Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(108,977 posts)
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 09:55 PM Jan 2019

It would not be "accurate" for the Buzz Feed story to characterize the evidence as "documents"

or "testimony" . . . . if it was actually tape recordings.

Would it?

I think it's too early to know how this story will shake out, one way or another. And I've been saying we needed confirmation all along. We still do. Because what happened today didn't refute it, either.

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
It would not be "accurate" for the Buzz Feed story to characterize the evidence as "documents" (Original Post) pnwmom Jan 2019 OP
My thought exactly Desert grandma Jan 2019 #1

Desert grandma

(804 posts)
1. My thought exactly
Fri Jan 18, 2019, 10:41 PM
Jan 2019

The statement seemed to be so carefully worded that my first thought was that it called the evidence "documents", when actually it was recordings. We will see, but I do think the Buzz Feed reporting could be essentially accurate. Rachel Maddow had the Buzz Feed editor in chief on her show and they say they stand by their story.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It would not be "accurate...