There were plenty of red flags that the BuzzFeed Cohen story was BS

Yesterday, the Trump-haters on cable news were having orgasms over the prospect of an actual Trump crime – suborning perjury – being pursued by the Mueller team and driving the president from office, and leaked to BuzzFeed.  Amber Athey of the Daily Caller counted 179 mentions of the words "Impeach," "Impeachment," or "Impeachable" on CNN and MSNBC.

Grabien has a montage:

But it was all masturbatory, for the special counsel's office took the unprecedented step of issuing a denial of the accuracy of the story.

"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.

This morning, CNN was running talking heads looking for wiggle room on this statement, hoping that only minor details, not the substance, was inaccurate.  As if the Special Counsel would break new ground to deny a minor point in an otherwise accurate story.

But Dan Bongino, a former cop and Secret Service officer, saw plenty of danger signs that the report was phony, and he explained why to Tucker Carlson last night.  The entire segment is embedded below, but here is the key, with a rush transcript via Grabein:

[T]here were red flags as a former federal agent all over this story earlier in the day. Let me point out, too. Why would Donald Trump lie and initiate a crime, which you are correct instructing Michael Cohen to lie if that happened, which now looks like it obviously didn't, is a crime. Why we instruct him to lie about a noncrime, a building project in Moscow, tucker, is not illegal. There is nothing illegal about it part of the story made no sense. Secondly, think about, this tucker. You were in journalism before. You know, you have the scoop of the century right here, and you give it to BuzzFeed and to a reporter at BuzzFeed with a checkered path? What does this say now think this through in the audience. This was probably some kind of a canary trap. It was probably someone feeding false information to sniff out some leakers on the inside of the government and the only people eager enough to pick up this ridiculous story was this discredited guy at BuzzFeed with a history of militias —malicious action in the journalism field. I could be wrong. It could just be a bad source. This says to me it was probably a canary trap. This guy got suckered into the whole thing. There were red flags all over the story if you were paying attention.

The story was always implausible, but the media's bloodlust overcame journalistic skepticism and ended up prOving Trump's point about fake news.

Yesterday, the Trump-haters on cable news were having orgasms over the prospect of an actual Trump crime – suborning perjury – being pursued by the Mueller team and driving the president from office, and leaked to BuzzFeed.  Amber Athey of the Daily Caller counted 179 mentions of the words "Impeach," "Impeachment," or "Impeachable" on CNN and MSNBC.

Grabien has a montage:

But it was all masturbatory, for the special counsel's office took the unprecedented step of issuing a denial of the accuracy of the story.

"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.

This morning, CNN was running talking heads looking for wiggle room on this statement, hoping that only minor details, not the substance, was inaccurate.  As if the Special Counsel would break new ground to deny a minor point in an otherwise accurate story.

But Dan Bongino, a former cop and Secret Service officer, saw plenty of danger signs that the report was phony, and he explained why to Tucker Carlson last night.  The entire segment is embedded below, but here is the key, with a rush transcript via Grabein:

[T]here were red flags as a former federal agent all over this story earlier in the day. Let me point out, too. Why would Donald Trump lie and initiate a crime, which you are correct instructing Michael Cohen to lie if that happened, which now looks like it obviously didn't, is a crime. Why we instruct him to lie about a noncrime, a building project in Moscow, tucker, is not illegal. There is nothing illegal about it part of the story made no sense. Secondly, think about, this tucker. You were in journalism before. You know, you have the scoop of the century right here, and you give it to BuzzFeed and to a reporter at BuzzFeed with a checkered path? What does this say now think this through in the audience. This was probably some kind of a canary trap. It was probably someone feeding false information to sniff out some leakers on the inside of the government and the only people eager enough to pick up this ridiculous story was this discredited guy at BuzzFeed with a history of militias —malicious action in the journalism field. I could be wrong. It could just be a bad source. This says to me it was probably a canary trap. This guy got suckered into the whole thing. There were red flags all over the story if you were paying attention.

The story was always implausible, but the media's bloodlust overcame journalistic skepticism and ended up prOving Trump's point about fake news.