[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2019-January-18, 19:55, said:

The Special Counsel's office has said the Buzzfeed report is inaccurate. But, of course, in the progressive biosphere, the steady stream of unattributed accusations are considered all fact and must be shaking our democracy to its foundations. The only problem with that reality is that whenever things aren't going well for the Dems, one of these "bombshells" seems to appear with a regularity that is unreal. But, of course, fake news is that way.

The President postponing the trip was a political act just like Speaker Pelosi's refusing to make the House available for the State of the Union Address. Sure its tit for tat, if you please. But it made its point that if Speaker Pelosi wants to play political games she'll get full measure back.

Of course, it focuses attention that the Speaker who has been claiming the Dems were with the workers was going out of the country for a week and ensuring the shutdown would last a week longer. Guess the Dems are more interested in retreating to Puerto Rico to a lobbyist sponsored and paid for "retreat" on the beach and junkets to smooze with the financial elite in Switzerland than address the problems facing this nation. The optics are terrible for Dems, my friend.

You seem to categorize the world into us and them, right versus left. Where does truth fit into a worldview such as that?

[andrei]

johnu, on 2019-January-18, 15:57, said:

How could immigrants do that Andrei? Were they highly trained agents from Mission Impossible?

It is always better to read the whole article, not only the title.

Quote

The mass crossing this week took place in a sparsely populated stretch of the border -- where an old model of border barrier rises about 12 feet from the sandy ground

Quote

CBP Yuma Border Sector Chief Anthony Porvaznik said his unit needs better border barriers.

[andrei]

rmnka447, on 2019-January-18, 19:55, said:

The Special Counsel's office has said the Buzzfeed report is inaccurate. But, of course, in the progressive biosphere, the steady stream of unattributed accusations are considered all fact

hrothgar, on 2019-January-19, 02:30, said:

The Special Counsel is disputing specific details about Buzzfeed's: (For example, the accuracy of the underlying quotes or whether they were specifically collected by Muller as opposed to, say, the SDNY)

I don't believe that they have disputed the primary claim (The President suborned perjury)

Time will tell

QED ...

[hrothgar]

andrei, on 2019-January-19, 14:50, said:

QED ...

You don't actually understand what those letters mean, do you?

Either that or your idea of a demonstration is mighty peculiar...

[y66]

From Marcy Wheeler at emptywheel:

Quote

..A couple more points. A lot of people are complaining that Carr didn’t more aggressively warn Buzzfeed off the story (though he did provide what sounds like Cohen’s allocution, which — if it had been reviewed by one of Buzzfeed’s superb legal reporters — probably would have led to the cautions I raised yesterday). I get why that would be nice. But I think people really misunderstand the degree to which Mueller knows that every single action they take will eventually be subjected to scrutiny courtesy of a Judicial Watch FOIA. And any hint at all that Carr provided any inkling about the case to journalists will be blown up by Trump and his lawyers.

Finally, the actions Carr took yesterday (and Mueller’s big-footing on Cohen’s testimony before the Oversight Committee next month) only make sense if Cohen might have to play a role in a possible trial, and not a report submitted confidentially to Attorney General William Barr. That’s what more likely explains Carr’s response than anything else: the discrepancy between what Buzzfeed reported and what Cohen allocuted posed a risk to a possible jury trial. And that may explain another reason why Mueller is a lot more modest about Trump’s role in Cohen’s lies than SDNY is.

Trump’s not going to be indicted by Mueller — at least not before he leaves office via election defeat or impeachment. So Mueller’s focus needs to be on the crimes of those he can charge, like Don Jr. That doesn’t rule out that the evidence he’s looking at show that Trump oversaw a series of coordinated false statements. He did! With Mike Flynn’s lies, Don McGahn’s clean up of Flynn and Jim Comey’s firings, the response to the June 9 meeting, and yes, this Trump Tower deal, nothing explains the coordinated story-telling of multiple Trump flunkies other than Trump’s approval of those lies. It is, frankly, journalistic malpractice that the press hasn’t noted that, especially on the June 9 meeting, the evidence that Trump lied and ordered others to has already been made public. Trump’s tacit (and explicit, with the June 9 statement) approval of serial false statements, to Congress, to the FBI Director, to FBI Agents, and to Mueller, is an impeachable offense. Multiple outlets have gotten solid proof of that, they just haven’t stated the obvious like Buzzfeed did, perhaps in part because they’re relying on White House sources for their reporting.

But Mueller won’t need to allege that for his case in chief, at least not on the issue of the Trump Tower deal. Because the events that matter to Mueller’s case in chief — the events to which Cohen might have to serve as a witness — happened in 2016, not 2017 or 2018. And the guilt that Mueller would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt if he does indict this conspiracy is not Trump’s guilt — except as an unindicted co-conspirator. It is Don Jr’s guilt.

So outlets that are suggesting that Mueller’s pushback backs off any evidence that Trump committed a crime make no more sense than the original Buzzfeed report (and ignore the actual evidence of how Cohen’s lies evolved, an evolution in which these outlets were active participants). The only thing that explains Carr issuing such an unprecedented order is if Cohen’s ability to testify on the stand must be preserved.

Robert Mueller has the unenviable task of needing to sustain as much credibility for a bunch of serial liars as possible, starting with Michael Cohen. Buzzfeed’s story — whether generally true or erroneous on details about Trump Organization witnesses or totally wrong — threatened that effort.

And that’s why, I strongly suspect, Peter Carr finally publicly spoke.

[hrothgar]

Something to bear in mind about that "compromise" that Trump offered today...

The Supreme Court, yesterday, decided to not take the DACA case, leaving DACA in place for at least another year
We already have everything that he is offering...

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2019-January-19, 16:23, said:

From Marcy Wheeler at emptywheel:

What is discouraging to me is that Marcy Wheeler - who initially refuted the conspiracy/collusion idea and only later changed her mind due to the information she saw - is ignored by those who support Individual-1 because she had the audacity to allow facts to change her mind. That kind of blind allegiance does not bode well for the republic.

We need both politicians as well as a citizenry who all value truth over personality or ideology.

[johnu]

andrei, on 2019-January-19, 14:47, said:

It is always better to read the whole article, not only the title.

I'll bet that those asylum seekers wouldn't have been able to climb over the flat earth's 50 meter high ice wall imported from the edge of the earth to the Mexican border.

There is no confirmation that China is going to send a section of the Great Wall to the US in exchange for dropping tariffs.

Could I be wrong?

Trump Touts Border Wall In San Antonio, Which Has No Wall And Isn’t On The Border

Quote

Twitter had a few comments about Trump’s goof. Many were quick to point out the 1836 Battle of the Alamo, in which the local mission’s wall failed to protect Texans from Mexican troops.

Remember the Alamo!

[kenberg]

Trump's offer is, of course. a sham. I see that McConnell plans to bring legislation to the Senate floor in support of Trump's plan. Think about that for a minute. McConnell has been adamant that he will bring nothing regarding the shutdown to the floor unless the various parties have already forged an agreement. Clearly the various parties are not in agreement. So McConnell was selling BS, which is about as surprising as Trump's offer being a sham.


The Dems get outplayed. I think they have an opening here, and we should look to the practical effect of McConnell refusing so far to bring anything to the floor. It means that nobody in the Senate has to do a damn thing. They do not vote yes, they do not vote no, they do not vote. The shut down is a disaster, but hey, there is nothing to vote on. Suppose that Senators actually had to cast a vote on a funding bill passed by the House. They would actually have to vote yes or no. This could have an effect on both Rs and Ds. I can imagine an R saying "Look, I can't vote for the bill as it now is, but let's sit down and work on something I could vote for. Not 5.7B for a wall, but I do have some thoughts." And then I can imagine a D saying "Ok. I am willing to listen". Why would they act this way? Simple. Few Senators. at least few who are soon up for election, want to be seen as the obstruction to re-opening. Until now they have been on a vacation from responsibility. Calling for a vote ends the vacation.

Our Constitution has its faults, some of them substantial, but it is a monument to a blending of idealism and practicality. It seems possible that if Senators actually had to vote yea or nay on a bill from the House, we could get a practical discussion going. And if that is not the case, then we are all pretty much doomed.

So my suggestion to the Ds is that they say "Mitch [If Donny can say Nancy and Chuck, I can say Mitch], we are so glad to hear that you think Senators should actually be expected to vote, we will be sending something over tomorrow."

And then we all need to back up this demand. Right now the biggest national emergency by far is that one Senator stops 99 other Senators from voting. Mitch does this because he can and because he thinks that it is his best interest to do so. Obviously nobody who had any concern for the country would do such a thing. Mitch has no interest in the well being of anyone except himself. So there must be a concerted effort to make it in his best interest to allow for voting, and not simply for voting on what his boss says to vote on. It needs to become in his best interest to allow Senate votes on bills coming form the House. We possibly can get to a solution in this way, I see no other way.

[johnu]

hrothgar, on 2019-January-19, 16:45, said:

Something to bear in mind about that "compromise" that Trump offered today...

The Supreme Court, yesterday, decided to not take the DACA case, leaving DACA in place for at least another year
We already have everything that he is offering...

Hmmm, a compromise assembled without the input of a single Democrat, just the White House. Who could have foreseen that this would be unsuccessful?

To sweeten the pot, I heard Dennison is going to offer Democrats an all you can eat Big Mac buffet bar.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2019-January-19, 20:20, said:

Trump's offer is, of course. a sham. I see that McConnell plans to bring legislation to the Senate floor in support of Trump's plan. Think about that for a minute. McConnell has been adamant that he will bring nothing regarding the shutdown to the floor unless the various parties have already forged an agreement. Clearly the various parties are not in agreement. So McConnell was selling BS, which is about as surprising as Trump's offer being a sham.


The Dems get outplayed. I think they have an opening here, and we should look to the practical effect of McConnell refusing so far to bring anything to the floor. It means that nobody in the Senate has to do a damn thing. They do not vote yes, they do not vote no, they do not vote. The shut down is a disaster, but hey, there is nothing to vote on. Suppose that Senators actually had to cast a vote on a funding bill passed by the House. They would actually have to vote yes or no. This could have an effect on both Rs and Ds. I can imagine an R saying "Look, I can't vote for the bill as it now is, but let's sit down and work on something I could vote for. Not 5.7B for a wall, but I do have some thoughts." And then I can imagine a D saying "Ok. I am willing to listen". Why would they act this way? Simple. Few Senators. at least few who are soon up for election, want to be seen as the obstruction to re-opening. Until now they have been on a vacation from responsibility. Calling for a vote ends the vacation.

Our Constitution has its faults, some of them substantial, but it is a monument to a blending of idealism and practicality. It seems possible that if Senators actually had to vote yea or nay on a bill from the House, we could get a practical discussion going. And if that is not the case, then we are all pretty much doomed.

So my suggestion to the Ds is that they say "Mitch [If Donny can say Nancy and Chuck, I can say Mitch], we are so glad to hear that you think Senators should actually be expected to vote, we will be sending something over tomorrow."

And then we all need to back up this demand. Right now the biggest national emergency by far is that one Senator stops 99 other Senators from voting. Mitch does this because he can and because he thinks that it is his best interest to do so. Obviously nobody who had any concern for the country would do such a thing. Mitch has no interest in the well being of anyone except himself. So there must be a concerted effort to make it in his best interest to allow for voting, and not simply for voting on what his boss says to vote on. It needs to become in his best interest to allow Senate votes on bills coming form the House. We possibly can get to a solution in this way, I see no other way.

Ken, you are right. McConnell is as anti-democracy as the worst tyrants found anywhere in the world - perhaps that explains why he and his group have no interest in looking into potential misdeeds of the president. From blocking a Supreme Court nominee for President Obama to the present refusal to allow a vote, he has shown only an interest in retaining power and using that power to destroy democratic norms.

L'swamp he is.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2019-January-19, 23:06, said:

Ken, you are right. McConnell is as anti-democracy as the worst tyrants found anywhere in the world - perhaps that explains why he and his group have no interest in looking into potential misdeeds of the president. From blocking a Supreme Court nominee for President Obama to the present refusal to allow a vote, he has shown only an interest in retaining power and using that power to destroy democratic norms.

L'swamp he is.

I corrected my typo where I had 8.7 instead of 5.7, if you have a moment please edit where I am quoted.
I think there is, or at least might be, an opening. There are Rs, I know more than one, who are disillusioned with Trump There is a wide spectrum of people who are either hurt by the shutdown or see it as a serious national problem, or both. These people, perhaps many of them, can make it clear that they expect the shut down to be solved. How? Obviously not in the way we are going.

I think the following is possible: The House passes a bill and sends it to the Senate. The Senate votes. There could be several R Senators who, when actually required to cast a vote, are not up for saying "5.7, the wall, or we keep the gov shut down". But that doesn't mean that they will vote yes on whatever the House sends over. So there has to be some negotiation.
This currently crashes on Mitch's refusal to allow a vote. The only way to change that is for other R Senators to insist that they vote. But of course they like not having to actually cast a vote for the record. So people, voters, have to insist. Allowing this vacation from responsibility has to be seen as the irresponsible action that it is. So we need the help of R citizens. This is where Ds can help.Those of us with D Senators and Representatives have to let them know that we expect some flexibility there as well.Saying "Ds support border security" is insufficient. It's like supporting motherhood. Nobody is going to come out and say "I oppose border security" so saying Ds support it is a throw away line.


I'm not claiming this is certain to work, but it has the advantage of being an approach that most people grew up thinking of as something that is supposed to work. We elect some people to get some stuff done, and they are supposed to talk together to work out how that can happen. People intuitively support such an approach. This expectation has to get through to our representatives.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2019-January-20, 05:28, said:

I'm not claiming this is certain to work, but it has the advantage of being an approach that most people grew up thinking of as something that is supposed to work.

Ken, you are aware that the House has twice done precisely what you suggested and passed bills to re-open the government?
In one case, this was the precise same language that the Senate passed 100-0 last month.
However McConnell consistently refuses to schedule votes for them.

As for "improve border security" is not clear enough...
The Democrats are pretty clear that Trump's racist vanity project is pretty much the only sticking point.

I'm sorry, but when you have racist crowds shouting "Build the Wall" as their rallying cry and using this as a tool of oppression, "the wall" can't be part of a compromise.

The House and Senate could easily pass a bill tomorrow with sufficient support to re-open the government and then over turn a subsequent veto.

The issue is that the only bills that Trump claims that he will sign are completely unacceptable to the Democrats AND McConnell current claims that he won't allow a vote on anything that the President won't sign.

This is a manufactured crisis.
The fundamental problem seems to be that Trump believes that said crisis is good for him.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2019-January-20, 05:54, said:

Ken, you are aware that the House has twice done precisely what you suggested and passed bills to re-open the government?
In one case, this was the precise same language that the Senate passed 100-0 last month.
However McConnell consistently refuses to schedule votes for them.

As for "improve border security" is not clear enough...
The Democrats are pretty clear that Trump's racist vanity project is pretty much the only sticking point.

I'm sorry, but when you have racist crowds shouting "Build the Wall" as their rallying cry and using this as a tool of oppression, "the wall" can't be part of a compromise.

The House and Senate could easily pass a bill tomorrow with sufficient support to re-open the government and then over turn a subsequent veto.

The issue is that the only bills that Trump claims that he will sign are completely unacceptable to the Democrats AND McConnell current cl

• Edit

aims that he won't allow a vote on anything that the President won't sign.

This is a manufactured crisis.
The fundamental problem seems to be that Trump believes that said crisis is good for him.

Let's say the above is sunstantially correct, since it probably is. That still leaves us stuck. I am looking for a way out. Minutes ago I saw that WaPo had an editorial this morning advocating making a deal. I don't agree with their view, not as I understand it. I got to thinking a bit more.

DACA and The Wall are fundamentally different from the government shut down. Some people want the wall, some people want programs such as DACA, nobody wants the government shut down for its own sake. The wall and DACA are thus things susceptible for give and take negotiation. Give a little, get a little. The continued shutdown is a punishment and a threat. Nobody wants it, it is a threat to do great harm unless someone's butt is kissed in the right place.

This has to be dealt with, the sooner the better, and I think focusing on Mitch's refusal to allow a Senate vote should be front and center. Mitch is impervious to criticism from Ds. Ok got that. But Senate R's have to run for re-election. They could, along with Ds, force a vote. How to get them to do this? Make it very clear, and make it something that no one forgets, that going along with Mitch is simply a disguised way of voting No. Not forcing a vote to the floor is absolutely equivalent to a No vote. No voter should be unaware of that fact. I think voters would be very open to the argument that the people they elected to serve in the Senate are supposed to vote on the important matter of keeping the government open. They currently do not vote because Mitch won't let them. Mitch has a lot of power, but it is not absolute. Voters need to understand that if the R Senators were to insist on voting, they could do so. And therefore, if they do not insist, they are responsible for the vote not taking place. And thus for the continuation of the shutdown. This is a simple, accurate straight forward message that every voter needs to hear. We grew up learning that Senators vote on bills. Everyone, and I mean people who are very busy raising kids and supporting families, can understand an argument that says that Senators should address the critical matter of the shutdown by voting.

Then maybe something would happen.

If the D controlled House and the R controlled Senate can together put through a bill that ends the shutdown, we will see if Donny vetoes it. If so, he will totally own it. He has said he would be proud to own the shutdown but we will see if this translates into a veto of a bill that would end the shutdown. Trump says a lot of things, as probably you and others have noticed.


Basically I am saying that Trump is hopeless and McConnell is a very bad person, but I am hoping that other Senators, from some mix of their own sense of responsibility coupled with voter pressure, can work together to cope. If this is really impossible then we are doomed. I think it is possible, but it will require Senators to stand up to cast a vote, and then to work with others, and right now that is not happening. Mitch let's them off the hook by not bringing anything up for a vote. Changing that could be the key to getting some movement.

The situation is seriously awful. The above is the best I can come up with.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2019-January-20, 07:56, said:

Basically I am saying that Trump is hopeless and McConnell is a very bad person, but I am hoping that other Senators, from some mix of their own sense of responsibility and form voter pressure, can work together to cope. If this is really impossible then we are doomed. I think it is possible, but it will require Senators to stand up to cast a vote, and then to work with others, and right now that is not happening. Mitch let's them off the hook by not bringing anything up for a vote. Changing that could be the key to getting some movement.

The situation is seriously awful. The above is the best I can come up with.

I agree that voter pressure is the only thing that is going to cause this to change.
In turn, this means that a whole bunch of people are going to need to suffer in the short term before things get better.

Long term, the only thing that is going to make this any better is breaking the back of the Republican party...

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2019-January-20, 07:56, said:

Let's say the above is sunstantially correct, since it probably is. That still leaves us stuck. I am looking for a way out. Minutes ago I saw that WaPo had an editorial this morning advocating making a deal. I don't agree with their view, not as I understand it. I got to thinking a bit more.

DACA and The Wall are fundamentally different from the government shut down. Some people want the wall, some people want programs such as DACA, nobody wants the government shut down for its own sake. The wall and DACA are thus things susceptible for give and take negotiation. Give a little, get a little. The continued shutdown is a punishment and a threat. Nobody wants it, it is a threat to do great harm unless someone's butt is kissed in the right place.

This has to be dealt with, the sooner the better, and I think focusing on Mitch's refusal to allow a Senate vote should be front and center. Mitch is impervious to criticism from Ds. Ok got that. But Senate R's have to run for re-election. They could, along with Ds, force a vote. How to get them to do this? Make it very clear, and make it something that no one forgets, that going along with Mitch is simply a disguised way of voting No. Not forcing a vote to the floor is absolutely equivalent to a No vote. No voter should be unaware of that fact. I think voters would be very open to the argument that the people they elected to serve in the Senate are supposed to vote on the important matter of keeping the government open. They currently do not vote because Mitch won't let them. Mitch has a lot of power, but it is not absolute. Voters need to understand that if the R Senators were to insist on voting, they could do so. And therefore, if they do not insist, they are responsible for the vote not taking place. And thus for the continuation of the shutdown. This is a simple, accurate straight forward message that every voter needs to hear. We grew up learning that Senators vote on bills. Everyone, and I mean people who are very busy raising kids and supporting families, can understand an argument that says that Senators should address the critical matter of the shutdown by voting.

Then maybe something would happen.

If the D controlled House and the R controlled Senate can together put through a bill that ends the shutdown, we will see if Donny vetoes it. If so, he will totally own it. He has said he would be proud to own the shutdown but we will see if this translates into a veto of a bill that would end the shutdown. Trump says a lot of things, as probably you and others have noticed.


Basically I am saying that Trump is hopeless and McConnell is a very bad person, but I am hoping that other Senators, from some mix of their own sense of responsibility coupled with voter pressure, can work together to cope. If this is really impossible then we are doomed. I think it is possible, but it will require Senators to stand up to cast a vote, and then to work with others, and right now that is not happening. Mitch let's them off the hook by not bringing anything up for a vote. Changing that could be the key to getting some movement.

The situation is seriously awful. The above is the best I can come up with.

The Republican senators could - if they wanted - elect a new leader and send McConnell packing - that might be the only way out of the crisis. For more information on the power of Senate leaders, see this

Quote

Put simply, party leaders are powerful because rank-and-file senators defer to them to manage the institution how they see fit. This deference is not mandated by the Senate’s official rules. Rather, it is simply grounded in its past practice. The implication is that frustrated members can easily change how the Senate operates at any point. All that’s needed is a willingness on their part to recast their relationship with the Senate’s leaders.

So, it become apparent that the entire Republican party is complicit and shares ownership of this shutdown because they have the power to dump McConnell, spurn Individual-1, and join with Democrats to override any veto.

That senators, both now and when Democrats were in control, acquiesced to the decisions of two individuals - the leader and the president - shows that the senate has become a threat to democracy.

PS to Ken: I made the edit to your quoted post per your request.

[Winstonm]

From Yahoo podcast:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has strong words for the House GOP:

Quote

“Whether it amounts to criminal conduct, clearly the efforts of the House Republicans were designed to impede and throw sticks into the spokes of the Mueller investigation,” Whitehouse says.

“To discredit it, foul it up, to provide alternative narratives, potentially even to communicate to potential witnesses or jurors their alternative narratives and thereby influence the proceedings … all of that,” Whitehouse asserts.

“The only thing that stops that being a crime is the contact with Trump’s lawyers and the corrupt intent. The other elements are all there,” he said.”You can show in abundance that they tried to interfere with the Mueller investigation.”

“Whether they did that with the requisite corrupt intent … We’re one bad email away,” he concludes. “It definitely needs to be investigated.”

I would call on the House to release all information they can to substantiate these claims so the public can see exactly how the interference was done.

[rmnka447]

andrei, on 2019-January-19, 14:50, said:

QED ...

Well, there you go. You took Hrothgar's opinions about what the Special Counsel said as fact and tried to assert it was true. Sad.

The MSM did an awful lot of backtracking on Sunday after running with the Buzzfeed story even with the qualification "If it's true." When the report first came out, they spent lots of time opining how this was an impeachable offense and would mean the end of the Trump Presidency. The problem is that the opining is wrong unless you have corroboration that the story is true. It crosses over into the realm of propagandizing an allegation without proof.

The Buzzfeed story asserted that the Special Counsel had documentation that corroborated the allegation by an unnamed source. The Special Counsel has said the report is inaccurate. If they had the documentation, they certainly wouldn't say the report is inaccurate. They would likely remain silent. So the story is just one more allegation made by an unnamed source.

The equivalent would be if some poster said "An unnamed person said that (pick a progressive) is a pedophile." Then a whole slew of other posters said "If true, this is terrible. This (progressive person) should be banned from the Water Cooler." At that point, if it comes out that the allegation was wrong, the damage is still done and the (progressive person)'s reputation is still besmirched. And those with animus towards (progressive person), can start saying "There are all kinds of allegations being made about (progressive person)."

It's political propaganda pure and simple. That kind of stuff is something I'd expect to see in a Socialist/Communist or Fascist dictatorship, not the US.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2019-January-21, 13:35, said:

Well, there you go. You took Hrothgar's opinions about what the Special Counsel said as fact and tried to assert it was true. Sad.

The MSM did an awful lot of backtracking on Sunday after running with the Buzzfeed story even with the qualification "If it's true." When the report first came out, they spent lots of time opining how this was an impeachable offense and would mean the end of the Trump Presidency. The problem is that the opining is wrong unless you have corroboration that the story is true. It crosses over into the realm of propagandizing an allegation without proof.

The Buzzfeed story asserted that the Special Counsel had documentation that corroborated the allegation by an unnamed source. The Special Counsel has said the report is inaccurate. If they had the documentation, they certainly wouldn't say the report is inaccurate. They would likely remain silent. So the story is just one more allegation made by an unnamed source.

The equivalent would be if some poster said "An unnamed person said that (pick a progressive) is a pedophile." Then a whole slew of other posters said "If true, this is terrible. This (progressive person) should be banned from the Water Cooler." At that point, if it comes out that the allegation was wrong, the damage is still done and the (progressive person)'s reputation is still besmirched. And those with animus towards (progressive person), can start saying "There are all kinds of allegations being made about (progressive person)."

It's political propaganda pure and simple. That kind of stuff is something I'd expect to see in a Socialist/Communist or Fascist dictatorship, not the US.

My first response is that you may be right that the entire BuzzFeed article may turn out to be wrong. At the same time, you give the impression of being unfamiliar with legal writing. If you closely read the SCO release, what they write is that the "description of" and "characterization of" are not accurate.

Here is the quote:

Quote

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 are not accurate.

(my emphasis)

What the SCO did not say is that the Buzzfeed article was wrong or completely inaccurate. Also notice the SCO did not write they had no such documentation or no such statements had been made. To get even more specific (which is what lawyers do) about the language, the definitions of "description" and "characterization" leave open the possibility that the vast majority of the article is true and only small parts are not accurate.

As Richard stated above, time will tell.

IMO, the motive of the SCO is paramount knowing why this particular article was challenged when others articles have not been. Does the lack of challenge mean that the SCO agrees that Putin was offered a $50 million penthouse? Or in this case are they simply trying to protect Cohen's credibility so he can be seen as reliable testimony in an upcoming criminal trial (as is suggested by Marcy Wheeler)?

[Winstonm]

So tough on Russia - not!

Quote

WASHINGTON — When the Trump administration announced last month that it was lifting sanctions against a trio of companies controlled by an influential Russian oligarch, it cast the move as tough on Russia and on the oligarch, arguing that he had to make painful concessions to get the sanctions lifted.

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.

NYT