Latest Breaking News

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)

34. This might be of interest:

Reply to Honeycombe8 (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 18, 2019, 09:21 PM

Jan 2019

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211692323

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mueller investigation goes on the record to dispute BuzzFeed report [View all] oberliner Jan 2019 OP

This is clarification, not an actual refutation. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #1

"Not accurate" is an actual refutation oberliner Jan 2019 #4

The question is what part. cstanleytech Jan 2019 #71

Sorry, the special counsel does not play those games. Those are left up to people like still_one Jan 2019 #89

I am not saying they are playing games rather I am pointing out they kept it vague probably because cstanleytech Jan 2019 #92

Not it's not. jberryhill Jan 2019 #84

So are you implying that the special counsel is playing games like rudy giuliani? still_one Jan 2019 #91

They aren't going to get into the weeds of "this, not that" jberryhill Jan 2019 #96

Then the only reason I can fathom why Mueller would even issue an ambiguous statement on still_one Jan 2019 #99

Sounds to me like Carr's just disputing "description of statements" by the Special Counsel's office. SunSeeker Jan 2019 #97

Since red is the adjective, Cold War Spook Jan 2019 #105

It may be a red bikini brief jberryhill Jan 2019 #108

It was a refutation. former9thward Jan 2019 #6

The Special Counsel knows how to say a story is not true. He didn't do that. SunSeeker Jan 2019 #103

Now you are telling us what "the issue Mueller had" with the article. former9thward Jan 2019 #115

No, I'm going by what Carr's actual statement says. SunSeeker Jan 2019 #118

It means the article is incorrect and cannot be relied on. Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #11

Or, it means only that some of the information is incorrect. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #15

If you read about this on CNN site, it reports on it... Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #23

Agreed. eom guillaumeb Jan 2019 #25

Or a comma was in the wrong place. Lawyers LiberalArkie Jan 2019 #24

Or conclusions were drawn by the reporter that Mueller has not made. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #27

Not incorrect, "not accurate". We don't know what wasn't accurate. For example: George II Jan 2019 #85

I'm disappointed like everyone, but all the speculation has gotten out of Hoyt Jan 2019 #32

However, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #33

Fucking Jason Leopold (nt) Recursion Jan 2019 #2

Yep. Once again. N/t. gldstwmn Jan 2019 #5

Yep. Leopold has cred issues. nt Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #12

This might be of interest: guillaumeb Jan 2019 #34

That's irrelevant. Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #42

Again, I agree with you. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #47

Sounds like Barr doesn't plan on letting the public see the report. Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #51

I am certain the Mueller is aware of this, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #56

Working for Trump, Maybe? dumpTrump Dumptruck Jan 2019 #19

DU remembers..... FarPoint Jan 2019 #107

CNN and msnbc will catch hell Watchfoxheadexplodes Jan 2019 #3

Why would CNN catch hell? It printed an article that Leopold has questionable past... Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #16

In their news articles, yes metalbot Jan 2019 #74

"If true." As long as they presented the story as "Buzzfeed reported...." Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #94

I don't know - personally, I think it's kind of a cop out for a reputable news organization to Midwestern Democrat Jan 2019 #117

That's legitimate...reporting what another reputable org. has reported... Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #120

With plenty of "thanks for your 'concern' replies." MadDAsHell Jan 2019 #104

(Can't resist being devil's advocate here): What if it's actually MUCH worse for tRump, fierywoman Jan 2019 #7

That's what I wondered.... Sancho Jan 2019 #21

Then they wouldn't have bothered saying anything muriel_volestrangler Jan 2019 #109

Ugh. Glimmer of Hope Jan 2019 #8

"not accurate" doesn't mean not true agingdem Jan 2019 #9

When some relevant fact is reported in an article is shown to be false, then the whole article Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #17

Remember what happened to Dan Rather? MissKat Jan 2019 #10

Yes, I thought about that. Jumping on the bandwagon w/o confirmation... Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #18

An entirely differenet situation. Mueller is NOT part of this. Whatever Mueller has is independent still_one Jan 2019 #20

No, same thing. Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #31

What I am saying is the integrity of the Mueller investigation is still intact. They made it clear still_one Jan 2019 #43

Oh, no. This doesn't affect the cred of the Mueller investigation at all, IMO. nt Honeycombe8 Jan 2019 #55

I understand your point now, I was focusing on the Mueller investigation, not the "Buzz Feed" still_one Jan 2019 #65

No, Mueller will be fine MissKat Jan 2019 #64

and that was the point HoneyComb was making, and I was focused on the Mueller investigation, still_one Jan 2019 #75

The statement said that the characterizations "are not accurate", they could be even worse for trump George II Jan 2019 #13

That wouldn't warrant a statement. But a related possibility... thesquanderer Jan 2019 #22

Yes it could, but it is clear that the buzzfeed report regarding trump telling Cohen to lie is not still_one Jan 2019 #28

Mueller just Strengthened his Cred dumpTrump Dumptruck Jan 2019 #14

And Leopold destroyed his (and Buzzfeed News in the process) oberliner Jan 2019 #29

I think the jury's out on that -- and the whole story. pnwmom Jan 2019 #45

News outlets should not run with stories with "characterizations" that are "not accurate" oberliner Jan 2019 #48

I agree still_one Jan 2019 #30

This was very carefully worded.... RHMerriman Jan 2019 #38

I agree. For example, if Mueller had TAPE RECORDINGS of DT (and we know Cohen liked to make them) pnwmom Jan 2019 #40

Yep. There's a reason all these people are attorneys... RHMerriman Jan 2019 #46

My concern when it was leaked was a possible Dan Rather event, mastermind Jan 2019 #61

Yeah... if this journalistic report was flat out wrong, there's a way to say that... RHMerriman Jan 2019 #73

Bingo orangecrush Jan 2019 #101

Well it was fun while it lasted... budkin Jan 2019 #26

Yup! Sinistrous Jan 2019 #37

If source is an email, hard to believe BuzzFeed would run with this without seeing the original. Snellius Jan 2019 #35

Unless Buzzfeed is not an actual legitimate news source oberliner Jan 2019 #44

I think it's a legit news source -- but it's too early to know how this story will shake out. pnwmom Jan 2019 #50

It's likely that Buzzfeed's own staff members wrote and edited their Wikipedia entry oberliner Jan 2019 #52

Did you hear Ben Smith on Chris Hayes right now? He's still standing by the story. pnwmom Jan 2019 #63

He also has had issues with accuracy in the past oberliner Jan 2019 #86

Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier do not have a reputable past. Quirky and unstable at best. Snellius Jan 2019 #62

What has Pulitzer prize winner Anthony Cormier done that is not "reputable"? pnwmom Jan 2019 #66

Corrected for Cormier. Thinking of this on Leopold: Snellius Jan 2019 #80

Buzzfeed News is an award-winning news source obamanut2012 Jan 2019 #79

Separate from what? oberliner Jan 2019 #82

Didn't see that coming. Fuzzpope Jan 2019 #36

"are not accurate." meaning, you have a comma where a period should be. nt mastermind Jan 2019 #39

Right - I'm sure that's what Mueller wanted to make sure to clarify oberliner Jan 2019 #41

The orange motherfucker is going to get away with it. hamsterjill Jan 2019 #49

Of course he is, the Senate will never convict no matter what budkin Jan 2019 #54

It is possible, (anything is possible) that the actual report is worse for Trump than anyone, Stuart G Jan 2019 #53

That is definitely possible oberliner Jan 2019 #58

Very Comey-esque statement matt819 Jan 2019 #57

this was the biggest "bombshell" yet amcgrath Jan 2019 #59

Why run a new story this big if it has potential inaccuracies? oberliner Jan 2019 #60

They gave the story to the SC office for comment 24 hours ago. If the SC office pnwmom Jan 2019 #67

You are correct, there are "inaccuracies, not a denial" (or not a total denial) Stuart G Jan 2019 #69

Inaccurate is not equal to untrue. Ford_Prefect Jan 2019 #68

Inaccurate means you don't run the story oberliner Jan 2019 #70

Buzzfeed is so far from Fox news. Ford_Prefect Jan 2019 #76

"...we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he's disputing." SunSeeker Jan 2019 #72

They did. They said the Buzz Feed report is not accurate. That means the allegations that Buzz still_one Jan 2019 #81

Carr's statement did not dispute Buzzfeed's report that Trump got Cohen to lie. SunSeeker Jan 2019 #95

I can buy that still_one Jan 2019 #100

What evidence did the Buzzfeed story provide to support that assertion? oberliner Jan 2019 #113

It cited two unnamed sources, like journalists tend to do. nt SunSeeker Jan 2019 #119

Buzzfeed has no credibility but some of this is moot keepFocused06 Jan 2019 #77

But Trump will still claim that anyway oberliner Jan 2019 #78

Sure he will, so what? The Mueller investigation's credibility is intact still_one Jan 2019 #83

Yes, not only is the Mueller investigation's credibility intact, it is still ongoing. Stuart G Jan 2019 #87

Trump screwed himself keepFocused06 Jan 2019 #88

Welcome to Democratic Underground...good luck..!! Stuart G Jan 2019 #93

Who cars what a serial liar claims. rockfordfile Jan 2019 #90

I wondered about this reporting because... srobertss Jan 2019 #98

Mueller denying it Turbineguy Jan 2019 #102

The "Characterization" is "Not Accurate" DallasNE Jan 2019 #106

Link to DW nitpicker Jan 2019 #110

BuzzFeed is not helping. Legally removing Trump requires the case to be properly built Optical.Catalyst Jan 2019 #111

yup, agreed. n/t MBS Jan 2019 #112

This is not a good thing for the investigation IMO. Calista241 Jan 2019 #114

Slightly off topic but has FOX ever had to print a retraction for any of its ridiculous "reporting"? Mr. Ected Jan 2019 #116