BREAKING NEWS: Trump directed Cohen To Lie To Congress About The Moscow Tower Project

a reply to: Extorris

Most likely its fake. I dont see Mueller surviving another lie his team is trying to cover up. It would provided more evidence that the left / Mueller team just simply cant be trusted. We just found out one of his lawyer, Weissman, the one accused of multiple counts of prosecutorial misconduct, has had his court documents relating to those misconduct issues go missing (from the court system and not DOJ/FBI).

Is it true? I dont believe it is. Cohen plead guilty to perjury. He has refused to comment on the article.

Finally the 2 people who leaked the info need to be outed and prosecuted. These selective leaks are damaging the case against Trump by affecting a potential jury pool. Never mind the fact of the constitutional violations it creates by violating due process.

This is not a prosecution nor is it an investigation. It is a coup and all evidence to date supports that. I dont believe Mueller has anything to bring down Trump so all that is left is to leak info that is not true in order to fire up the left's base and to affect Trumps supporters to impeach him.

Trump needs to release all FISA info that Rosenstein has blocked.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I believe the Buzzfeed authors think it is legit.
3 different editors vetted the story and sources and the authors went back to the sources after Special Counsel issued it's rebuttal of the story and they said the sources doubled down and thus so did Buzzfeed.

I also agree Special Counsel took an unusual step in issuing a statement that said Buzzfeeds story was wrong.

That is why I think this is odd.

If a source lies to you and sets you up, is it ethical to out that source for public scrutiny?

Either these sources are playing buzzfeed or the Special counsel is unaware of the evidence that the DOJ sources have.

Either one of those answers speaks to something very strange going on.

a reply to: Extorris

How does one vet a story when the author of the story says they never saw any documentation that confirmed the claims by the 2 anonymous sources? How do 3 editors vet the story when their authors couldnt? The authors of the articles have done this before and buzzfeed was the one who initially ran the dossier bs after no one else would.

As for the sources question -
It is my firm belief that if a source lies then they forfeit their anonymity. In this case if the sources are law enforcement they need to be charged with compromising a federal investigation. That goes for lawyers on the SC team as well.

Can someone tell me what this article is concluding? Was the BuzzFeed story an honest mistake?

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

originally posted by: abe froman
Mueller said it's not true.

So this thread needs to be moved to the hoax forum or the trash bin.

Interesng it has not been.

originally posted by: carewemust
Can someone tell me what this article is concluding? Was the BuzzFeed story an honest mistake?

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

The SC does not comment on what they do. Usually when people cal they leave some detailed info to elicit a response from the SC. In this case the Buzzfeed author left no detailed info on the story he put together, so the SC never bothered to cal back. When the story ran the SC got caught off guard, prompting their denials in the story. Had the buzzfeed authors left more info the SC would have told them not to run the story.

I dont believe it was an honest mistake by Buzzfeed. Buzzfeed has been around long enough to know how this game is played. They didnt leave detailed info because they, imo, did not want confirmation probably because they knew the info was bunk.

What I think happened was caused by Democrats gearing up for another investigation into this. That would have been fine for Buzzfeed however I dont think they counted on the SC giving an in person denial and clarifications regarding the story. Usually for stuff like this, a political hit piece, media relies on the people investigating to stick to the policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations.

Had the SC not issued the statement the story woulds still be top news with everyone speculating but doing nothing to confirm the info.

Anyways, just my opinion on what I think happened. Given buzzfeed has done this before tells me this was intentional and not a mistake.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: abe froman
Mueller said it's not true.

So this thread needs to be moved to the hoax forum or the trash bin.

Interesng it has not been.

It should not be in the hoax bin, To me the msm got caught lying and those who want trump to be guilty want this to go away so as not to expose what the left is doing.

imo anyways.

a reply to: Xcathdra

One news outlet reports a story.
The actual source of the story says it is not accurate.

Its really not that hard.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank-you for the detailed explanation! I'm surprised the Buzzard Feed "reporter" even sought comment from the Special Counsel before publishing.

I wonder if he (the reporter) told Bob Mueller who his sources were? Seems that this would be an important component, when seeking comment.

The News Media should have learned their lesson after Mueller verbally spanked the MSM in April of 2018 for publishing FAKE news about the investigation.

And Mueller filed formal complaints against the New York Times and Washington Post in June of 2018, for their publishing FAKE NEWS about the investigation.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

One news outlet reports a story.
The actual source of the story says it is not accurate.

Its really not that hard.

and yet we have people on this site as wel;l as certain media outlets who are doubling down on the story, Buzzfeed and the authors included.

a reply to: carewemust

It seems the media doesnt care. To be honest I doubt Mueller cares and is only going through the motions to appear non biased. Given the SC team / FBI / DOJ leaks like the titanic.....

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

One news outlet reports a story.
The actual source of the story says it is not accurate.

Its really not that hard.

The story itself may be a HOAX, but that this happened and was painted across all the mainstream press so easily, is certainly no HOAX. That verifiably happened.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So the media dictates what gets put in the hoax bin?
Mkay

BREAKING NEWS: Trump directed Cohen To Lie To Congress About The Moscow Tower Project


And we were given a statement from the source that this was not accurate.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

So the media dictates what gets put in the hoax bin?
Mkay

Feel free to point out where I said anything remotely close to that in my posts.

Again as long as Buzzfeed keeps standing behind this bs then the thread should remain. Moving something to the hoax been on this topic is irresponsible since it hides bad acts by the left wing media.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Extorris

How does one vet a story when the author of the story says they never saw any documentation that confirmed the claims by the 2 anonymous sources? How do 3 editors vet the story when their authors couldnt?

Do the sources actually work for DOJ or FBI and in a senior role?
Are they tasked on the Trump tower investigation?
Are they publicly known and recognizable?

The authors of the articles have done this before and buzzfeed was the one who initially ran the dossier bs after no one else would.

the existence of the Dossier was legit and thus the story was solid. It was in the hands of FBI etc.

As for the sources question -
It is my firm belief that if a source lies then they forfeit their anonymity. In this case if the sources are law enforcement they need to be charged with compromising a federal investigation. That goes for lawyers on the SC team as well.

Is it illegal if they BSed the authors and didn't leak actual intel?

originally posted by: carewemust
Can someone tell me what this article is concluding? Was the BuzzFeed story an honest mistake?

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Buzzfeed emails SC Office saying they are running a story saying that Trump directed Cohen to lie to congress.

SC (as usual) responds no comment.

Buzzfeed failed to mention the story would claim that Cohen told the Special Counsel the same (that Trump Directed him).

SC surprised by story and issues rare statement saying that was not true. Cohen did not tell Special Counsel this.

And honestly, that seems like the most likely part of the Buzzfeed story that is BS. Special Counsel does not talk or leak, so how the hell would buzzfeed know what Cohen told them.

I want to know the sources.

a reply to: Extorris

A - The dossier story was not even close to being legit.

Stunning Bruce Ohr Testimony Reveals Top DOJ Officials Knew About Steele In 2016

FISA shocker: DOJ official warned Steele dossier was connected to Clinton, might be biased

Since the sources are anonymous there is no way to verify anything. What I do know is the people with the SC say none of its true.

So who do you trust when both sources are known to be liars?

a reply to: Xcathdra

If the thread topic was "bad actions by the media" sure.
It is not.

I agree the fact that buzzfeed published straight up lies then the msm piggybacks off it needs to be exposed and discussed. Just in its own thread.
Leaving this one open gives credibility to buzzfeed when Mueller has not.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

If the thread topic was "bad actions by the media" sure.
It is not.

I agree the fact that buzzfeed published straight up lies then the msm piggybacks off it needs to be exposed and discussed. Just in its own thread.
Leaving this one open gives credibility to buzzfeed when Mueller has not.

Buzzfeed is standing by its article though.