Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
Vague? This is what they said, according to CNN:

"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," said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller's office, in a statement.

I don't know how much more specific they can get. They are saying statements, documents, and testimony claimed in the Buzzfeed article are not accurate, a nice way of saying fake news.

Just because the authors of the story are digging their heels in doesn't mean what the special counsel's office said is vague.
Your reading comprehension deficits are showing, as usual.

Mueller's team could have released a statement that said: The OSC has not determined that that President Trump directed Cohen to alter his Congressional testimony. Instead, they released this incredibly vague statement that focused on specific pieces of evidence, not the actual conclusion of the article.

It's almost guaranteed that the sources here were *not* from Mueller's team. The BuzzFeed article positions them specifically as not being a part of the OSC. So this is probably information from one of the other investigations- likely this is from SDNY (who raided Cohen's office).

Secondly- there are already numerous Court filings that more or less support the notion that Cohen was working with people in the Trump orbit to prepare for his Congressional testimony.

Finally- the OSC's release doesn't say that Buzzfeed's conclusion is inaccurate- it's calling into question what the OSC has specifically been told and the characterization of their documents. It actually very much leaves open the possibility that Cohen told SDNY all of this, and *they* relayed it to OSC, for example. It also leaves open the possibility that the culmination of various pieces of evidence lead to this conclusion, but that the OSC doesn't have any single piece of evidence that ties it all together.

I'm not saying that BuzzFeed's article isn't currently in question. I'm saying that the OSC's statement has some really interesting language here, and that's worth paying attention to. We don't know the motivation behind the statement.