badmojo1006
Footballguy
I am amused that people who have called Mueller investigation a hoax and a witch hunt, now grab into one little nugget from the Special Counsel to try to defuse this bombshell.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter whoknew
- Start date
sho nuff
Footballguy
Exactly we get a little pump the breaks from Mueller and people act as if he just said the whole article was false.
squistion
Footballguy
I made this disclaimer.Boy you guys really thought you had something this time. A boatload of gems over the last 1/2 dozen pages.
joffer
Footballguy
shader
Footballguy
Tim, isn’t that the point of the Mueller investigation? Until that closes, this is all pointless anyway.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
But it's fun to speculate on, especially since the SC team is running a really tight ship. They seem like absolute pros.
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
I doubt it would have been kept from the public if it had turned out to be verifiably true information. The beauty of the dossier is that by being presented to Obama/Trump by spooks, it became journalistically relevant for BuzzFeed to publish, regardless of how slanderous it was. You can argue whether or not the dossier is true or whether it played a big part in the surveillance spree ran on the Trump campaign, but it definitely helped play up the lurid accusations against Trump going into office.
I don't think it matters that it didn't affect the election cycle. It certainly had a major impact on public perception, to a great extent because it was viewed as "credible intelligence" rather than Democrat-funded oppo research. Why do you think Elias hid that for so long? Trump's campaign should not have been surveilled on account of oppo research paid for by his political opponents. Seems self-evident how wildly inappropriate that is.
As far as the dossier claims, I'm thinking Cohen in Prague will be proven false, and that the dossier claims about Gubarev were straightup libel. BuzzFeed won their lawsuit against Gubarev, not on the grounds that it wasn't libel but that they were within their right to report on actions by government officials.
badmojo1006
Footballguy
We are now on page 2019. Next page will be the future!
Scared? Me too!
Scared? Me too!
Dedfin
Footballguy
If we break the universe I'm okay with it. The end of this simulation get pretty wacky.
squistion
Footballguy
Ryan LizzaVerified account @RyanLizza 22m22 minutes ago
As others are pointing out, the BuzzFeed report triggered Dem members of Congress to put some pressure on Mueller to share info so for the first time Mueller was highly incentivized to go public to calm the waters
As others are pointing out, the BuzzFeed report triggered Dem members of Congress to put some pressure on Mueller to share info so for the first time Mueller was highly incentivized to go public to calm the waters
Yeah, I think the most fascinating aspect of this story is that Mueller responded at all, and only after the story had permeated Washington for a full day.
Normally you would not expect Mueller to acknowledge any rumors about the investigation - that would be a full time job for 2-3 people. So, why now?
The angle that makes the most sense is one where stories of impeachment, without waiting for Mueller to complete his work, started cropping up by the end of the day. It seems to me that there is a big picture that we are not seeing yet, but that going off on an impeachment tangent that is not as solid as many hope, would jeopardize the bigger picture.
I don't read this as anything that clears Trump - of anything. Really we are in the same spot we were before the BuzzFeed report - but with more questions.
Normally you would not expect Mueller to acknowledge any rumors about the investigation - that would be a full time job for 2-3 people. So, why now?
The angle that makes the most sense is one where stories of impeachment, without waiting for Mueller to complete his work, started cropping up by the end of the day. It seems to me that there is a big picture that we are not seeing yet, but that going off on an impeachment tangent that is not as solid as many hope, would jeopardize the bigger picture.
I don't read this as anything that clears Trump - of anything. Really we are in the same spot we were before the BuzzFeed report - but with more questions.
ren hoek
Footballguy
ErikWemple @ErikWemple 18m18 minutes ago
New York Times throws a bit of cold water on BuzzFeed's explosive -- and now seriously challenged -- report that Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress: https://t.co/9N7MiHs7et
New York Times throws a bit of cold water on BuzzFeed's explosive -- and now seriously challenged -- report that Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress: https://t.co/9N7MiHs7et
ren hoek
Footballguy
Aaron Maté @aaronjmate
Q for @a_cormier_ & @JasonLeopold: I see a (possible) discrepancy. Asked about evidence for your story, Anthony told CNN "I’ve not seen it personally." Jason told MSNBC: "We have seen documents." Did Jason misspeak, or is he referring to documents separate from this story?
Q for @a_cormier_ & @JasonLeopold: I see a (possible) discrepancy. Asked about evidence for your story, Anthony told CNN "I’ve not seen it personally." Jason told MSNBC: "We have seen documents." Did Jason misspeak, or is he referring to documents separate from this story?
ren hoek
Footballguy
We wonder if the folks over at Truthout.org are rethinking their affiliation with reporter and serial fabulist Jason Leopold. Leopold, you may recall, is the freelance reporter who was caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article, self-admittedly “getting it completely wrong” in pieces for Dow Jones, and had his own memoir cancelled because of concerns over the accuracy of quotations.
Leopold’s latest addition to his application for membership in the Stephen Glass school of journalism came on May 12 of this year, when he got what appeared to be the scoop of a lifetime. Now writing for Truthout.org, Leopold reported that Karl Rove “told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials,” that he was about to be indicted in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case, “according to people knowledgeable about these discussions.”
Leopold claimed that multiple sources “confirmed Rove’s indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove’s situation.”
Well, today we learned that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said he would not seek charges against Rove.
Oops. //
When Leopold’s story was first called into question a few weeks ago, Salon’s Tim Grieve reminded readers of Leopold’s checkered history with the publication. Salon removed Leopold’s August 29, 2002 story about Enron from its site after it was discovered that he plagiarized parts from the Financial Times and was unable to provide a copy of an email that was critical to the piece. Leopold’s response? A hysterical rant (linked above) which claimed that Salon’s version of events was “nothing but lies,” and that “At this point, I wonder why Salon would go to great lengths to further twist the knife into my back. I suppose the New York Times will now release their version of the events. I can see the headline now ‘Jason Leopold Must Die.’” In other words, people are out to get him, and it’s not his fault.
https://archives.cjr.org/politics/jason_leopold_caught_sourceles.php
On the Buzzfeed writer who has "seen" the "documents."
Leopold’s latest addition to his application for membership in the Stephen Glass school of journalism came on May 12 of this year, when he got what appeared to be the scoop of a lifetime. Now writing for Truthout.org, Leopold reported that Karl Rove “told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials,” that he was about to be indicted in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case, “according to people knowledgeable about these discussions.”
Leopold claimed that multiple sources “confirmed Rove’s indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove’s situation.”
Well, today we learned that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said he would not seek charges against Rove.
Oops. //
When Leopold’s story was first called into question a few weeks ago, Salon’s Tim Grieve reminded readers of Leopold’s checkered history with the publication. Salon removed Leopold’s August 29, 2002 story about Enron from its site after it was discovered that he plagiarized parts from the Financial Times and was unable to provide a copy of an email that was critical to the piece. Leopold’s response? A hysterical rant (linked above) which claimed that Salon’s version of events was “nothing but lies,” and that “At this point, I wonder why Salon would go to great lengths to further twist the knife into my back. I suppose the New York Times will now release their version of the events. I can see the headline now ‘Jason Leopold Must Die.’” In other words, people are out to get him, and it’s not his fault.
https://archives.cjr.org/politics/jason_leopold_caught_sourceles.php
On the Buzzfeed writer who has "seen" the "documents."
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Dedfin
Footballguy
Any chance he normally would have corrected false reports, but they've been correct so I didn't think to correct anyone until now? I too think the Mueller reaction is the important thing here.
ren hoek
Footballguy
The story had claimed Cohen had acknowledged to Mueller’s prosecutors that the president directed him to deceive Congress about key facts linking the president to the proposed Trump Tower project in Moscow. 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.”
Mueller’s denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none of those statements in the story are accurate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2019/01/18/b9c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html
BOOM! LOCK HIM UP!
Mueller’s denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none of those statements in the story are accurate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2019/01/18/b9c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html
BOOM! LOCK HIM UP!
Last edited by a moderator:
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Yeah if buzzfeed screwed the pooch here they should clean house in the “news” department and stick to posting clickbaity stuff they stole from reddit.
matuski
Footballguy
Sarah Saunders response: "categorically false"
What does the response, over the last 8 pages or so, to this story (now in tatters) tell you?
Last edited by a moderator:
Something else that comes to mind - Mueller now reports to Whitaker. Whitaker may have ordered the Special Counsel's office to specifically deny this claim (when the SC would otherwise have ignored it).
I don't suggest that Whitaker is asking Mueller to lie - only to publicly deny what they don't think they can prove, or have sufficient evidence.
Public exonerations are a big deal to Trump, who certainly would have called Whitaker about these allegations and demanded that the OSC deny any false reports publicly. I can see Whitaker jumping at that order.
I don't suggest that Whitaker is asking Mueller to lie - only to publicly deny what they don't think they can prove, or have sufficient evidence.
Public exonerations are a big deal to Trump, who certainly would have called Whitaker about these allegations and demanded that the OSC deny any false reports publicly. I can see Whitaker jumping at that order.
matuski
Footballguy
The major outlets (hi CNN, MSNBC, etc), that have had this headline on blast - backed up with op eds and redundant stories and links - have their share of questions as well.
matuski
Footballguy
Or... the story was baseless, so they set it straight.
I know, not nearly as sexy or conspiratorial.
matuski
Footballguy
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Does not answer the question: "Why Now?"
There have been plenty of baseless stories over the last 18 months. I don't recall the OSC responding to any of them. So there is something unique about this story that had the OSC issue the denial.
matuski
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
Nate Silver @NateSilver538
It's too early to know what to make of the BuzzFeed story, but it does seem like, dating all the way back to 2016, the share of stories that aren't on as firm a footing as you'd like has been pretty high on Russia-related stories.
It's too early to know what to make of the BuzzFeed story, but it does seem like, dating all the way back to 2016, the share of stories that aren't on as firm a footing as you'd like has been pretty high on Russia-related stories.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
Like the right always running with stories against Obama from their stupid sources.. drudge, heritage foundation, hannity, etc.
It fits your side's narrative, screw the due diligence or fact checking - sounds good, RUN WITH IT!
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
And that they ignore the 100s of stories that bury their guy in favor of the one (possible) mistake.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
1. I thought Mueller was some sort of partisan hack leading a witch hunt? Now he’s suddenly, automatically to be believed? (Adjust your snark meters accordingly)
More seriously...
2. I can’t speak for anyone else but...If the Buzzfeed article is pure crap I am glad it is being exposed. Sloppy, partisan, jump-the-gun, journalism is unacceptable regardless of the bent.
3. Cultists please note that many of us are willing to say “well, damn...I believed this one thing and then evidence came out that refuted that one thing. Now I have changed my beliefs.” That’s how it should be.
More seriously...
2. I can’t speak for anyone else but...If the Buzzfeed article is pure crap I am glad it is being exposed. Sloppy, partisan, jump-the-gun, journalism is unacceptable regardless of the bent.
3. Cultists please note that many of us are willing to say “well, damn...I believed this one thing and then evidence came out that refuted that one thing. Now I have changed my beliefs.” That’s how it should be.
timschochet
Footballguy
Welcome back to the thread! What’s it been, like 6 months? All of you guys were no shows and suddenly damn you’re all back tonight!
timschochet
Footballguy
Fully expecting Trump to praise Mueller tomorrow. For one day at least it be a legitimate investigation, not a witch hunt.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Either of those would still be Trump directing him to lie.Sinn Fein said:
timschochet
Footballguy
BTW, and I speak only for myself, I would love it if Mueller exonerates Trump and this story goes away. I’d like to move on from it, seriously. I don’t know if that will happen but given a choice that would be my preference. Obviously I can’t stand Trump but I would be far happier if he turns out to be innocent.
boots11234
Footballguy
6 months sounds about right. You’ve wasted 6 months at least on this crap and have nothing...because.....there is nothing. We realized this 6 months ago and don’t waste our time except to come in and laugh at you all.
jamny
Footballguy
I cant even imagine how many predictions like this have been made in this forum that haven't come true and those that made it never came back to admit they were wrong. Must be on the hundreds.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
jamny
Footballguy
The Indestructible
Footballguy
jamny
Footballguy
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
jamny
Footballguy
Nikes and sweatsuits? Not sure what that means.
I have seen so many posts over the years saying "trump is going to blow up tomorrow " "cant wait to see trump's meltdown tomorrow" etc. And when it doesnt happen, no one comes back to say that I guess I was wrong. Why does noticing that make me not normal? Seems like a normal observation.
ren hoek
Footballguy
It's because Mueller's come across partisan in that direction to some- though I grant not all- that it means something when he cuts against the narrative. Like if Michael Isikoff, author of Russian Roulette, starts hedging some of his statements around collusion. Or if Greenwald published a
BOMBSHELL TRUMP COLLUSION report, it'd be significant because he's personally invested in a narrative that runs almost diametrically counter to that. 
