Attn: Mueller's Office Disputes Buzzfeed BS
- Thread starter HillzHoozier
- Start date
I thought this news deserved a thread of its own, lest passers-by be swayed by the frivolous nonsense posted elsewhere.
So you're concerned about frivolous nonsense, now? That's news.
I am interested in the truth and a good laugh. It's awesome getting both with one news story.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I am allowed to laugh at y'all. Actual members of Congress discussed using this recent Buzzkill © garbage as the basis to impeach Trumpski. For the second time a large segment of Americans took an uncorroborated hit-piece (Pulitzer-level, some say) and ran like Forrest Gump with it! You can laugh. It's funny.
I read it. I am out and trying to post from my phone so I'm not being as clear. Suffice to say, lol@buzzfeed.
Ah, now I get it. It's not that it deserved it's own thread. It's that the reasonable and informed discussion we were having about this development in the original thread didn't match your idiotic Breitbartesque interpretation of what happened.
Please, stay out and have fun. We won't be missing you.
You must always post from your phone.
I will. And please continue with your reasonableness and informed-edism.
Ok. I literally lol'd because I know how badly some on your side hope to find enough to bury Trump. Somewhere. Some how. It's crazy. I've never witnessed anything like it. Y'all want it sooo bad. I would not rely on anything from Buzzfeed ever again. It's highly entertaining.
Robert Mueller is a stand-up guy. I hope you support his future updates as much as this one. The guys rock solid.
I can't imagine the Orange Buffoon being so maniacally crooked, going back years, yet he was rubbing elbows with the elite media and Dems for so many years. He wins an election and suddenly he's a Putin-sanctioned Pol Pot. It doesnt make sense to me.
If Mueller has a solid case, I will support getting rid of him. Count me as one who hopes he doesnt run again. But y'all cray.
If Mueller has a solid case, I will support getting rid of him. Count me as one who hopes he doesnt run again. But y'all cray.
What’s entertaining is people like you that still believe he hadn’t already done plenty of stuff to get impeached and go to jail. This could all be completely not true and there’s still plenty left. But for the record, all Mueller said that it wasn’t completely accurate.
You honestly believe this has just popped up recently? Really? You’ve done no reading about Trump’s previous work in NY? He is exactly who we all knew he was decades ago. Although he may not have been a traitor then. Try a little research.
Can't believe much of what you hear and read on this subject especially when the sources are known to have such obvious bias and desire for a certain outcome. That's real collusion. Trump could be The worst human who has ever walked the earth. I seriously doubt that tho. The whole of the left and some of the right want to get rid of the guy no matter what, no holds barred. That's not just.
Most people believe their sources weren’t Mueller’s team at all, but the SDNY. If I were you I would be VERY careful about gloating right now. I hope you’ve noticed that no one in the Admin has denied it. Not one person.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/ro...yptic-statement-response-buzzfeeds-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 is not accurate,”
“As Chris Matthews of MSNBC noted as he read the statement, the wording was very specific in its denials—saying it pertained to ‘this office’ but not catergorically—and the very fact that Mueller’s team issued a statement while remaining quiet about so many other reports was interesting.”
“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 is not accurate,”
“As Chris Matthews of MSNBC noted as he read the statement, the wording was very specific in its denials—saying it pertained to ‘this office’ but not catergorically—and the very fact that Mueller’s team issued a statement while remaining quiet about so many other reports was interesting.”
You say that like it's a bad thing.
"Reasonable and informed" is an interesting take. Around here that means a single predictable narrative and the stomping out if any moderate let alone dissenting views.
There is very resourced work on his behavior in NYC, long before he even thought of having a political. Much of it from his own mouth. No one really disputes it.
What I don't get is why the term 'your side' is commonly used when there is the potential of a President colluding and conspiring with the Russians to steal the election?
And then having an 'agent' or an idiot collaborator of the Russians at the White House whose policies are now in-line with what Putin has propagated for a decade?
Shouldn't it be 'one side' only in this issue when seeking this truth?
And then having an 'agent' or an idiot collaborator of the Russians at the White House whose policies are now in-line with what Putin has propagated for a decade?
Shouldn't it be 'one side' only in this issue when seeking this truth?
Same goes for the shutdown incidentally. It's a non-partisan issue for bona fide American citizens.
Exactly! Nothing like premature gloating. You risk looking foolish when backpedaling. Kinda like in this thread:
https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/trump-directed-cohen-to-lie-to-congress.178565/
It never ceases to amaze me how beholden both sides are to their party, the lengths they will go to excuse their rush to judgement and how easily they believe what they are spoon fed regardless of the source, only because it feeds their innermost hopes.
Tbf. There has been enough crumbs along the way to mistakenly lead people to make their own judgement. The other problem is the understandable lack of communication from the SCO.
People want to know. There is only so much foreplay one can handle. But its being handled like tantric law instead.
No one is gloating that some people voted a corrupt criminal into office. Whether he did this particular thing or that particular thing, and whether they can prove it, is immaterial. We all know he is a criminal. And it amazes me that some people are so beholden to their party that they would vote for a man like this and still continue to support him. Unfathomable , really.
To be honest, it doesn't really matter whether or not he's a criminal. I mean, we all figure he probably is, but who knows? Maybe he's squeaky clean. Stranger things have happened.
What matters is that, even if he never so much as jaywalked in his entire life, he's still the most unfit, incompetent imbecile we have ever elected to the office, and he's a continuing embarrassment to our country, and he will remain a continuing embarrassment historically, long after we are all dead, and future humans are writing books about the 21st century. Even if he never committed a single crime, everyone who voted for him is still complicit in speeding up the destruction of this once great nation.
I have no party, at least on a national level, and didn't vote for Trump. He is the equivalent of a human/turd hybrid. That being said what can be proven is not immaterial as you have suggested, it's the cornerstone of our judicial system and a pillar of civil society. That you would pick and choose to whom that applies based on accusation (and if you are honest, your political ideology) alone says more about you than him or those who continue to support him.
And again, if we are being honest it's unfathomable that any number of dozens of congress critters on both sides have the unyielding loyalty and support that they maintain. Party above people, party over policy, party over common sense and party over country is no longer the exception, but the status quo for both Republican and Democrat party alike.
What can be proven is immaterial to whether he is a criminal. It’s obvious to anyone that’s paid attention for two decades that he is a criminal. You can’t compare what’s happened in the past to what is happening now. The Democrats have never had a person so unfit for office. Would they stand behind him/ her at every turn? We will never know, because there will not likely ever be someone so unfit again. False equivalency.
The special counsel's comments on the BuzzFeed story and the Trump family's resultant chortling reminded me of the Washington Post's blunder with respect to Hugh Sloan and H.R. Halderman that damaged its credibility and prompted the Nixon White House to escalate its claims that the Post's Watergate coverage was biased and inaccurate.
And you know what? No one cares about that blunder today because the Post was extremely accurate in its overall coverage, demonstrating that Nixon and his higherups were deeply involved in election improprieties.
For a fascinating account of the blunder, go to this link and scroll down to the words "The Hugh Sloan Story":
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/j6075/edit/readings/watergate.html
The Post erroneously published a story "saying that Sloan had testified before the grand jury that Bob Haldeman was one of the men who had access to the secret campaign fund."
Editor Sussman said "the story was wrong on three points–'Sloan hadn't told the grand jury about Haldeman, Haldeman hadn't been interviewed by the FBI as we said he had, and we had his age wrong. He was 46, not 47.'"
"As it turned out, Bernstein and Woodward had the main point right–Haldeman was deeply involved with the slush fund. But they had the details wrong. For this, they paid a heavy price."
So, Trump supporters should remember that the original Watergate reporters made errors little remembered today, and it remains to be seen whether any errors by Buzzfeed will be remembered five years from now.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
There are currently at least 17(!) investigations pertaining in all aspects of Trump and his family. So it wouldn’t surprise me in the least that there are multiple sources. With multiple types of evidence. Within multiple parallel cases.
Mueller’s statement seemed more like a “it wasn’t us” designed to keep some democratic lawmakers at bay until they’ve uncovered every stone. It was worded VERY vaguely, in a way that gave them more cover to carry on. Everyone was confused by it- and I’d surmise that was completely by design.
It’s kind of like an astrology prediction, the constitution (many portions of it, anyway), and “mediums”- statements/thoughts are deliberately worded to be very vague- and the reader imprints their own subjective thoughts and feelings on it. Everybody gets something out of it- even if their collective interpretations vary widely.
Just my .02.
Similar threads
