Never give up

Intrepid reporter doing the work of the Congressional oversight committees.

UPDATE:

Looking back at the Buzzfeed bombshell

Recall that Buzzfeed published an article saying Trump directed Cohen to lie about the Moscow project, and immediately got hit by an unprecedented public statement from Mueller's spokesman calling the story inaccurate.  And also, the news media and pundits then jumped all over Buzzfeed.

Now, after Cohen testified to what seems to be vidication of the Buzzfeed article, the New Yorker has just published an interview with Buzzfeed's Jason Leopold about the whole controversy.

[NY:] In his opening statement, Cohen claimed that “Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That’s not how he operates. In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell me there’s no Russian business and then go on to lie to the American people by saying the same thing. In his way, he was telling me to lie.” The strong language that BuzzFeed used—which described Cohen’s earlier testimony as “the first known example of Trump telling a subordinate to lie directly about his own dealings with Russia”—appeared to conflict with Cohen’s account. At the same time, Cohen confirmed other aspects of BuzzFeed’s reporting, including that he briefed Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump on the deal, and that, as BuzzFeed wrote, “attorneys close to the administration helped Cohen prepare his testimony and draft his statement to the Senate panel.” On Wednesday, Cohen said that “Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow Tower negotiations before I gave it.”

[...]

Leopold, who was previously at Vice News, is considered an expert at using Freedom of Information Act requests and was part of a team of BuzzFeed reporters who were Pulitzer Prize finalists in 2018. He has also been the subject of controversy. In 2002, Salon removed an article from its Web site after Leopold was accused of inaccuracy and plagiarism. Four years later, he incorrectly reported that Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s deputy chief of staff, had been indicted in the investigation into the outing of the C.I.A. agent Valerie Plame. (Leopold was open about past substance abuse and mental health issues in a 2006 memoir, “News Junkie.”)

[...]

[JL:] I will say that I have evidence that what he said to Congress as it pertains to the story that Anthony Cormier and I wrote was correct.

[...]

Cohen confirmed the central thesis of our report. The President met with him before his false testimony, White House lawyers edited his false testimony before he gave it, and Cohen understood that the President was directing him to lie to Congress. [Cohen claimed that the changes were made by Trump’s personal lawyers, not White House lawyers.]

[NY:] In the piece, you wrote, in what was the central thesis of your story, that this was “the first known example of Trump explicitly telling a subordinate to lie directly about his own dealings with Russia.” Was that language accurate?

[JL:] Cohen totally understood that he was being directed by Trump to lie to Congress. He did not mention how many meetings or explicit words that the President may have spoken that led him to lie. And, you know, more may come out, but Cohen himself made it clear in his testimony that he and Trump both understood this to be explicit, that he should lie to Congress. And he made it clear that it was an explicit command.

[NY:] Do you think him saying “He did not directly tell me to lie” contradicts at all you writing that this was “the first known example of Trump explicitly telling a subordinate to lie?”

[JL:] Those people are seizing onto Cohen’s use of the word “directly.” The President didn’t “directly tell me to lie.” That’s an adverb that characterizes the underlying instruction to lie. And Cohen says almost immediately after that that the President was telling him to lie “in his way.” So there is no longer any question about the direction Trump gave Cohen. The debate is now about how the direction was given, and a lot of people don’t want to admit that they were wrong.

[...]

Anthony and I and, obviously, BuzzFeed are standing by what our sources told us, which is not contradicted by Cohen’s testimony, and what he said is that he knew a hundred per cent what the President was telling him to do. You know, Isaac, if that is not an explicit instruction, then everything short of “Michael, please lie for me” isn’t, either. Cohen understood it to be an order, a direction, an instruction.

[...]

Cohen testified that there were ten discussions he had with Trump, or the Trump family. Our story states, based on these two law-enforcement sources, that they had ten discussions, that Don, Jr., and Ivanka Trump were involved, that Trump was very eager to go to Russia. So our story fleshes out further what [Mueller’s] sentencing memo essentially implied.

[...]

[P]eople are twisting themselves into pretzels to justify their earlier reporting that doubted the central claims in our story rather than trying to get at the truth of what Trump actually said to Cohen to make him lie, which Cohen acknowledged multiple times in the hearing.

[...]

Judicial Watch recently sent a letter to the Inspector General calling for a leak investigation into the two law-enforcement sources who have been leaking for us. So, when it came down to what ["internal company emails, text messages, and other documents" as noted in our story] may or may not say, I don’t even want to discuss that because of those issues.

[...]

I am not going to discuss what [we] may or may not have seen.

[...]

[NY note: [Co-writer Anthony] Cormier said in an interview that [they] were briefed on the documents, but neither of [them] had seen them. ... In an e-mail the day after our conversation, Leopold noted that Cormier only spoke for himself when he said that he had not seen the documents. Leopold added, “When we reported this story out, I was in LA and DC and Anthony was in NYC.”]

[...]

[JL:] Michael Cohen discussed [the idea of selling Putin a $50M penthouse in the proposed Moscow Tower] with an assistant to [Putin’s spokesman] Dmitry Peskov. I understand that there has been commentary by one of the other individuals involved in that who said it was just a marketing plan. But we made it clear in the story that this was not just an idea that these two people were spitballing. This was a plan that was discussed with Dmitry Peskov’s assistant. Michael Cohen, in his own testimony, called it a marketing plan or marketing idea—I don’t have the exact wording. And in addition to that, he noted that the reason they were discussing it was to hopefully attract buyers. [When questioned about this during the hearing, Cohen named Felix Sater as the originator of this idea, saying, “It was a marketing stunt.”]

[...]

I want to make clear that this story, the penthouse story, as well as the story we wrote a month ago, and all the other stories, are subject to the highest level of scrutiny. As is all of our high-profile articles. It was vetted by multiple editors and lawyers, and we did not publish it until everyone was satisfied that the reporting was rock-solid.

[NY:] Do you have a larger sense now of why you think Mueller’s office disputed aspects of your reporting?

[JL:] I do not. And in fact, we are obviously very eager to learn why they made those comments, what led them to make those comments. I filed several FOIA requests with the Department of Justice, the office of the special counsel, with the hopes of prying loose a wide range of records that would lay bare what took place behind the scenes, that could shed light on that decision-making process on the decision to release that unprecedented statement. As it stands right now, as we are speaking, I do not have any additional insight into why they issued that statement.

[...]

[M]y reaction to it was, “This is a carefully-worded legal statement that is also somewhat ambiguous.” I was unable to determine what they were referring to. So first it was confusion, then it was simply a matter of trying to figure out within our story, going through each paragraph, what they were referring to. Because it was not a wholesale “This story isn’t correct.” They seem to have spent quite a bit of time targeting something in the story. I did not think of it as “they are disputing a word” [or] “they are disputing a certain paragraph.” I simply could not figure out what they were trying to say about the story itself.

[...]

I’ll say this: Cohen totally understood he was being directed to lie. And my understanding, sticking to and standing behind what my sources said, is that Cohen was directed to lie. And I also expect that more information will come out that will make it even clearer that this was in fact a directive. And, again, Cohen used the word “directly.”

[...]

“He did not directly tell me to lie.” And he said he was directed, and he made that clear in his testimony that he was directed to lie. I feel like I have to go back again to state it was an adverb, and it characterizes the underlying instruction to lie. I am comfortable with the use of our word “directed” and I am confident more will be revealed about what exactly was said to Cohen, or what additional words were said to him.

[...]

[A]t the end of the day, we are simply just reporting the facts about what is taking place, and in terms of individuals we are writing about, when it is time to inform people about who they are, that’s exactly what we’re doing.

[...]

I am obviously aware of my past. I know that it’s there and I know it can be weaponized.

[...]

I did make mistakes, O.K., but that was decades ago, and since then I have learned from those mistakes. And I am in a unique position of knowing how not to repeat those mistakes. I think the series of stories that Anthony and I wrote is evidence we have been way ahead of the investigation time and again. My work has stood up to the highest forms of scrutiny, and I welcome this scrutiny. My past is my past and I have to have a thick skin, and that is, essentially, people are going to say what they are going to say.

  New Yorker

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

Remembering the Buzzfeed story

Remember when Buzzfeed put out a story saying Trump directed Cohen to lie about the Moscow Project?  Remember that the Special Counsel broke protocol to say their story was "inaccurate"?  Remember how all the Trumanzees dumped on Buzzfeed for being Fake News?  And Buzzfeed stood by their story?

That story's looking more accurate than ever now that Cohen testified he submitted his proposed testimony to Trump's team (including Jay Sekulow and Abbe Lowell) for edits before he went before Congress (and lied).

Maybe some day we'll find out why Mueller's team put out that rare statement, and exactly what they meant by it.



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

UPDATE:









In my experience, always go with Buzzfeed.  They've been doing some incredible investigative reporting.

Adam Schiff comments on the BuzzFeed timeline story

The BuzzFeed timeline story.

Buzzfeed timeline of Trump campaign & Moscow project

Buzzfeed has published a side-by-side timeline of Trump's Moscow tower project and his campaign as it pertained to Russia, bolstered by documentation, including texts and emails. 

EG:

Full article here.

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

Trump Tower Moscow plans & negotiations

BuzzFeed News is today publishing a cache of internal Trump Organization documents that lay bare the secret negotiations that continued long after [Michael] Cohen claimed the [Moscow Trump Tower] deal had been abandoned. The documents, many of which have been exclusively obtained by BuzzFeed News, reveal that — despite Trump’s claim that the development was never more than a passing notion — the effort to get the tower built was long-running, detail-oriented and directly entwined with the ups and downs of his campaign.

As Trump went from rally to rally, vociferously denying any dealings in Russia, his representatives, Michael Cohen and his associate Felix Sater, worked with Trump Organization lawyers and even Ivanka Trump to push forward negotiations to build a 100-story edifice just miles from the Kremlin. The fixers believed they needed Putin’s support to pull off the lucrative deal, and they planned to use Trump’s public praise for him to help secure it. At the same time, they plotted to persuade Putin to openly declare his support for Trump’s candidacy.

[...]

This large trove of nonbinding business agreements, architectural renderings, texts, emails, and plans for Trump to travel to Russia to meet Putin offer an unprecedented glimpse inside the negotiations to build the tallest tower in Europe — a deal Trump’s fixers hoped would "help world peace and make a lot of money."

  BuzzFeed

But not in that order.

Person familiar with the matter mistaken

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


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

One-upping Nixon

Nixon famously said if the president does it, it's not a crime, and Trump's cabal is taking that even further to: if the president did it, even as a candidate, it wasn't a crime.  Soon it will be if he did it at any point in his lifetime.

On Monday afternoon, I called Giuliani to try to understand what he was saying about the Moscow negotiations. After telling me that he had only a minute before getting into the shower, he agreed to a conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity.

[...]

I guess the BuzzFeed story—I don’t remember what it said about Cohen—but it said there was corroboration that the President talked to Cohen and told him to lie about, I guess it was, the Moscow proposal. There are no tapes, there are no texts, there is no corroboration that the President told him to lie. That’s why the special counsel said that the story was inaccurate. First time the special counsel has ever done that.

[...]

I can tell you, from the moment I read the [Buzzfeed] story, I knew the story was false.

[...]

Because I have been through all the tapes, I have been through all the texts, I have been through all the e-mails, and I knew none existed. And then, basically, when the special counsel said that, just in case there are any others I might not know about, they probably went through others and found the same thing.

Wait, what tapes have you gone through?

I shouldn’t have said tapes. They alleged there were texts and e-mails that corroborated that Cohen was saying the President told him to lie. There were no texts, there were no e-mails, and the President never told him to lie.

So, there were no tapes you listened to, though?

No tapes. Well, I have listened to tapes, but none of them concern this.

  New Yorker

"I shouldn't have said tapes."

The Times reported that President Trump was involved in discussions about building a skyscraper in Moscow during the campaign, and you acknowledged that, and then, more recently, you said that you didn’t actually know this was the case.

First of all, the Times was absolutely wrong. Probably just as wrong as BuzzFeed was. I never said he had [NARRATOR VOICE:] “conversations about a skyscraper in Moscow.” The only thing that ever happened was that they submitted a letter of intent about a possible project in Moscow that never went beyond that. No money was ever paid, no plans were ever made. There were no drafts. Nothing in the file. Nothing ever happened to it. Much ado about nothing, because the New York Times wants to crucify the President. And the President had no conversations. I shouldn’t say he had no conversations. He had a few conversations about this early-stage proposal that he ended somewhere in early 2016, and doesn’t have a recollection of anything else, and there is nothing to support anything else. This is a story that is completely exaggerated and made up.

[...]

I have said the same thing for two months. And that is that the President had very little involvement in this so-called project in Moscow.

[...]

You said today, “My recent statements about discussions during the 2016 campaign between Michael Cohen and then-candidate Donald Trump about a potential Trump Moscow ‘project’ were hypothetical and not based on conversations I had with the President.”

Correct. I was pointing out how you would deal with it in court if we were going to trial, and how, even if there were such conversations, which there weren’t, they would be completely innocent. Whenever you do that, you always run the risk someone is going to report just the first part of your conversation. But I thought it was necessary to do it. If he had a project in Moscow, there would be nothing wrong with it, but he didn’t.

He had no coversations. I shouldn't say he had no conversations. He had a few conversations. The story is made up. The president had very little involvement. Trump better hope Rudy never has to represent him in a trial.

Not to mention, what Rudy actually did was provide a direct quote from Trump (which he was forced to retract when somebody apparently informed him that he was waiving privilege), saying Trump told him the negotiations for a Moscow tower were "going on from the day I announced to the day I won."

Wait, Mr. Mayor, if he had a project in Moscow that his attorney was discussing and he himself may have been involved in while he was calling for a loosening of sanctions against Russia and a different policy in Ukraine, and the American people didn’t know anything about that, you wouldn’t find that problematic?

First of all, the project was over in November, December, January, right into 2016. So there was no project. So there was no project. There was no project.

The Times reported yesterday, “President Trump was involved in discussions to build a skyscraper in Moscow throughout the entire 2016 presidential campaign . . .”

He’s wrong! They’re wrong!

“. . . His personal lawyer said on Sunday.”

I didn’t say that. Go find out where I said that on Sunday. I never said he was involved in such conversations. I said the same thing I said to you, which is—

The quote in the story from you is that the “ ‘discussions were going on from the day I announced to the day I won,’ Mr. Giuliani quoted Mr. Trump as saying during an interview with The New York Times.”

I did not say that.

The Times just made that quote up?

I don’t know if they made it up. What I was talking about was, if he had those conversations, they would not be criminal.

If he had them, but he didn’t have them?

He didn’t have the conversations. Lawyers argue in the alternative. If we went to court, we would say we don’t have to prove whether it’s true or not true, because, even if it’s true, it’s not criminal.

Again, Trump better hope Rudy doesn't represent him in court. And why are they still calling this idiot "Mr. Mayor"?

I’m a criminal lawyer. I am not an ethicist. And I defend people against unfair criminal charges.

You are also—

No, I am not also anything else. My main obligation is to defend somebody, not to deal with philosophy. The Times deliberately misunderstood what I said. I started the conversation by telling them these conversations didn’t take place. You can’t turn that into “They did take place” when I say, hypothetically, “If they did take place, here are the legal ramifications of it.” It is totally dishonest when you do it. If you want to do it, we can end the conversation.

I want to hear—

I just finished the conversation. You got it. You’ve got my position. Conversations didn’t take place. If you say that I said they took place, you are lying. Now, if you want to discuss a hypothetical, if they took place, what are the legal ramifications of it, I went to law school to learn how to do that. But that isn’t what I said. I don’t know how to make it clearer, and I really don’t have any more time.

[...]

Saying things for Trump, not always being truthful about it—do you ever worry that this will be your legacy? Does that ever worry you in any way?

Absolutely. I am afraid it will be on my gravestone. “Rudy Giuliani: He lied for Trump.” Somehow, I don’t think that will be it. But, if it is, so what do I care? I’ll be dead. I figure I can explain it to St. Peter.

Absolutely, that worries me. What do I care, I'll be dead.

I felt like we were getting somewhere with that St. Peter thing, deep down.

Me?

When you brought up St. Peter. About you being dead and it won’t matter and you can bring it up with St. Peter.

I was joking.

I know you were partially joking, but it felt like we were getting somewhere.

Getting somewhere where?

About you and your legacy and how you see yourself.

I don’t think about my legacy.

[...]

I don’t think, as a lawyer, I ever said anything that’s untruthful. I have a sense of ethics that is as high as anybody you can imagine.

Rudy, we don't have to imagine. You're already beyond Nixon.

I think what he means by the St. Peter thing is he's paying the local archbishop for intercession.  Paying him a lot, so any sins will be absolved.

O.K., time to go.

I would be remiss if I didn’t let you say something for M.L.K. Day.

Oh, my goodness, yes, he was a great hero of mine. I believe he taught me, like he did all of us, how bad segregation was. Those of us in the North wouldn’t have known that without him.

Wow.

UPDATE:









Well, they WERE surprised, and they're not professional interrogators, but it would have been worth it had they just breezed on by that and then later brought it back up casually, with a different angle. "So, are you able to tell us anything at all about what WAS on those tapes you reviewed?"



Bingo.


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

The Buzzfeed story expands yet again

And this won't be the last you hear of it.



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


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

Further on the Buzzfeed-Special Counsel kerfuffle

Rosenstein’s office did call to check whether Mueller was going to release a statement debunking the BuzzFeed story.

[...]

In the advanced stages of those talks, the deputy attorney general’s office called to inquire if the special counsel planned any kind of response, and was informed a statement was being prepared, the people said.

That seems to be a violation of Special Counsel regulations, which say that Mueller’s office shall not be subject to day-to-day supervision of any official, whether DAG or Acting Attorney General. In the advanced stages of those talks, the deputy attorney general’s office called to inquire if the special counsel planned any kind of response, and was informed a statement was being prepared, the people said. That seems to be a violation of Special Counsel regulations, which say that Mueller’s office shall not be subject to day-to-day supervision of any official, whether DAG or Acting Attorney General.

The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.

Maybe Mueller and Peter Carr don’t care. But it should set off all sorts of alarm bells that as soon as a media report states what has long been clear — that Trump suborned perjury — Mueller’s office is getting calls about how to respond to the press, which last I checked was not an “investigative or prosecutorial step” at all. All the more so given that Carr appears to have bent over backward not to reveal any investigative details to the press, adhering rigorously to any DOJ guidelines on that front.

Whichever side is correct (again, I believe WaPo has just one part of this story), that Rosenstein (or Whitaker) got involved seems to be far more important.

  Emptywheel

I agree, and it's something I voiced concern about in a previous post.

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

UPDATE:

My bet is on Buzzfeed.

FURTHER UPDATE:



UPDATE 1/21:




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

The Buzzfeed story plot unfolds

The [Buzzfeed] 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.

[...]

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 was wrong, two people familiar with the matter said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

  WaPo

As if everything gets cleared up by the use of anonymous sources, which was a big part of the problem in the first place.

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.

Within 24 hours of the story’s publication, the special counsel’s office issued a statement doing just that. Mueller's investigation is becoming too precious.

Mueller's team needs to let impeachment proceedings go forward. I know they need to keep their investigation clean, but the tradeoff is that the world is in ever growing danger the longer Trump is left alone.

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.

[...]

BuzzFeed has stood by its reporting.

“As we’ve reconfirmed our reporting, we’ve seen no indication that any specific aspect of our story is inaccurate. We remain confident in what we’ve reported, and will share more as we are able,” Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for the news outlet, said Saturday.

[...]

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. Cohen had claimed falsely that the company’s effort to build the tower ended in January 2016, when in fact discussions continued through June of that year, as Trump was clinching the Republican nomination for president.

[...]

Carr, people familiar with the matter said, hoped Leopold would notice that Cohen had not said during the hearing that Trump had explicitly directed him to lie. But Leopold, who co-authored the story with reporter Anthony Cormier, told the spokesman he was not taking any signals, and Carr acknowledged the point.

“I am not reading into what you sent and have interpreted it as an FYI,” Leopold wrote.

“Correct, just an FYI,” Carr responded.

A person inside the Trump Organization said a BuzzFeed reporter also talked with a lawyer for the organization hours before the story posted and was warned that the story was flawed and should be scrutinized further. Mittenthal said, “We trust our sources over the organization still run by Donald Trump’s family."

I should think so.

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.”

Which sounds very like saying Trump told him to lie.

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.

[...]

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.

And here we are in the same impossible position: Who are "these people"?

And did Whitaker, at the behest of the Trump team, lean on the Special Counsel's office to make a public statement?*

Told of the special counsel’s failure to find support for the story, Mittenthal, the BuzzFeed spokesman, said, “Our high-level law enforcement sources, who have helped corroborate months of accurate reporting on the Trump Tower Moscow deal and its aftermath, have told us otherwise. We look forward to further clarification from the Special Counsel in the near future.”

Speculation has been that these "high-level law enforcement sources" are from the Southern District of New York where Cohen was prosecuted in the illegal campaign contributions case.

We are a nation in crisis because of the man sitting in the Oval Office.

Open an impeachment investigation now.

*UPDATE:  Or Rosenstein?

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

Liars complaining about lies

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

Buzzfeed explanation

Click the picture to listen.

And the speculation continues apace.






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

UPDATE:

Here's a good point by George Conway:



Whether that applies to the particular charges Buzzfeed's story refers to, I don't know.





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

What he said

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


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

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.

Very interesting

But I didn't think the Special Counsel's office comments on anything about their case.

A spokesperson for special counsel Robert Mueller's office, Peter Carr, disputed BuzzFeed News’ report.

“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,” Carr said.

  Buzzfeed

Here's the article, amended to note the Special Counsel's statement.

When I read the article that claims two law enforcement sources, I wondered who they might be, because, as I said, I haven't heard of any of Mueller's team leaking anything ever, and I don't know what other law enforcement people might have knowlege of documents in the case.

Why did they feel the need to comment on this particular report?  On the other hand, the disclaimer is quite vague.  What is the inaccuracy?

This is going to give Giuliani and the Trump team a nice weapon, and cast doubt on all reporting.

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

UPDATE:







I'm guessing the Buzzfeed reporters will be going back to their sources to get some answers.  Hopefully, they'll fill us in.

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