buzzfeed went with this. this is my comment tucker, you were talking about credibility and accuracy and all of. that i would like to know who are the two sources quoted by buzzfeed. if they were given false information and now they have egg and mud and everything else all over their face t would seem. i think it's time journalistically to burn the sources. tell us whoce these sourcees wee that gave the information that was so apparently inaccurate that robert mueller and his team took the stunning step of coming out on a friday night and putting out a denial of the story. if youo are standing by the sources i'm a bit mystified by that. i think we now as the american people have a right to know who are the people, what did they tell you, why? >> tucker: this is a on going theme. you see it frequently in the media. it demands transparency from people in power. show us your tax returns. where were you the night of jul. >> sure. >> tucker: then making mistakes and not account willing for them. nbc leaks their own

for buzzfeed. when i was a united states attorney, we used to debate this issue not commonly but not infrequently. and that is when a report comes out in some newspaper or in some media outlet that has a lot of things correct but it has a few things incorrect, like who is the object of scrutiny or what documents we have or mischaracterizes things in a certain way, usually our plan was to keep our mouths shut. you can do more harm by talking than not talking. sometimes it was egregious enough you felt like you had to make some statement. kind of like what peter carr did here. the problem then is, you don't want to edit their piece and say, among these 15 facts -- you become their editor. you become a party to letting them know secret confidential information. i think it is fine and proper what the special counsel's office did. they had to do it. it must have been extraordinarily difficult to decide to do it. it took them 24 hours -- or 20 hours do it. they're not going to get answers -- buzzfeed is

buzzfeed just responded. i'm quoting from them. we are continuing to report and determine what the special counsel is disputing. we remain confident in the accuracy of our report. joining us is maggie haberman and preet bharara. maggie, what do you make of this? >> a lot of different things. it's still hard to figure it out. one thing that pam brown said that i don't think is true is the statement didn't say there is nothing to this. the statement said it's inaccurate. we don't know what they are saying is inaccurate. that said -- >> they are being specific, buzzfeed's statement of specific statements and characterization of documents are not accurate. >> right. this story, if true, would have changed what is happening in terms of the white house. you saw the pressure come from lawmakers who were concerned about it, not just democrats but republicans. you saw that pressure applied and grow on the special counsel throughout the day. it's very rare that they issue any statement at all, let alone something of this nature. it probably

buzzfeed went with it.nd here's my question, tucker, because i was listening to your conversation a moment ago with ed henry very carefully. i would like to know at this point who were these two sources that are quoted by buzzfeed? if they have been given false information and now they have got egg and mud and everything else ought over their face, it would seem, i think it's now time journalistically to burn the sources. tell you was who these unidentified law enforcement sources were. >> tucker: exactly. >> who gave you the information that was so apparently inaccurate that robert mueller and his team took the stunning step of coming out on a friday night and putting out a denial of the story. if you're going to stand by the sources, i'm a bit mystified by that i think we now, as the american people, have a right to know who are these people and what did they tell you and why? >> tucker: of course. this is an ongoing theme and you sigh pretty frequently in the media which demands as i think we should tran

at a very kinetic moment in "buzzfeed" right now. ben, thank you very much for being with us. appreciate it. >> thank you, rachel. >>> this bombshell pushback from the special counsel's office on "buzzfeed's" bombshell reporting has created a bunch of questions. i mean, you heard me discuss some of them there with ben in terms of those reporters standing by the story, what he says that these reporters absolutely pushed our understanding in terms of what the trump tower moscow scandal is. it's true they did the definitive reporting in terms of us understanding how big the trump tower moscow project was, how long it went on for. it was "buzzfeed's" reporting on that story that i think laid the groundwork for us to understand what anybody was talking about when michael cohen turned up in court in november to plead guilty to lying to congress, related to his previous testimony about trump tower moscow. i mean, all of these things are moving parts, but these have proven to be well-sourced reporters who have been ahead of everybody else an

in the buzzfeed story, this is referred to as law enforcement sources. you have a background in running the communications shop at the department of justice. when you see law enforcement sources in a story, can you give us a sense of what the range of possibilities are in terms of what that source could be? >> it could be any number of people from senior political appointees at the justice department to fbi agents, other agencies who happened to be briefed on the matter because they have a connection to the investigation. there are a lot of ways you can interpret it. i do think that one of the problems for the special counsel's office is because the underlying reporting was about the conclusion that the special counsel had supposedly drawn, he found evidence the president committed this crime, most of the people who would read that story would naturally interpret the leak of information was coming from the special counsel's office. for the special counsel, if you know the underlying information is not true and you have the president accusing you of leaki

"buzzfeed" is not a journalist organization.obody should have published something they couldn't verify. no one published that initially. the reason they didn't publish it is because it couldn't be verified. it read like a tabloid magazine you see at the checkout counter at the supermarket. how can they say this is important enough to get a fisa warrant with it was paid for by the clinton campaign. >> if you saw steny hoyer's posture when he was asked whether this should be about impeachment. he didn't answer the question. he said he didn't want to go there. there were a lot of people making noise about the "buzzfeed." let's not lose focus on the task at hand. let's not get caught up on what we should what he lou the special prosecutor to do. >> i hope that is the thought of a lot of members of the house right now. it's hard to believe, but i think that would be a refreshing change. trish: i want to day with this breaking news. if you are just tuning in, we learned robert mueller's team is debunking buzzfeed's report that somehow

and look, i feel for buzzfeed. i think robert mueller's strategy of saying nothing about anything ever, even off the record, is very frustrating. i mean, even the central intelligence agency will give reporters a steer at times if they think they're about to get something horribly wrong. and if mueller had done that in this case, perhaps buzzfeed would have been more cautious and could have avoided this whole matter, which is not good for journalism. it's really frustrating. it feels like robert mueller at this point in the investigation owes the public a little bit more information than we're getting about something so important. lawrence, that's my feeling about it. >> so a democratic house member, ted lieu, last night tweeting when this story broke. this is how hot it felt at this hour last night. based on the buzzfeed report and numerous other articles showing donald trump committed obstruction of justice and other possible 'felonies, it is time for the house judiciary committee to start holding hearings to est

the press secretary denying a buzzfeed news report that mr. trump directed michael cohen to lie to congress about the trump tower moscow project. if the report proves true -- we have not confirmed that report -- it would suggest the special counsel may be making a case the president obstructed justice. let's bring in the former u.s. attorney preet bharara. thanks for joining us. cnn and other news organizations have not confirmed this story. when you read between the lines of some of robert mueller's own filings, do you think the buzzfeed reporting lines up? >> it's hard to tell. there's some things that line up. for example, it's clear that the mueller team, when they wrote the sentencing submission with respect to cohen, made reference to the things about which michael cohen was cooperating, including the circumstances scih lying. there's evidence from the buzzfeed report that other people assisted him in making the statements and he was directed to do so by the president. the one thing i have been thinking about that doesn't fully align is

howie: buzzfeed provided the email. it said we are going with a story that says michael cohen was directed by president trump to lie to congress. that made it easier to do the typical we decline to comment. wouldn't that -- wouldn't you want to give more information before making this exploressive charge? sara: you would. you need to make sure you are crossing every t and dotting every i. you have top be clear with your sources. and you have to be transparent with the reader about how you got the information you got. when the information came out we saw that they didn't see the documents. they needed to be up front with the reader from the front. howie: one of the buzzfeed reporters said he did see the documents, but it's not clear what the documents are. is it enough for ben smith to say we stand by the story. sara: i think for now it works. you want to support your journalists. they have broken other stories in the russia investigation. but the defile itself is a little bit ambiguous. juan: we are in a media news that

but it is clear that there's some issue with buzzfeed sourcing. either the sources don't have the right information, or the reporters misunderstood the sources. you know, in these games of telephone we all play, don, things can go wrong. however, buzzfeed did have a strong track record, and i think those editors, those reporters tonight, they're trying to get to the bottom of this. >> but a story that's this consequential, you can't ms. understand what a source is telling you. >> one of my concerns when it same out is it cited only two sources, two senior law enforcement officials. >> but it did say there was other documents. >> right. and then the reporters today said maybe we haven't seen -- they said they had not seen the key documents. so this story did leave a lot that people wanted to know more about. i think the frustration is palpable, that bob mueller knows a lot more than we do. how much longer do we have to wait for the answers? but right now buzzfeed's reputation is on the line in a big way. >> stand by, oliver, because i've got one mo

buzzfeed report, no buzzfeed report, i want to play something for you and get your reaction. >> are youll going to investigate the claims? >> absolutely. congress has a fundamental interest in this period of >> laura: i imagine he's going to call you back. >> he has got -- there is a 99-point and perchance that he was the one who was leaking my testimony. cnn is running quotes from 12:00 on about my testimony. in the house intelligence committee, that has to say something about what is going on in there. since he's never met a camera he didn't love, i would bet a lot of money that it was him, and of their reality is i've done 25 hours of testimony on a 20 minute meeting. this has been the greatest witch hunt in american history. perhaps world history. in three hours, they found the bomber that was a fake bomber, and they haven't found anything other than they've got big bombshell. i've heard it too many times, laura. the american people don't take this stuff seriously. they look at these people like jokers at this point. >> laura: kamala harris was out there, announcing that she is goin

y'all are buzzfeed. you do memes and lists. >> buzzfeed's reputation on the line. how do you react? >> that's a wonderful job. it's a joke they've been making for seven years. >> it's dated because buzzfeed has -- >> it's a joke we love and embrace. buzzfeed includes a very, very wide range of media, including very silly entertainment. and i think unquestionably very, very serious journalism. we've gotten people out of jail in chicago. we've changed the way sexual assault is prosecuted in the united states and we've had a series of revelations about about the investigation of the -- of donald trump's relationship of russia from the same two reporters who published this. >> and you've been breaking news about it. if this story turns out to be wrong, do you feel your job on the line? >> i think we're very confident in this reporting -- >> i worry about buzzfeed's brand as a whole. if this story is wrong, buzzfeed as a whole is in trouble. >> i appreciate your concern. >> but are you concerned -- forget about me. aren't you concerned about that? >> you know, we're confident in the stor

he's broken huge stories with buzzfeed. back about 15 years ago, he was involved in scandals, accused of plagiarism and ousted from a job. he admitted he has a checkered past. now the republican committee is saying he has a history of falsz reporting. the cries get louder and louder. americans and the world want to know what happened. for now, robert mueller is not saying. >> let's talk more about this with harry litman, a district deputy. daniel, a reporter for politico. thank you for taking time to speak about this. it is important to point out the statement did not say there's nothing to the story, but rather takes a very specific response in describing it. let's talk about the statement. buzz feed's description of specific statements to the special counsel's office and characterization of testimony obtained are not accurate. so, when you see the way mueller responded here, do you get a sense they are not entirely denying the greater story that's being alleged here? >> that's exactly right. it's cryptic, but much less th

does that end the buzzfeed reporting for you? >> well, for me i take it as now we're back to exactly where we were at the point where cohen pleaded guilty to lying to congress and let the facts come out as they may. i think that the special counsel taking this extraordinary step to actually comment on it reflects a couple things. i think that this particular allegation is so explosive and has so many potential consequences, that they felt it was important to make clear what was or wasn't accurate about or at least not accurate about the story. also it has been almost two years. we have not heard boo from the special counsel. no leaks, he has been a lock down. i don't think where ever the sources are coming from, i would be -- i'm not 99% sure they were not coming from mueller's team. >> it's interesting you say that. let's look at the language from buzzfeed. weigh in. the language is two federal law enforcement officials involved in the investigation of the matter. if you had mueller guys, you might say it. you might not. they mi

quote, buzzfeed's description of special statements, excuse me, 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. that is from the spokesman for the special counsel's office. now, i have on the air previously expressed envy and jealousy for peter carr because that seems like a great job if you're a spokesman for the special counsel's office. your job is to never say anything, right? the special counsel's office almost never makes public comments. i mean, we did a little survey of this tonight. at least as quickly as we could. we could only come up with three previous instances in the entirety of the mueller investigation in which peter carr has spoken on the record to a reporter about what's going on in the investigation. the first one was april of last year. mcclatchy had published a story saying the mueller team had evidence that cohen had in fact traveled to prague, which would appear to buttress an accusation in the christo

i like buzzfeed too. i trust them. i also want to know which game of thrones character i am most like. but at the end of the day, we are outsourcing whether or not the president of the united states is a russian asset in lots of ways to the news media and to a secret investigation. >> very good point. >> that's not how it's supposed to be. this is supposed to be done in public. the public is supposed to have an opportunity to know if their president is a crook. like that's an actual thing we're allowed to know. i understand the congressman and democrats, and the reluctance to do this because it didn't work on bill clinton or whatever. we're well past the point where congress needs to act and bring these allegations and the evidence out into the public. >> what will be really interesting in the normal course, and these are not normal times, doj and congressional, you know, hearings, committees, can work together. >> that was the ambassador's point. this has happened before. the parallel to congressional inquiries. the p

it sounds pretty terrible for buzzfeed? >> it sounds very terrible for buzzfeed.e a lot of faith in the fact that mueller never puts out statements or rarely. the other thing is, i looked at the reporters who were behind the story. i only know one of them. he's a careful reporter. i can't believe he would put out a bogus story. the other one is a pulitzer prize winner which makes it even more confusing. they are invest gaigative reporters. they must have been mislead by their sources. >> it's hard to understand what would happen here. nobody would come out an do something like this if they knew it to be false. they believed it have true. we need more details on what the documents were. what do you make of this? where they lied to? >> certainly. there's always the possibility someone was lied to but there's the possibility that whoever these federal law enforcement officials were, they saw some subset of these documents and drew conclusions that maybe took leaps that are not backed up by the documentation. maybe they drew different conclusions than what the special

slamming a bombshell report by buzzfeed. >> a bombshell report from buzzfeed. >> it's the buzzfeed bombshellhe bombshell report that president trump told his to lie under oath. >> buzzfeed reporting the bombshell reports. >> no response to the bombshell report deeply disturbing. >> tucker: bombshell. dumb people with small vocabularies. there was a problem though with buzzfeed's reporting, none of it had been confirmed at all. even the author suggested they hadn't seen the documents in question. actually, there were two authors, co-by lined and one said he had seen the documents and another said he hadn't. that was never really resolved. it didn't matter because the dumb people on tv so badly wanted it to be true that they repeated it. >> the story, if true, could lead to his impeachment. >> if true, it could be a really big deal. >> if true, obviously we ourselves have not corroborated any of this. >> but if it is true, it's a big if, this would be a smoking gun. >> if true, important caveat, if true. >> if this is true, if this buzzfeed story is true, this is absolutely impeachable. >> if

when you read this buzzfeed piece, it's the children who implicated. cohen says he gave both regular updates on the moscow project that was hinted at around michael cohen's guilty plea. don junior testified at congress in september of '17 saying he was quote/unquote, peripherally aware of it. a spokesperson for ivanka trump saying to cnn, she was only quote minimally involved. how much jeopardy could these family members be in? >> their knowledge of the fact that something was going on with the trump tower moscow deal and that illegal or lies have been said about that is not necessarily criminal for them to know that and not do anything about it. it's a different thing if they testified under oath, then you have perjury. it's a different thing if they met with cohen or were in the room when the president was trying to coach him if that happened. then they could be involved. the second thing i always look at in this whole investigation, i think this could arise to the level of a serious felony. i doubt that it's enough to knock out the president of the

that is what you get from buzzfeed.nd that who cnn, msnbc and all the other outlets are sourcing and running all day long about how donald trump, it is true, will be impeached. the bottom line, the left-wing media left the step because they want to impeach donald trump. they hate his voters. they can't impeach him but what they will do is make sure he doesn't get reelected in 2020. >> kimberly anti-but i will get back to you on president trump but kimberly is buzzfeed about client -- unsourced and unnamed sources? >> kimberley: this is the problem come i think a lot of the journalism industry goes ale way back to even before donald trump came in. i think the journalism sector has really lowered the bar on what used to be basic standards. even going sometimes when they would say they are anonymous sources, they would at least say, for instance, what branch they belong to and what department they were talking to. whether or not retired officials they were speaking to or current officials. now we get according to officials

house your source, "buzzfeed"?it's complicated and they should open the government to discuss it. judge jeanine: they can't speak? >> you will have to give chris the bullet points and index cards before the debates because he never does his homework. that funnel he's talking about in yuma is an old border wall that was built to stop vehicular traffic and didn't have a concrete base. >> crisp former boss chuck schumer voted for the secure fence in 2006. chris, you have nowhere to go. just admit you are wrong. you are absolutely wrong, and trump outfoksd you today. sorry. >> i think your problem is you don't hear us when we talk. we are not against fences in part of the border or against walls in parts of the boished everywhere it needs a fence. today is the first time i heard the president say he doesn't want a fence all along the border. judge jeanine: the president said he doesn't need a concrete wall. you admit they should be talking. what is this woman going to afghanistan for? why is she not talking? >> i think

other folks attacking buzzfeed rather than denying the content of the buzzfeed report. >> i get yournt. rudy giuliani, like michael cohen, has not been a credible witness, if you will. there's been a lot of things he's said and changed his story and then denying changing his story and you can play the tape of him saying it. capitol hill has not said, look, the president has denied this. until i see the facts, boom. >> i think it does make it more imperative if democrats are going to try to use this to open up a new investigation. it does make it more imperative they get some hard evidence to back it up. essentially we have a report from buzzfeed which has done some really good work on the trump tower part of this investigation, but a buzzfeed report that's based on two anonymous officials and a denial from rudy giuliani. that's where we are right now and there is a lot of space in between to try to bridge the gap between the report and this denial. >> that's basically what they're going to be trying to do in trying to either replicate their reporting that buzzfeed did or find other s

robert mueller's team disputing an exclusive "buzzfeed" report. in a rare move the special counsel's office weighed in saying the story's not accurate. but "buzzfeed" is urging mueller to make clear what he's disputing. good evening to whether of you. so listen, i got to put this in. ryan, the president responded to this and i want to read what he said and tell you what's true and what's not about this. remember it was "buzzfeed" that released a totally discredited dossier paid for as opposition research on which the entire russian probe is based. a very sad day for journalism but a great day for our can count ra. when it's very important to be accurate the dossier is not totally discredited. a lot of it has turned out to be true, as a matter of fact. funded by republicans, and beacon started it first. the entire probe is not based on the dossier. the probe was about what papadopoulos was saying about russians having dirt on h. rfr. hillary rodham clinton. >> there were a few details not accurate in that tweet. if indeed bood has made major mistak

the initial buzzfeed. and the reporter was on the telephone, so i was listening to him and watching him. watching his picture. he wasn't actually live. and he was very credible. and their reporting was very detailed. it had all the earmarks of something that you would really believe. and so i was inclined to believe it. and then you see this other thing and you go, i have to question it and no one else has confirmed it. did goes back to things like michael cohen was in prague and mcclatchy is standing by that story. buzzfeed is standing by this and ultimately we're going to know. because there's going to be public hearings and there should be and that raises a question of whether michael cohen will be able to testify about this particular thing or whether it's barred as a russia-related thing that he can't talk about in his public life. >> all part of the string of these sort of unmatchable exclusives that news outlites have had. don, what does this mean for congressional inquiry? the fact that this landed

buzzfeed phony story, it was a total phony story. and i appreciate the special counsel coming out with a statement last night. i think it was very appropriate that they did so. i very much appreciate that. i think that the buzzfeed piece was a disgrace to our country. it was a disgrace to journalism. and i think also that the coverage by the mainstream media was disgraceful. >> this gives the president an argument to make again and again to use this instance to challenge other stories that will certainly come to pass and obviously, the russia investigation has been complicate and there are people close to the president whether it was from the campaign time where people who worked in the white house who have been charged, convicted or pleaded guilty in various aspects of this sprawling investigation. this particular story knocked down by the special counsel, the president embracing that. alex? >> kelly o'donnell, thank you so much. >>> well, joining me now is former assistant u.s. attorney kim wehle and legal analyst dan have i see va

this is a correction of the buzzfeed story. this is an annihilation of it but the reason the buzzfeed story seem to maybe have some key based on what it was reporting was that there were those -- there was supposed to be actual evidence, documents text the special counts had to cooperate these two anonymous sources. special counsel coming out to say, no, that is not actually true is essentially a complete and utter destruction of the basics of the peace. beyond that special counsel to come out and do this, we know that it's very rare. i don't think it has ever happened before. certainly, something that raises a lot of eyebrows in terms of how bad is the media reporting right now and special counsel feels the need to correct it. once again, some to believe the worst about the president and obviously a double standard journal ethics to cover this administration. previous administration and this is a bad one for buzzfeed. they may should have stuck to -- >> shannon: entertaining. we actually went back through our records in our br

let's talk about these buzzfeed reporters.hey can't even agree whether they saw the documents or not. one says they never saw documents. the other one comes out and says yeah, well, we didn't really say that we saw the documents. so, from the get-go, we know there was problem with this story. i agree with alan dershowitz, the same thing when i read this story. they never actually attributed anything to the documents. it seemed like their sourcing was very filmsy. everything about that story seems false. but this disinformation does an extraordinary damage to our national security and to the administration. think about what's been going on. i mean, the trip,ing my calicoen supposedly took to prague that we found out was a lie. stories over and over again filled with disinformation. yet, the stories that john solomon and i and several other recorded on bruce ohr were based on fact. we had multiple. >> sean: blockbuster so far. this week's reporting. >> absolutely. >> sean: on top of everything you have done for a year and a half

i think that the buzzfeed piece was a disgrace to our country. it was a disgrace to journalism and i think also that the coverage by the mainstream media was disgraceful. >> reporter: and part of what made that story so sensational, so expelosiive was that it purported to show evidence that president trump committed a crime in instructing his long time lawyer michael cohen to lie to congress. the special counsel's office has stepped in to correct the record saying that reporting is not entirely accurate. >> here's a good thing about all of this, at least it got the president to say something positive about mueller briefly there. our thanks to geoff bennett and mike on capitol hill for us. >>> 29 days and counting and it's important to remember there are some real consequences to this shutdown. nearly a million federal employees who aren't receiving paychecks and this scene outside washington, d.c., take a look outside, a furloughed relief market in maryland. a local church offered free groceries to workers impacted by the government shutdown. at

important to note, cnn has not corroborated this buzzfeed report. cohen has admitted that he falsely told lawmakers that talks about the moscow project ended months earlier than they actually did. buzzfeed says according to its sources, the president personally instructed cohen to lie. cnn justice correspondent jessica schneider has more on this reporting. so walk us through what we need to know about this report. >> brianna, this is an explosive report with several significant revelations all attributed to two law enforcement officials to back it up. so first, the president reportedly supported a plan that was spearheaded by michael cohen to visit russia during the presidential campaign and even for donald trump to personally meet with vladimir putin. this, of course, would all be sort of that start to that effort to jump-start the trump tower moscow negotiations. now, buzzfeed even says that then-candidate donald trump told michael cohen, quote, make it happen, which, of course, it never actually did. in addition, this report also describes how in

that was especially aggravated to buzzfeed's editor-in-chief. he indicated unless the special counsel can point out where they fell short, they will stand by it. >> the buzzfeed article alleges president trump coerced michael cohen to lie about a project in moscow. >> let's talk with harry litman, a former deputy assistant attorney general as well as daniel litman, a reporter for politico harry, starting with you here. it is important to point out the statement from the special counsel did not say there is nothing to this story but rather takes a very specific response in describing it. let's talk about the statement that we have from them that goes on the say 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 testimony are fought accurate so you see the way mueller responded here. do you get a sense that they're not entirely denying the greater story that's been alleged here? >> i think that's exactly right. i mean, it's

the latest from the president on the buzzfeed story, president trump. >> i think that the buzzfeed ite for our country. it was a disgrace for a journalism. and i think also that the coverage by the mainstream media was disgraceful. and i think it will take a long time for the mainstream media to recover its credibility. >> sandra: what do you think? >> it is a disgrace and the fact that the standards and ethics thrown out november 9, 2016. they run with anything. the new standard, get trump. it was not just buzzfeed that's done this before no matter how flimsy it is, they put it out there for everybody to see just like the dossier. every other media outlet ran with the story and said, let's speculate. let's call for the president's impeachment over something that turns out to not be true. >> doug: but they are standing by the story strongly and they quote to senior law enforcement officials. imagine if they ran through the story and special counsel's office came out and said actually, this is not accurate. with a be allowed to go on cnn and say how does it make you feel? they wouldn't

robert mueller's team disputing an explosive buzzfeed report alleging the president told michael cohen to lie to congress. the special counsel's office releasing a statement saying quote buzzfeed's description of specific statements to the special counsel's office and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by the office regarding michael cohen's congressional testimony are not accurate. buzzfeed is standing by their reporting and urging the special counsel to make clear what he is disputing. it's one of many major developments in the mueller investigation this week so we're devoting this entire hour to an in-depth look at all things russia. remember, this was the same week the president of the united states came out to publicly declare he is not an agent of russia. the same week the president's new attorney general nominee testified that he is good friends with the special counsel. the same week the president's attorney said he couldn't say whether or not anyone on the trump team colluded with russia. only to have to walk it back. so there's a lot to get to. we're going t

this was a direct response to the buzzfeed article. that is definitely cause for pause for people in any he, any part of the media to maybe slow their roll a little bit in terms of how they run with this. we know that there's a collusion investigation going on. there's an obstruction of justice going on. we don't know what was seized from michael cohen. we know there's evidence that robert mueller has as to what michael cohen has said. he would not be cooperating and would not have pled guilty. regardless of what the spokesperson said from the mueller team, we know there's an investigation that has hard facts and evidence and that is why that mueller report must be made public when attorney general, maybe it's bill barr, maybe it's not, we need toe know what the findings are from robert mueller. >> do you think it's possible the buzzfeed report accurately reflects things that michael cohen has told the southern district of new york in their separate investigation? >> i do think that is possible. i also knows that you know, what is unco

cnn hasn't confirmed any of buzzfeed's reporting. you hear the white house saying categorically false. you hear rudy giuliani calling michael cohen a liar. there are similarities from this buzzfeed piece and the court records. go through all that for me. >> absolutely. what they do say in their story citing two law enforcement officials is that michael cohen was essentially confronted by the special counsel's office with information from witness testimony, from documents and from text messages that corroborated according to buzzfeed that michael cohen said or was directed by donald trump to lie in his response to congress when he testified about the length and the time and trump's involvement in negotiations and discussions to build a trump tower in moscow during the campaign and so what we can pull and look at from court filings from a filing by the special counsel's office, they actually say that the information provided by cohen about the moscow project in these proffer sessions is consistent with and corroborated by other informa

maybe buzzfeed can refute it but this is what mueller is saying. ronan farrow, now with "the new yorker," formerly with nbc news, has said publicly he was pitched this story but was told by a source close to the situation that michael cohen was never directly instructed to lie. now, we should be very careful about making sweeping statements here, joy, especially this morning. it's still possible that cohen was under the impression that it was trump's desire that he lie and as mimi roca will tell you there have been occasions macas that pattern but the statements made in this article are now under challenge by the special counsel. >> let me go to mimi first. the ronan farrow tweet, let me read them both. there were two. ronan, excellent reporter obviously, pulitzer prize winner, i can't speak to buzzfeed's source but for what it's worth i declined to run with parts of the narrative repeatedly disputing the idea that trump directly ordered that. note that general thrust of cohen's lying to congress in accordance or to support and advance trump's agen

buzzfeed may have done themselves a disservice. they are not journalists.s not a journalist, he's a fake it, frankly. and cormier is no better. the two writers of this. the fact is that buzzfeed has made mueller nervous if someone demands an investigation. >> capri: i don't think it has just done buzzfeed a disservice, but a disservice to those who actually want to try and advance this narrative in regards to impeachment. for those people who are all about that, they have something to point to for everybody else to say, "sequence to make you guys are desperate. you are desperate to jump on anything that's out there to advance your narrative." and it discredits where there may be some legitimate issues. when you have a shiny object -- >> david: but you have jill or brent, i won't want to be president. harris, a 1b president. booker, a want to be president. >> capri: it's all political. >> david: the democratic party is the one discarding themselves >> capri: that's exec and my point. >> dagen: i want to get to howard kurtz and when he said about the problem.

buzz feed report, no buzzfeed report. going to play something for you and get your reaction. >> are you going to investigate the claims? >> absolutely. congress has a fundamental interest into things, first in getting to the bottom of why he came before us and might. who else was knowledgeable that this was a lie. >> even though it's been debunked, he's going to proceed. i imagine he's going to call yo back. >> he's got nothing else. there is an 99.9 percent chance he was the guy leaking my testimony as i was testifying. i came out of testifying at 8:0 quotes from noon on about my testimony in the house intelligence committee. that has to say something about what's going on in there. he's never met a camera he didn't love. i would bet lots of money it wa him. the reality is i done 25 hours of testimony on a 20 minute meeting. this is been the greatest witchhunt in american history perhaps world history. in three hours they found a bomber who was a fake bomber an in two years they haven't found anything other than they got