Yes, please - journalists, be sure, and be accurate

I understand why some sources can't be revealed, but it's way too commonplace now to attribute things to unnamed sources.  What an obvious opening for false reports and reporter traps.

“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.

The statement was remarkable on several levels — first, the special counsel’s office speaks exceedingly rarely, and second, the statement seemed to drive a stake through a sensational allegation that Democratic lawmakers suggested earlier in the day could spell the end of the Trump presidency. As earthshaking as the claims in the story were, no other media organizations were able to match them.

  WaPo

So now we're left with not knowing what part(s) of the story are wrong, and what may still be right, but Trump having been given another free pass by supporters.

The story published by BuzzFeed on Thursday night attributed to two federal law enforcement officials an incendiary assertion: that Mueller had collected emails, texts and testimony indicating Trump had directed Cohen to lie to Congress about the extent of discussions surrounding a proposed Trump Tower project in Moscow. That project never came to pass, but Cohen pleaded guilty last year to lying to Congress about the matter.

The BuzzFeed report strongly implied the president might have committed a crime, dramatically raising speculation of possible impeachment. Within hours, Democrats in Congress were publicly demanding answers.

And, will they continue to demand answers, or will they drop this line of inquiry and give Trump more time to destroy the world?

The potential consequences of the report were so severe — immediate congressional investigations and a possible legal showdown with the White House — that Mueller decided to take the surprising step of publicly denying his investigation had gathered any such evidence.

That, too, is a misrepresentation. “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,” does not in any way deny they gathered any such evidence. This Post article will give the Trump cabal a talking point to deny Trump wrongdoing like they had when the New York Times falsely stated the FBI saw no clear link between Trump and Russia.

The special counsel’s office has only rarely issued public statements since it was created in May 2017; it had never previously issued a public statement regarding evidence in its investigation into Trump and Russian interference in the 2016 election. 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.

You see? And that's not necessarily true, either, but this is the Trump DOJ.

The explicit denial by the special counsel’s office is likely to provide further ammunition to complaints by Trump and his supporters that press coverage of him is unfair and inaccurate.

Likely. I think we could say "certain". (And of course, at this writing, it already has done, in spades, and Trump is retweeting a string of those comments at speed.)

Following the special counsel’s denial, BuzzFeed insisted its story was correct. In a statement, the website’s top editor, Ben Smith, said, “We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he’s disputing.”

So what about that? I think they should indeed make that clear. GOP Chairperson, Ronna McDaniel - who Trump retweeted - has tweeted that "the reporters admitted they never even saw" the evidence. When? Where's her evidence of that? Buzzfeed's own statement says otherwise. Won't matter. That will be another Trumpanzee talking point.

This story is a case where, because the sources were "federal law enforcement officials," they absolutely should have been named. You can't let someone with that kind of authority go anonymous. Besides, when a news organizations allows anonymous sourcing, they're the ones who must take the blame for erroneous information. You'd think that would make them less willing to grant anonymity. But the scoop is everything in today's news.

Buzzfeed has done some great reporting, but even one bad report can ruin a reputation. There's no way Mueller is going to give them more of a clarification of the disclaimer, so it's going to be up to Buzzfeed's reporters to get some hard evidence from their sources that they can use to double down on their claims - if  evidence exists. If they don't get it, it's going to look to everyone like it doesn't.

BuzzFeed also said Mueller learned about the directive to lie from “interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents.”

They're going to have to come up with those things if they want to pull this out of the mud.

Mueller’s denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none of those statements in the story are accurate.

"Familiar with the matter."  The weakest of all sourcing.  Again, on you, Post, who are those people? I'm familiar with the matter. And I say that's not necessarily the aim. I would very much like to know why this story, of all the stories written about this case, is the one where Mueller's team needed to make any statement at all. After all, there have been many stories speculating about what the investigation is doing and what evidence it has. My guess is that there was something about this one that triggered a problem with a witness. Or did it have something to do with the unnamed sources? Or maybe, less likely, a simple desire to keep Trump's lawyers from knowing what the special counsel does have.  I'd also like to know what specifically are the "inaccuracies", and I have no doubt we're not going to be told.

Another hot mess.

Cohen is supposed to testify to a House Oversight Committee February 7, so maybe they'll ask him about it. But Trump has been not-so-subtly tweet threatening Cohen's father-in-law, so who knows if that will happen?

Lanny J. Davis, a legal and communications adviser to Cohen, said of the BuzzFeed story: “Out of respect for Mr. Mueller’s and the Office of Special Counsel’s investigation, Mr. Cohen declined to respond to the questions asked by the reporters and so do I.”

No help there.

“We know that the President has engaged in a long pattern of obstruction,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote in a tweet Friday promising to “get to the bottom” of the allegations in BuzzFeed’s report.

Let's hope he still feels that way.

President Donald Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen remains on track to testify before Congress in February, but he is concerned for his family, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

Cohen agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee on February 7. One of the sources said Cohen is concerned that a public hearing would make things worse for his family and is concerned about their safety. Trump publicly suggested in a Fox News interview over the weekend, without providing evidence, that he is aware of damaging information about Cohen's family.

The source said Cohen was glad that the chairman of the committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, put out a strong statement condemning Trump's remarks.

  CNN

Always with the "familiar sources." Even if they're right, there's still time for Trump or the Russian mob to get to him.

News of Cohen's concerns for his family were first reported by ABC News.

Guess what. ABC's sources are anonymous, too. But they're not just "familiar with the matter." They're "close to Cohen." Presumably, better sources.

Christ, the man was already insufferable.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:





No shit.



UPDATE 3/1:  Buzzfeed's story's looking quite accurate now.