True, but they better be right or they have damned themselves.
I agree. Given the two reporters’ track record, IF it turns out the story is wrong, I’d be fascinated to hear what exactly happened. Seems unlikely (again from their record) that they’d be making something up out of the clear blue sky. Hence me mentioning Dan Rather earlier - you’d have to wonder if someone fed them dodgy info.
That’s my concern. Reporters sometimes trust their sources too much. If they are right, they break the case before everyone else and they become the most trusted out there. One mistake can ruin all credibility- as we saw with Rather
The OSC just said the piece wasn't accurate, that's fairly vague
That’s fair. I do think it’s a bit irresponsible to jump the gun as they have, but it all comes down to whether they are vindicated or not. The investigation is still ongoing obviously
yea, they clearly peed off Mueller who felt he had to take some air out of their story. I'd imagine the whole thing is at a fairly precarious place at the moment
Judging by the descriptions of their sources, if I was going to guess, I’d say their source for the latest story is the same as for their stories on the Steele dossier and the Trump Tower meeting, both of which are pretty well established as being accurate, at this point.
I think what made the denial seem so strong was that the OSC hasn’t commented on any stories previously.
Iirc Bernstein and Woodward had one bit of their reporting on Nixon in the lead up the Watergate investigations that was badly wrong and they got into a lot of hot water for it at the time plus it casted suspicion on the rest of their information for a while.
