Status
Not open for further replies.
And from buzzfeed:

In response to the statement tonight from the Special Counsel's spokesman: We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he's disputing.

That is what I'd like to know. Which "specific statements" are not accurate?
 
Out of all the rumours we have heard about the investigation Mueller has only piped up once to deny this one. Can we infer that other rumours must then be true?
Or that this one is close enough to the truth that Mueller doesn't want it later dismissed as fiction because it wasn't the *exact* wording.
 
Or that this one is close enough to the truth that Mueller doesn't want it later dismissed as fiction because it wasn't the *exact* wording.

Or

the story accurately reflects what Cohen told federal prosecutors in another office (e.g. SDNY) but not SCO,

or

the story has minor inconsistencies with what evidence the SCO has,

or

the story’s central claims are substantively wrong.

Without specifics it's impossible to accurately gauge.
 
The Special Counsel said some "descriptions" are "not accurate", not that they were all false. We'll just have to wait and see.
 
Or

the story accurately reflects what Cohen told federal prosecutors in another office (e.g. SDNY) but not SCO,

or

the story has minor inconsistencies with what evidence the SCO has,

or

the story’s central claims are substantively wrong.

Without specifics it's impossible to accurately gauge.
At the very least we can say that it's either more accurate or less accurate or just as accurate as we imagined it to be.
 
Categorically


cat·e·gor·i·cal·ly
/kadəˈɡôriklē/
adverb
in a way that is unambiguously explicit and direct.
"the rules state categorically, “No violence.”"

Oh, are we doing random definitions¿

irrelevant adjective
ir·​rel·​e·​vant | \ i-ˈre-lə-vənt \
Definition of irrelevant
: not relevant : INAPPLICABLE
that statement is irrelevant to your argument
 
"a particularly noteworthy aspect of the story is BuzzFeed News’s claim that, “Attorneys close to the administration helped Cohen prepare his testimony and draft his statement to the Senate panel, the sources said. The sources did not say who the attorneys were or whether they were part of the White House counsel’s staff, and did not present evidence that the lawyers knew the statements would be false.” The combination of the direct presidential instruction to lie and alleged help in preparing the testimony by “attorneys close to the administration” raises important conspiracy questions, as well as the obvious obstruction questions. Presidential authorities do not protect this sort of activity either."

I'm reading this as Trump and those lawyers possibly being involved in the subornation of perjury... that's a conspiracy

I wonder where the perjury trap is now?

Mueller has apparently denied the accuracy of the Buzzfeed report. WaPo has an article on the front page.
 
Trump telling us not to believe Cohen because he's been convicted of perjury on behalf of Trump is weirdly awesome.
Not sure they were saying don't believe Cohen,I thought it was more like the reporter has things wrong.

I would think as tight a ship as Mueller has had up 'til now this might be part of keeping that ship sealed up.
 
Not sure they were saying don't believe Cohen,I thought it was more like the reporter has things wrong.

I would think as tight a ship as Mueller has had up 'til now this might be part of keeping that ship sealed up.

It should be noted for what it is worth. Buzzfeed is standing by their reporting and has asked for clarification what it supposedly got wrong.
 
Oh, are we doing random definitions¿

irrelevant adjective
ir·​rel·​e·​vant | \ i-ˈre-lə-vənt \
Definition of irrelevant
: not relevant : INAPPLICABLE
that statement is irrelevant to your argument

It wasn't random. It was used in the trump statement today.
 
Well that is a ******* boot in the head to buzzfeed, innit?

Lol

Gee yet another bombshell report getting slapped down.

NYT: manafort passes data to teh Russia! Correction, not Russia.

Buzzfeed: sources say Cohen’s testimony bombshell! Mueller: no.

Wonder why our President complains about fake news... fortunately the skeptics here were skeptical, right? Reads thread... oh dear....
 
Well that is a ******* boot in the head to buzzfeed, innit?

Lol

Gee yet another bombshell report getting slapped down.

NYT: manafort passes data to teh Russia! Correction, not Russia.

Buzzfeed: sources say Cohen’s testimony bombshell! Mueller: no.

Wonder why our President complains about fake news... fortunately the skeptics here were skeptical, right? Reads thread... oh dear....

You are going to believe biased Mueller and his team of lying Democracts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom