anonymous sources are one thing.

anonymous sources from anonymous people about anonymous people should at the "least" be taken with a grain of salt. especially when the anonymous government officials have a clear bias on the other side of the isle.
i find it odd that mueller hasn't said anything about the report if there was foul play. he did with buzzfeed.

says who? i know you cultists in your media hating frenzy are probably unaware of this, but anonymous sources have a longstanding tradition in journalism. it's actually one of the cornerstones of critical journalism that sources can rely on the integrity of reporters to protect their identity.
it's funny how trump (who CONSTANTLY refers to anonymous sources when called out on specific lies, and who has a long history making up stories under false names like john miller / john barron / carolin gallego) just has to lash out against anonymous sources and imply they are unreliable, and the whole cult goes all in on that moronic narrative, acting like it made any sense...

This post was edited by fender on Apr 4 2019 08:41pm

since it completely contradicts "QUOTES" of mueller's report. (the fbi official over-seeing this)
it's hard to take the word of an anonymous source, that got info from an anonymous source, that claims they over-heard someone on mueller's team say this.

few good reasons.
1. unless it's mueller himself, the other fbi officials on the case do not have a full "collective" knowledge to claim anything.
2. outside of mueller... who else do you know from the fbi that worked on the mueller team? that's right, no one. we've only known of prosecuting attorneys by closely watching the case evolve.

Why do people keep saying this? It's not true... it never was true. The underlying crime matters in terms of determining corrupt intent... but people can absolutely be charged with obstruction without an underlying crime.

Imagine a system where everyone can obstruct justice and get off scot-free if the government is unable to prove the underlying crime.



It says investigators, not prosecutors. It's also bewildering to me that people just assume if an investigator or prosecutor has different political beliefs than the person they are investigating, they aren't capable of being objective. It's really a paranoid way of looking at the world.

Just from a common sense perspective, the story seems plausible. Do you really believe the report doesn't contain damaging information(not already publicly known) on Trump trying to obstruct? And Mueller's investigation is over, so it's not surprising that some on his team would start leaking.

It's funny because the story has been confirmed and expanded upon by all the big outlets.... but no amount of evidence can penetrate the cult bubble.

You're contradicting yourself. If we assume that those investigators from Mueller's team were putting their personal political opinion aside during the ongoing investigation, it makes particular sense for them to come out now, after the end of the probe, leaking and spinning in the direction of their political leaning.

As I said: if Mueller says Barr is misrepresenting his report, then I'll believe it. I'll also listen closely if some high-profile member of Mueller's team comes out publicly, putting his name behind the allegations against Barr.
But until then, "unnamed sources citing other unnamed sources" will not "penetrate my cult bubble".



You mean "all the big outlets" which were talking about the Russia collusion for the better part of the last 2 years, straining their credibility when it comes to this particular issue, and giving them a strong incentive to keep the russia story going to avoid losing face?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 5 2019 04:06am

yeah it didn’t take long for icepeon to change his tune back to election-denying and worshipping “anonymous sources with familiarity on the thinking of sources close to the source’s pet donkey”


sounds like the cnn story “drumpf and drumpf jr got the wikileaks email 10 days before it was released to the public” and the mcclatchy story “cohen was in prauge” and the buzzfeed story about “drumpf told cohen to lie to congress”. privileged lefties like yourself swallow as many of those tabloid tablets to dull your pain about being an election and math-denier

Or they have a good-faith concern over how Barr characterized Mueller's findings.

The vast majority of the time these anonymous sources turn out to be confirmed. And news analysis =/= journalistic scoops.



Uhh... those are all examples of stories that didn't get confirmed by other outlets. Are you simple?

This post was edited by IceMage on Apr 5 2019 06:53am

mueller himself had to discredit the buzzfeed report after the lefty media and privileged lefties like you ran riot with it for almost 2 days. did you forget, or are you just simple?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/18/buzzfeed_reporter_trump_directed_michael_cohen_to_lie_to_congress.html
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/01/18/mueller-buzzfeed-news-report-1116046
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html


you’re the one who denies math. now you’re going with the ‘anonymous sources’ is talking to every media outlet angle. stay snarky and emotional like usual you little privileged lefty

This post was edited by excellence on Apr 5 2019 07:35am

You're embarrassing yourself.