I think it’s possible for them both to be right.
Buzzfeed’s article might be “slightly inaccurate” in certain details, but not incorrect on the whole.
The OSC could be nuancing that statement on purpose. They never said the article was “wrong”. Simply “not accurate”, which to me equals, ‘generally correct with a few caveats’.
If that’s the extent of the difference, then I can understand Buzzfeed sticking to their story.
Bottom line, there is likely truth to the notion that Trump was involved in Cohen lying to Congress. To what degree remains uncertain, but the OSC didn’t say that notion was incorrect. Only that specific details were not accurate.
That implies there is still a huge hammer waiting to drop on this particular topic.
So we are now up to (checks notes) exactly zero Russiagate “bombshells” that panned out after further scrutiny. There are a billion reasons to oppose Trump, and Republican’ts in general, but being a Russian Secret Agent ain’t one of them. (And who in their right mind thinks that Blatant Braggart Donald Trump could keep a secret that yuuuuuuge???)
Since the Mueller group rarely (if ever???) comments on the investigation, I’m wondering why they chose to comment on this one.
To be sure, the wording is careful.
Of all the reporting that has been done to link the Orange Menace to serious allegations, is the BuzzFeed report the only one that has claimed [verifiable] sources?
Was it too much of a bombshell to let it “hang out there” and perhaps lead to calls for action (impeachment) that might jeopardize the investigation/indictment of even bigger crimes? (This is my hope, of course.) (Could an indictment lead directly to charges and an arrest? IANAL, obviously!)
The statement by DoJ seems calculated to make people shrug and move on without realizing that they did not deny anything about the gist of the BF article.
I don’t think he did.
“Russia, … hack into her emails,” for starters.
Really liked Josh’s post on this topic.
In particular this line,
“But certainly the post-2014 sanctions against Russia had to be lifted before the deal could be finalized. That is the central issue.”
The issues around whatever Cohen was directed to do will get sorted out over time.
There’s plenty that is damning that has already been admitted to.
I’m really curious. Does anyone know why Mueller would have broken his silence, basically just this once, on this one specific issue?
It’s like a character in a book suddenly doing something totally out of character. Is there a good explanation, or is the hack author of our current shithole reality just a poor writer who stopped trying to make this place believable?
and this
I can’t quite get around the fact that he has Whitaker overseeing him now.
Who knows what is going on.
He could have been pressured, and he did the bare minimum to get Whitaker off his back.
On the other hand, he could be pissed about the implication that the leak came from his team.
I’m going to doubt that one. That’s an almost Trumpian childish reaction.
That’s fair. Mueller’s been extremely disciplined.
Now Rudy is saying his comments yesterday about the Moscow timeline were “hypotheticals” and not based on discussions with Donnie.
FFS, Rudy.
…
Curious because in the NYTimes he quoted Trump. Hmm.
Mueller and his team have been extremely disciplined, which is all the more reason why he would want to quash the rampant speculation of a leak from his team. The statements references “specific statements” from the OSC as “inaccurate.” He and his team know how much of a thin line they are walking and that the Trumpsters will jump on any hint of actual impropriety (not the conspiracy theory witch-hunt crap).
I think they wanted to stop any talk of a leak while not giving away anything about their investigation status. Thus the ambiguous statement.
Buzzfeed is looking more and more to be correct. The SCO was essentially pressured by Rudy and Rosenstein to issue a statement. They reviewed their file to see how much distance they could get from Buzzfeed’s allegations. The answer: not that much. Buzzfeed’s error was to make a conclusory statement without having seen the ‘actual’ evidence in the SCO’s possession. However, the rest of the claims in their reporting are correct, as most of it is validated in the SCO’s own filings. I have a longer post that I’ll put up later today. This is a bigger deal than people realize (and even than I initially realized).
DAG Rod Rosenstein apparently fussed for a response pushing back against Buzzfeed. WP had the story -
Inside the Mueller team’s decision to dispute BuzzFeed’s explosive story on Trump and Cohen
I really hope some enterprising House Committee requests all communications regarding this statement and its preparation between the WH, DOJ, and internal to the DOJ.
I’m willing to bet (Josh, please activate the betting portal already!) that there’s something of interest to be found there.
Out of all the stories which have dropped, why this one and why now to make a vague statement which doesn’t actually say that the material is wrong, just that it’s not a 100% match with Mueller’s info.
Looking forward to reading it, glad they finally got comments working again
This would be unique because it’s the first time AFAIK that a reporter suggested that Mueller’s office had a leak. I suspect Josh had it right, that the leak came from elsewhere, perhaps the SDNY. Mueller’s office Does. Not. Leak.