Octopus Overlords

*waits semi-impatiently for the truth to come out, perhaps years from now*

I look forward to Trump apologists now telling us how trustworthy Mueller is.

I'm curious if this is akin to the mistake Woodward and Bernstein made during Watergate where they got the story generally right but had an erroneous statement that almost derailed the investigation and blew up the Post's reputation.

Ultimately Mueller's report is the only thing that matters, so from that perspective Trump isn't in any less trouble now than he was before Mueller denied the story.

However, it does give Trumpaloons ammunition for the Witch Hunt. Even though Mueller didn't outright deny everything in the article, that's how it will be spun.

The rebuttal from Mueller's team isn't just ammunition it's a freaking howitzer. Buzzfeed totally screwed the pooch, again The one iota of hope is that Mueller is indeed being cagey and honing in on an inaccuracy rather than the whole report being wrong, but in the meantime Trump and Junior meathead and all the surrogates are going to drown out everything else and the 33% are going to just love it. Why in the world would every news outlet run with this story simply based on some suit saying " we stand behind this story 100%" rather than waiting to corroborate some of the facts??? Simply saying "CNN has not corroborated this story but here it is anyway" shouldn't abdicate the any sense of journalistic integrity and is asinine when you know numb-nuts is going to shout fake news from the rafters. Gaaahh!

From reading about this, it seems like the most likely explanation is that the leak is primarily from the SDNY (which handled Cohen's plea, and which evidently has a reputation for being leaky), and that the sources may have been aggressive in characterizing the evidence supporting the conclusion that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress. It's very unlikely that Cohen would have lied about this without some expectation / understanding that that's what Trump would want, but there's a pretty broad spectrum in terms of how explicit that was and what the state of the evidence is. Seems entirely plausible that one or two zealous SDNY prosecutors overstated the supporting evidence.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:58 pm However, it does give Trumpaloons ammunition for the Witch Hunt. Even though Mueller didn't outright deny everything in the article, that's how it will be spun.

This was my thought as well. In every comment section in America trumpaloos are in a war of sound bites with everyone else. This just gives them ammo, even though the initial report is probably pretty close (otherwise why run it?) so they should be crapping their pants.

I just don't want to argue with random trumpaloos about how much or how little the article was accurate. It's a waste.

Marcy Wheeler has the best explanation I've seen:

If I'm right that BF's sources are in the vicinity of SDNY, then Mueller is likely even more pissed at them than BF (tho they prolly hate BF bc they've gotten parts of the story no one else has).

Tao wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:30 am The rebuttal from Mueller's team isn't just ammunition it's a freaking howitzer. Buzzfeed totally screwed the pooch, again The one iota of hope is that Mueller is indeed being cagey and honing in on an inaccuracy rather than the whole report being wrong, but in the meantime Trump and Junior meathead and all the surrogates are going to drown out everything else and the 33% are going to just love it. Why in the world would every news outlet run with this story simply based on some suit saying " we stand behind this story 100%" rather than waiting to corroborate some of the facts??? Simply saying "CNN has not corroborated this story but here it is anyway" shouldn't abdicate the any sense of journalistic integrity and is asinine when you know numb-nuts is going to shout fake news from the rafters. Gaaahh!

Because reliable, credible journalism is just about dead today.

The real problem with the "FAKE NEWS" rants and the war against the media is that, at it's core, there's a lot of truth to it. How can CNN and all the other outlets justify amping up the Buzzfeed story without independently corroborating it first? They can't, and you're 100% right that their disclaimers that they hadn't done so do NOTHING to diminish their responsibility. Without doing independent work to corroborate or add to the story, they're not engaged in journalism at all. It's just gossip, and Trump and all his stupid Trumpaloo MAGA zombies are right to complain. We should all be complaining.

Kurth wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:09 pm

Tao wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:30 am The rebuttal from Mueller's team isn't just ammunition it's a freaking howitzer. Buzzfeed totally screwed the pooch, again The one iota of hope is that Mueller is indeed being cagey and honing in on an inaccuracy rather than the whole report being wrong, but in the meantime Trump and Junior meathead and all the surrogates are going to drown out everything else and the 33% are going to just love it. Why in the world would every news outlet run with this story simply based on some suit saying " we stand behind this story 100%" rather than waiting to corroborate some of the facts??? Simply saying "CNN has not corroborated this story but here it is anyway" shouldn't abdicate the any sense of journalistic integrity and is asinine when you know numb-nuts is going to shout fake news from the rafters. Gaaahh!

Because reliable, credible journalism is just about dead today.

The real problem with the "FAKE NEWS" rants and the war against the media is that, at it's core, there's a lot of truth to it. How can CNN and all the other outlets justify amping up the Buzzfeed story without independently corroborating it first? They can't, and you're 100% right that their disclaimers that they hadn't done so do NOTHING to diminish their responsibility. Without doing independent work to corroborate or add to the story, they're not engaged in journalism at all. It's just gossip, and Trump and all his stupid Trumpaloo MAGA zombies are right to complain. We should all be complaining.

Read the thread above. It's the best analysis I've seen which explains everything.

Grifman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:05 pm

Jeff V wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:59 pm The thing I don't get is this fear they have of the deplorables and evangelicals - as if they would ever be inclined to switch parties. While not pandering to them might affect voter turn-out among these wretched creatures, I'd assume a large measure would be gained back from moderates and independents. I guess Social Media has allowed them to become the proverbial squeaky wheel.

There this thing called a primary

Not an issue in more districts than you think. A politician that stands up to the will of his constituents isn't going to be severely challenged. If our ousted Trump's cabana boy had been more defiant, he'd likely still have a job.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:14 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:09 pm

Tao wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:30 am The rebuttal from Mueller's team isn't just ammunition it's a freaking howitzer. Buzzfeed totally screwed the pooch, again The one iota of hope is that Mueller is indeed being cagey and honing in on an inaccuracy rather than the whole report being wrong, but in the meantime Trump and Junior meathead and all the surrogates are going to drown out everything else and the 33% are going to just love it. Why in the world would every news outlet run with this story simply based on some suit saying " we stand behind this story 100%" rather than waiting to corroborate some of the facts??? Simply saying "CNN has not corroborated this story but here it is anyway" shouldn't abdicate the any sense of journalistic integrity and is asinine when you know numb-nuts is going to shout fake news from the rafters. Gaaahh!

Because reliable, credible journalism is just about dead today.

The real problem with the "FAKE NEWS" rants and the war against the media is that, at it's core, there's a lot of truth to it. How can CNN and all the other outlets justify amping up the Buzzfeed story without independently corroborating it first? They can't, and you're 100% right that their disclaimers that they hadn't done so do NOTHING to diminish their responsibility. Without doing independent work to corroborate or add to the story, they're not engaged in journalism at all. It's just gossip, and Trump and all his stupid Trumpaloo MAGA zombies are right to complain. We should all be complaining.

Read the thread above. It's the best analysis I've seen which explains everything.

Thanks for the link. I read the thread, but it doesn't really do it for me. I have a hard time buying that Mueller would put out that kind of comment unless the story was way, way off base. He's not doing that just because he's piqued by SDNY overstepping and leaking. At least, that's my read.

Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:53 am Thanks for the link. I read the thread, but it doesn't really do it for me. I have a hard time buying that Mueller would put out that kind of comment unless the story was way, way off base. He's not doing that just because he's piqued by SDNY overstepping and leaking. At least, that's my read.

Fair enough.

I haven't read the thread, so I'm not addressing it specifically, but how often these days do media that considers itself journalism publish stories that are completely and totally off base? I get that they might just be reporting what someone else who was completely off base has said, but even then, it seems pretty rare to me.

So on the one hand, I agree that Mueller wouldn't have taken the extraordinary step of commenting on a news story without a solid reason. On the other hand, the chances that there is nothing accurate in the article seems unlikely, to me.

So is this just an example of an over zealous website being fully and completely hoodwinked with baseless info?

Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:53 amThanks for the link. I read the thread, but it doesn't really do it for me. I have a hard time buying that Mueller would put out that kind of comment unless the story was way, way off base. He's not doing that just because he's piqued by SDNY overstepping and leaking. At least, that's my read.

FWIW she is an expert on nat. sec. law and former FBI/DOJ/US Attorney Chuck Rosenberg said something along these lines too in that the 'core' of the BF story was probably right but they were playing defense for their case. It makes sense. The SCO could have remained silent...which they typically do for these type of stories. Instead, they made a technical comment. Why? The simplest answer is because they had good reasons of their own. Otherwise why act?

Edit: On a re-read I don't think this explains my point very well. What I'm getting at is that the SCO's only reason to speak out is likely to protect the investigation. Here is a quick logic ladder on it that may help illustrate what others have described across various stories - with some assumption-y simplications to be sure.

100% wrong - doesn't impact investigation: They probably remain silent. They'd only be muddying the waters and that might eventually...impact the investigation.

100% wrong - impacts investigation: They would be able to come out and say it is flat out wrong. And would to protect investigation.

100% right - impacts investigation no matter what (an assumption here that secrecy is best during the investigation): They probably remain silent to protect their hand as best they can. If they speak, they have to confirm it - as they absolutely certainly wouldn't lie because they still need to go to court eventually.

Partially right - doesn't impact investigation: They don't say anything - similar to 100% wrong scenario.

Partially right - impacts investigation: They issue a statement that protects the case by challenging the incorrect portions. Why? They have to protect the framing they've already established to use Cohen against others (this is essentially what @emptywheel argues). It makes the most sense.

I remember reading about this girl about 1000 years ago(aka Feb 2017) who 'trades in the sex industry' when she was arrested in THailand(!) for, I believe, attending a seminar for people who 'trade in the sex industry'. Didn't know that was a thing, but I also remember her stating that she had all kinds of info on Russian bad actors engaging in talks about the 2016 US elections. And she, according to her, had proof. Audio, video, emails, you name it, again, according to her. And I remember her essentially begging the US government for help while she was behind bars in Thailand.

This past weekend she was finally released in Thailand and deported to Russia where, if you can believe it, she was arrested. I'm as shocked as you are.

Anyway, today she appeared in court apparently sobbing 'I'm sorry' not to the Russian people, the state, or even Putin, but to a Russian oligarch who recently had sanctions against his company lifted by the US.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/wat ... 8086851933

Just a video link, I havent looked for/found any articles on it yet, just heard Maddow talking about it on the way home.

GungHo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:58 pm I remember reading about this girl about 1000 years ago(aka Feb 2017) who 'trades in the sex industry' when she was arrested in THailand(!) for, I believe, attending a seminar for people who 'trade in the sex industry'. Didn't know that was a thing, but I also remember her stating that she had all kinds of info on Russian bad actors engaging in talks about the 2016 US elections. And she, according to her, had proof. Audio, video, emails, you name it, again, according to her. And I remember her essentially begging the US government for help while she was behind bars in Thailand.

This past weekend she was finally released in Thailand and deported to Russia where, if you can believe it, she was arrested. I'm as shocked as you are.

Anyway, today she appeared in court apparently sobbing 'I'm sorry' not to the Russian people, the state, or even Putin, but to a Russian oligarch who recently had sanctions against his company lifted by the US.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/wat ... 8086851933

Just a video link, I havent looked for/found any articles on it yet, just heard Maddow talking about it on the way home.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/0 ... court-not/

The FSB also published a video of them basically manhandling her at the airport in Moscow. She is being made an example of.

Speaking of Deripaska...the Republicans in the Senate allowed the pullback on sanctions. That was last week which might as well be a million years ago in Trump time. Anyway they claimed it was because they received assurances Deripaska was divesting from companies, etc.

Sanctions against Mr. Deripaska personally, which had gone into effect last April, remain in force and would not have been affected by the Treasury Department decision or the Senate measure. Mr. Deripaska’s companies waged an aggressive lobbying and legal campaign against the sanctions last year. The administration first delayed putting sanctions on the companies into effect and then announced last month it would lift them entirely.

Turns out that might not be true. Oh the shock.

But a binding confidential document signed by both sides suggests that the agreement the administration negotiated with the companies controlled by the oligarch, Oleg V. Deripaska, may have been less punitive than advertised.

The deal contains provisions that free him from hundreds of millions of dollars in debt while leaving him and his allies with majority ownership of his most important company, the document shows.

He is a hell of a lawyer!

I've seen dementia patients with more mental acuity and sharper memory. I used to think Giuliani had skeletons that Drumpf knows about. Now I just think he's an idiot.

Juliani is one of the skeletons now. Can a skeleton have skeletons? I think so.

Tapes also came up after the Comey firing. Are we all pretty sure now that Trump is recording everything in the oval office?

Giuliani is the gift that keeps on giving..

...for Democrats.

"Listen, I'm not saying those peeing prostitute videos exist, but I watched them recently and I have to say, one of the prostitutes was NOT urinating at the time the camera was rolling!"

Fuck these guys.

Looks lie the Russian influence with the NRA and the NRA's (illegal) coordination with the GOP has possibly splashed to the top:

"When I was interviewed by the special counsel's office, I was asked about the Trump campaign and our dealings with the NRA," Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide, told CNN.
The special counsel's team was curious to learn more about how Donald Trump and his operatives first formed a relationship with the NRA and how Trump wound up speaking at the group's annual meeting in 2015, just months before announcing his presidential bid, Nunberg said.

Timeline is stretching back to 2015 too.

WaPo

Lanny J. Davis, Cohen’s attorney, said in a statement that “by advice of counsel, Mr. Cohen’s appearance will be postponed to a later date.”

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:07 pm WaPo

Lanny J. Davis, Cohen’s attorney, said in a statement that “by advice of counsel, Mr. Cohen’s appearance will be postponed to a later date.”

They skipped the most important part, why.... Trump and his team have threatened Cohen's family:

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:07 pm WaPo

Lanny J. Davis, Cohen’s attorney, said in a statement that “by advice of counsel, Mr. Cohen’s appearance will be postponed to a later date.”

The NY Times and CNN are running with stories citing Trump's attacks on Cohen's family as the reason he isn't testifying.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:12 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:07 pm WaPo

Lanny J. Davis, Cohen’s attorney, said in a statement that “by advice of counsel, Mr. Cohen’s appearance will be postponed to a later date.”

The NY Times and CNN are running with stories citing Trump's attacks on Cohen's family as the reason he isn't testifying.

My source above is a screen shot from Maggie of the NYT's twitter.

I haven't been keeping up with the evolving story. What threats did Trump and his klan make against Cohen?

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:29 pm I haven't been keeping up with the evolving story. What threats did Trump and his klan make against Cohen?

Trump has occasionally said Cohen's FIL should be investigated. I wonder if that is the problem. The realist in me says that what they actually don't want to do is accidentally endanger his plea deals.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:34 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:29 pm I haven't been keeping up with the evolving story. What threats did Trump and his klan make against Cohen?

Trump has occasionally said Cohen's FIL should be investigated. I wonder if that is the problem. The realist in me says that what they actually don't want to do is accidentally endanger his plea deals.

Mobster Don:

Disgrace.

CNN is reporting that Roger Stone has been indicted, raided, and arrested.

The charges are lying, obstruction, and witness tampering, but the indictment also asserts that the Trump campaign actively engaged with Stone on WikiLeaks and that Stone/WL kept the campaign apprised of upcoming document releases.

This is pretty huge.

What's the spread on how long it takes Stone to flip? Does he really think a pardon is coming?

"I hardly know Roger Stone"

"Roger Stone is a nobody"

"NO COLLUSION!"

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:23 am The charges are lying, obstruction, and witness tampering, but the indictment also asserts that the Trump campaign actively engaged with Stone on WikiLeaks and that Stone/WL kept the campaign apprised of upcoming document releases.

This is pretty huge.

What's the spread on how long it takes Stone to flip? Does he really think a pardon is coming?

Reading through the indictment - Stone literally makes a request to Randy Credico (Person 2) to 'stonewall them' (the SCO) to 'save the plan' and then a reference to Richard Nixon. It might be out of context but jeez...

(This is on page 18 of the indictment for reference)

BTW - I also think there is a good chance there will be a strong entrapment cry from the right out of all this.

Page 19 has Stone asking him to do a "Frank Pentangeli" who is a character in Godfather 2 who lies to Congress about 'critical information' that he knows about. What a fucking moron. Trump only had the best people in his orbit.

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:59 am CNN is reporting that Roger Stone has been indicted, raided, and arrested.

Just came here to share the same new...


Happy Friday Everyone!

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:23 am Does he really think a pardon is coming?

You sound like that's out of the question, but I assume he does think one would be coming and frankly I worry one would come.
Help me feel the way your question sounds like you feel.

TMI: I just did a little dance, and my daughter asked me why I was dancing this early in the morning all alone.