Mueller's office says BuzzFeed article on Michael Cohen is "not accurate"
34 replies, posted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2019/01/18/b9c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html?utm_term=.8ed6019bf9b0
Less than 24 hours after the news site BuzzFeed reported that the president instructed his personal attorney to lie to Congress about his push for a Moscow real estate project, special
counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s office put out a statement firmly disputing the reporting.
“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,” the special counsel’s office said.
Imagine that
Big shock, it was friggin BuzzFeed.
Muller playing 8D Checkers.
https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1086430402204569601
https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1086429658797797376
The phrasing "not accurate" seems to be along the line of parts are not correct. But who knows.
They only said the parts of the article directly involving the special counsel aren't accurate...
Precise language is pretty key in this kind of stuff tbh
Maybe that New York FBI office that's really pro Trump that forced Comey to reopen the investigation was behind the leaks.
The article doesn't really mention the SC. It mentions law enforcement and there are multiple agencies investigating Cohen and Trump related matters. The SDNY is a big one.
This is why patience is vital. If the impeachment engine started without this response it would have been a big disaster and might have given Trump support to win reelection.
Buzzfeed is doubling down and saying they have 2 Federal sources confirming this
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1086438761276293125
Buzzfeed editor in chief says they contacted Mueller before pushing the story and they didn't respond, now they did. Really weird
I think it's safe to say they responded because of house dems and their responses. Before things got even more out of hand with the investigating on a false premise
It is extremely unusual for Mueller's office to do such a thing. They've been almost dead silent over the last two years, outside of court filings. Fox News has misreported about this investigation every day for the last two years without ever once earning a comment from Mueller's office for inaccurate reporting. Why now? Why this article when no others have prompted such a response? Did Buzzfeed just fuck this up to a legendary degree, or is there just a key point or two that they misreported as a result of having limited information that Mueller's office does not want the pubisslic misunderstanding before they submit their own report?
With such an agressive propaganda machine you have to be extremely careful especially if you want to convince other republicans that whatever is up is worth looking into.
Peter Carr finally earned his paycheck today.
Oh no way Buzzfeed wasn't accurate? Color me surprised!
Buzzfeed is journalistically fine and they're sticking by the article, their source must be the US Attorney for the southern district of New York who are also investigating Cohen. Mueller didn't totally deny it on
purpose with legal language.
It could very well be because it's close but not quite accurate enough
I could see Mueller and his team wanting to make sure every single i is dotted and t is crossed before their final reports hit the public
Most likely something like Trump telling Cohen to fix the mess without specifically requesting he lie to congress.
You know, the whole plausible deniability thing.
the special counsel responded because the machinations of impeachment were starting to move based off of a news story that didn't happen.
As the headline states, this sentence 'is not accurate'. It did happen -- it just didn't happen the way it was described. Otherwise, Mueller would simply call the report false.
If the source for the news is, indeed, someone like the AG of the SDNY then the source is credible, would be briefed on the matter, and would have sourcing to prove their claim; they may have, however, not given a statement which matches precisely with what was stated. To us the difference between a mob boss saying 'handle it' and 'kill the informant' is moot -- but to a prosecutor who demands that every singular statement be crafted to absolutely unimpeachable fact that is a discrepancy that simply can't go unchallenged.
The exact legal wording suggests it's not completely wrong but parts of it are.
from the article in the OP, instead of just the headline
Inside the Justice Department, the statement was viewed as a huge step, and one that would have been taken only if the special counsel’s office viewed the story as almost entirely incorrect. The special counsel’s office seemed to be disputing every aspect of the story that addressed comments or evidence given to its investigators.
[...]
Mueller’s denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none of those statements in the story are accurate.
if y'all have better sources than WaPo then you should start a newspaper
Look at Mueller's 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,” the special counsel’s office said.
The Buzzfeed article says that Cohen told Mueller that Trump told him to lie, and that Mueller knew it beforehand with evidence taken from the raid on Cohen's office. That's all they're saying is "not accurate" and
"not accurate" is different in lawyer speak than "not true".
This is the key and absolutely critical part of it all. Lawyers do not mix their gerunds or subjects or mince words. If it was false or lies or unsubstantiated, they would've said so. Going with 'not accurate' is not the same as 'didn't happen'. They chose their words exceedingly carefully and this is what they chose to state. Them declaring it none of those things I stated earlier (false/lies/unsubstantiated) means that because they made a response on those claims that they likely intend to use those claims themselves.
Weren't you just talking shit about WaPo in another thread?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
