Why did the SCO speak up about this one?

Why did the SCO speak up about this one?

by digby



Marcy Wheler has a good piece of informed speculation about what happened with the Buzzfeed story.  She points out that a discrepancy between the Special Counsel's Cohen sentencing memo and the Buzzfeed story is that the memo merely indicated that Cohen committed perjury to benefit the Trump messaging, not that he'd been ordered to do it. If Cohen was encouraged or directed to do it by Trump personally, it's likely wasn't as obvious as the Buzzfeed story indicated. 

But Marcy does make the point, as she's been making for some time, that we already know Trump DID direct subordinates to lie to congress and the authorities and there's plenty of evidence saying so. It's just that the news media is unwilling to lay it out starkly as the Buzzfeed piece did.

Anyway, there's a lot to the piece and I won't try to characterize it here. I'll just give you this on excerpt and direct you over there to read it.

Consider that the Peter Carr the Special Counsel's spokesman almost never comments on anything, which makes you wonder why this particular story got that attention. After all, it can't be the only story the media has gotten wrong. Marcy speculates:
[T]he 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 possible a 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.
She thinks Mueller is going to indict Don Junior. I'm fairly sure Trump would pardon him before anyone ever sees the inside of a courtroom but it's always possible that New York prosecutors could take up some aspect of the case. I don't know where that goes.

Fox News' Joe DiGenova took a different view:

“What you saw happen today with Bob Mueller issuing his statement is very simple: It’s called the Barr effect — the Bill Barr effect” he said later Friday evening during an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,”, referring to Attorney General nominee William “Bill” Barr. 
He explained that the moment Barr — who in the past has been critical of the special counsel’s investigation — is confirmed, he’s going to ask Mueller about BuzzFeed’s false report, and if Mueller responds with the wrong answer, he’s going to wind up being fired. 
“As soon as Bill Barr is sworn in, he will have a meeting with Mr. Mueller … and the first question Bill Barr is going to ask is, ‘Was that story true that BuzzFeed published?'” DiGenova  said. 
“And Mr. Mueller would say, ‘No, it wasn’t, Mr. Attorney.’ and Bill Barr would say, ‘Why didn’t you refute it?’ And Mueller would have said, ‘Well, Mr. Attorney General, we don’t do that.’ And Mr. Barr would have said, ‘Well, Mr. Mueller, you’re fired.'”
It's hard to imagine that Mueller gamed out that specific scenario. But it's not impossible that Barr could use such a thing as "cause" to fire Mueller.  Once Barr is in office they're going to have to be looking over their shoulders.

I think we can be pretty sure that the media will now go quite soft on Trump, at least for a while. The combination of handwringing and smug, professional, schadenfreude among the pundits was pretty sickening last night.

.