit Client-1, in accordance with Client-1's directives."

Michael Cohen's Sentencing Memo

Good luck with your 'suggestion'. The truth has already been told in the court documents just like I said in 142.

#180 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-19 10:43 PM | Reply

Tony,

I don't see why the SC would make an unprecedented move to correct a minor detail in a media story.

Quite honestly the correction surprised me not just because it was unprecedented thus far in this investigation but because I found the Buzzfeed allegation to be quite plausible.

#181 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-19 11:06 PM | Reply

About as plausible as Obama's birth certificate!

#182 | Posted by Crassus at 2019-01-19 11:19 PM | Reply

Read 142, I lay out the chronology. The SOC waited 22 hours after publication (and who knows how long after they were given the story in advance to comment on) before they issued their statement. They could have told BF not to go with the story because it wasn't accurate, but they didn't. The statement speaks to only things related to Cohen's congressional testimony and evidence that was characterized as corroborating proof that Trump ordered Cohen to lie. Their statement said zero about everything else alleged about Trump and the Russia deal, nor the parts involving Trump's kids or others in the organization who had knowledge of the deal. Zero.

Go back and reread the BF story and see just how much other information was included that does not come under the SOC comments about "not accurate." Again, this is not my invention, this is what former USA Chuck Rosenberg said last night. If the SOC wanted to say the BF story was "100% false" that is what they would have stated and they didn't. And he too said that the court memo confirmed that Trump had directed Cohen not to divulge the truth about his dealing with Russia, and that Mueller would never have allowed that language in the document if he didn't have more than just Cohen's word backing up its veracity.

BF didn't break any news, they embellished on what was already established, yet fairly much ignored by most that are ignorant of what's already in the court record.

#183 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-19 11:27 PM | Reply

I don't see why the SC would make an unprecedented move to correct a minor detail in a media story.

One reason might be because Mueller was starting to face pressure on releasing information, and his judgement was being questioned as a result of the BF story. Demands were being made that, if true, he release information now so that Congressional investigations and possible impeachment could start. The view that was starting to form was that Trump was clearly guilty, and Mueller's bent towards "can't indict a sitting President" was, in effect, protecting Trump.

This ended that narrative it got momentum.

#184 | Posted by YAV at 2019-01-19 11:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I agree Yav. I alluded to a similar train of thought in post 83.

#185 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-19 11:37 PM | Reply

Inside the Mueller team's decision to dispute BuzzFeed's explosive story on Trump and Cohen

www.washingtonpost.com

#186 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-19 11:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't follow that, Yav.

Here's the thing - Cohen plead guilty to lying to Congress about the timing of the pulling out of the tower deal in Moscow and logic would suggest that he did so at Trumps behest. My gut tells me the Buzzfeed article is accurate but I have to follow my ego and not my Id.

Buzzfeed just got shot down in epic fashion.

I kind of bought- in and got burned.

Hopefully Mueller releases his report soon.

#187 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-19 11:45 PM | Reply

The reporter informed Mueller's 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 counsel's office specifically or evidence that Mueller's investigators had uncovered.

"We'll decline to comment," Carr responded, a familiar refrain for those in the media who cover Mueller's work.

The innocuous exchange belied the chaos it would produce. When BuzzFeed published the story hours later, it far exceeded Carr's initial impression, people familiar with the matter said, in that the reporting alleged that Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and self-described fixer, "told the special counsel that after the election, the president personally instructed him to lie," and that Mueller's 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 counsel's office, THAT (emphasis mine) 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, Mueller's team started discussing a step they had never before taken: publicly disputing reporting on evidence in their ongoing investigation.

www.washingtonpost.com

Buzzfeed just got shot down in epic fashion.

No they didn't, it's exactly like I said above. Buzzfeed embellished on the corroborating details while the underlying story is wholly accurate. Hope Gal's link to the WaPo story clears this up once and for all.

#188 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-19 11:52 PM | Reply

People familiar with the matter said Carr told others in the government that he would have more vigorously discouraged the reporters from proceeding with the story had he known it would allege Cohen had told the special counsel Trump directed him to lie -- or that the special counsel was said to have learned this through interviews with Trump Organization witnesses, as well as internal company emails and text messages.
Wonder if nobias will ever stop back by and apologize for being so obtuse. For all the times I'm wrong, I freaking nailed this one. The SOC's statement came about because of how the story was being perceived by the public on the very "characterizations" that they deemed were "not accurate."

#189 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-19 11:58 PM | Reply

Tony,

Given how tight this investigation has been I don't see such a precedent-breaking rejoinder being semantical.

I don't see it as something to parse.

At this point I'm taking a step back on this.

#190 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-20 12:11 AM | Reply

The language Cohen and his representatives used in court had been ambiguous. While neither Cohen nor his representatives had ever said explicitly that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress, Guy Petrillo, Cohen's attorney, wrote in a memo in advance of his sentencing, "We address the campaign finance and false statements allegations together because both arose from Michael's fierce loyalty to Client-1. In each case, the conduct was intended to benefit Client-1, in accordance with Client-1's directives."

Client-1 refers to Trump. Petrillo declined to comment Saturday. It is unclear precisely what "directives" Petrillo was referring to, though he did not allege elsewhere in the memo that Trump explicitly instructed Cohen to lie to Congress. He wrote that Cohen was "in close and regular contact with White House-based staff and legal counsel to Client-1" as he prepared his testimony and "specifically knew . . . that Client-1 and his public spokespersons were seeking to portray contact with Russian representatives in any form by Client-1, the Campaign or the Trump Organization as having effectively terminated before the Iowa caucuses of February 1, 2016."

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 counsel's 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.

They found none, these people said. That, the people said, is in part why it took Mueller's office nearly a day to dispute the story publicly. In the interim, cable news outlets and other media organizations, including The Washington Post, dissected its possible implications -- even as their reporters were unable to independently confirm it. 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.

It's all right there in black and white.

#191 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-20 12:19 AM | Reply

...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 statement speaks to only things related to Cohen's congressional testimony and evidence that was characterized as corroborating proof that Trump ordered Cohen to lie. Their statement said zero about everything else alleged about Trump and the Russia deal, nor the parts involving Trump's kids or others in the organization who had knowledge of the deal. Zero.

#183 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

#192 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-20 12:22 AM | Reply

I don't think it is all black and white. Who are the 2 LE officials BF used as sources? What is their motivation for coming forward? Why are they leaking? What did they hope to accomplish through these leaks? Do they have direct knowledge of what Cohen has testified to and of what document trail Mueller has?

#193 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-20 12:26 AM | Reply

"The statement speaks to only things related to Cohen's congressional testimony and evidence that was characterized as corroborating proof that Trump ordered Cohen to lie. Their statement said zero about everything else alleged about Trump and the Russia deal, nor the parts involving Trump's kids or others in the organization who had knowledge of the deal. Zero."

That I agree with. People who are taking Carr's statement as proof of Trump's innocent in all things Russia-related are overreacting in the same way they claim people overreacted to the original BF report.

#194 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-20 12:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't think it is all black and white.

Not all the answers Gal, only the answer to the questions about what the SOC statement was referring to as "not accurate." Regarding your question about documents, did you catch this:

After Carr declined to comment to BuzzFeed, but before the story was published, he sent reporter Jason Leopold a partial transcript of Cohen's plea hearing, in which Cohen admitted lying to Congress about the timing of discussions related to a possible Trump Tower project in Moscow, according to the emails BuzzFeed's spokesman provided.
Carr sent it to him in hopes that Leopold would notice that there was no direct reference or testimony to Trump having ordered Cohen to lie. The reporter didn't read it that way based on what was published.

As it regards sources, we'll likely never find out because unnamed sources are rarely unmasked. In time the information will either be authenticated, debunked, or remain unproven.

#195 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-20 12:36 AM | Reply

"As it regards sources, we'll likely never find out because unnamed sources are rarely unmasked. In time the information will either be authenticated, debunked, or remain unproven."

I just hope those 2 LE officials aren't trying to hurt the investigation, undercut it in someway by trying to make Mueller look bad or force his hand.

#196 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-20 12:43 AM | Reply

Hell Gal, at this point I'd be willing to consider the "sources" as being pro-Trumpers trying to create a discrediting situation, as this is trying to be spun by right wing media. Buzzfeed had multiple others who were clued-in before publication that told them they were going too far with their assertions about Cohen and the evidence like we saw from Ronan Farrow last night. The WaPo story also cites a Trump Organization contact that tried to tell BF the allegations saying some of their members were on record as corroborating that Trump told Cohen to lie wasn't true either.

But the controversy is all based on Cohen's lying and whether Trump ordered or directed him to. The SOC evidently doesn't have direct evidence that he did in the terminology used by BF.

#197 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-20 12:45 AM | Reply

"But the controversy is all based on Cohen's lying and whether Trump ordered or directed him to. The SOC evidently doesn't have direct evidence that he did in the terminology used by BF."

At least with regard to the Trump Tower Moscow deal. Or at least with regard to getting the alleged info about Trump directing Cohen to lie from documents or other witnesses. Did the BF report say anything about Cohen having tapes of conversations with Trump on the topic?

#198 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-20 12:57 AM | Reply

Did the BF report say anything about Cohen having tapes of conversations with Trump on the topic?

I don't think so. But that doesn't mean that Mueller might not have tapes were Trump incriminates himself verbally. But since Cohen knows what's on his tapes, unless Mueller shaped what Cohen has divulged so far, seems he would have elocuted to that if he captured it on tape. But Mueller knows who's heard those tapes while no one else likely does. I think enough circumstantial evidence exists to implicate Trump in a conspiracy with Cohen to conceal the truth but just not as cut-and-dried as BF tried to make it seem. Just my 2 cents.

#199 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-20 01:06 AM | Reply

Hell Gal, at this point I'd be willing to consider the "sources" as being pro-Trumpers trying to create a discrediting situation, as this is trying to be spun by right wing media.

Certainly not beyond the realm of possibility:

Trump's pal plotted to hire journalist for negative stories

Felix Sater -- the Russian-born, real estate mogul who helped build Trump Soho -- once looked to hire a journalist for $1,000 a month to post and blog negative stories about an enemy.
pagesix.com

Trump Pal Bought IAmAF**got.Com and VaginaBoy.Com, Then the Sites Attacked His Enemy

Felix Sater didn't just try to broker a relationship between the Kremlin and Trump Tower. He also owned an online archipelago that lashed out a man at who tried to take them on.
www.thedailybeast.com

#200 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-20 01:08 AM | Reply

Tony,

Part of Cohen's plea deal concerning additional charges he won't be prosecuted for (p 2, #4):

"and for obstructing, aiding or abetting in the obstruction of, or conspiring to obstruct, or commit perjury before a congressional or grand jury investigation in connection with the conduct described in the Criminal Information "

www.justice.gov

#201 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-20 01:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I want to know if there is actually irrefutable proof for what they're reporting."

I want to know if anybody has taken a close look at Matthew Whittaker's wife as BuzzFeed's source.

Nor would it surprise me if this story was planted by Whitaker himself so it could be debunked and The Trump Thing could emerge from the swamp looking all outraged and maligned.

Trump is the one who is desperate for an image change. He could use a makeover like this.

#202 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-01-20 05:07 AM | Reply

I bet that NOBALLSPOSTER 101 is really Vernon. I can tell by his math.

#203 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-01-20 08:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"...They are on par with CNN - all fake news, all the time." - #5 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-18 08:17 PM | Reply | Flagged newsworthy by Rightocenter

Wow, the Usual idiots have brought out the full DR Left playbook: STS, WFW and HNT. - #24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-09 10:59 PM

And right on cue, the Queen of the Usual Idiots STS. - Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-08 02:40 PM

I'm sure the Usual Idiots will reflexively STS on this thread, but I strongly suggest that you read the article before commenting, it really captures her mastery of social media and her relatability. - Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-08 01:39 PM

He nailed the STS comment, While I wasn't referring to the American Thinker article I just assumed (correctly it turns out) that it summarized the report. - Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-03 04:54 PM

Apparently, Slaughter the Source (STS) is okay except when it isn't okay.

#204 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-20 12:00 PM | Reply

#200 Also:

Inside the Online Campaign to Whitewash the History of Donald Trump's Russian Business Associates

Who is paying bloggers on the other side of the globe to scrub the Internet of Trump's Russian business ties?

www.thedailybeast.com

#205 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-20 05:25 PM | Reply

LOL, Hans, way to edit the post...the NW is for the "Liberals continue to fall for it."

Nice try though.

#206 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-21 07:14 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort