BuzzFeed's story is a reminder to slow down for a minute

The BuzzFeed website is displayed on an iPad held by an Associated Press staffer in Los Angeles in this Sept. 2, 2015 photo. Credit: AP/Richard Vogel
The person generally credited with characterizing news as “the first, rough draft of history” was the late Washington Post publisher Phil Graham, though he may have borrowed the term from the paper’s longtime editorial writer, Alan Barth.
Regardless, the adjectives “first” and “rough” have never been more apt than in describing the story that prompted recent over-the-top over-reactions from the rival camps in the ongoing battle over Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation of President Donald Trump.
The entire matter suggests that each combatant in this unfortunate saga ought to take a deep breath and wait for the definitive facts to unfold, rather than pronounce every new development as bolstering its case.
The occasion, of course, was BuzzFeed’s story alleging Mueller had evidence Trump instructed former lawyer-fixer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about Trump’s plans for building a luxury hotel in Moscow. Mueller, who never comments except in court filings, issued a statement essentially calling the story untrue.
The initial story, released late Thursday night Jan. 17, immediately landed on the front pages of many newspapers and dominated the 24-hour cable news channels for the next 24 hours. It provoked feverish discussions of its implications — if true.
To be fair, those crucial cautionary words prefaced most discussions of the potential impact. But Trump critics kept noting that directing someone to lie to Congress is the potentially impeachable crime of obstruction of justice and adding that incoming attorney general William Barr agreed.
Their underlying presumption, in most cases, was that the story was true, and why not? Cohen said earlier he lied to Congress “to be consistent with (Trump’s) political messaging and out of loyalty to (Trump).” And Trump was directly involved in drafting the false statement that the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between several Russians and Trump campaign officials was about Russian adoption practices, rather than to receive “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.
That presumption was underscored by the slowness with which the White House and its allies reacted before calling the sensational story “categorically false.”
One cautionary sign was that no other news organization matched the sensational scoop. Another was that Cohen’s legal adviser, Lanny Davis, was uncharacteristically uncommunicative when he appeared on MSNBC’s Meet the Press Daily. He neither confirmed nor denied the story, raising the question why he agreed to appear.
But just as the White House was slow to react, the Special Counsel’s office took some 24 hours to take down the sensational 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.
The Trump side immediately rushed to acclaim the latest development.
“Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!,” tweeted Donald Trump Jr.
“A very sad day for journalism but a great day for our country,” tweeted President Trump.
“At what point in fairness — after 2 years do Americans of good will say enough already?” asked frequent Trump defender Geraldo Rivera. “If the #SpecialCounsel had collusion don’t you think we would have heard it by now? This is history’s longest running smear job. Free @realDonaldTrump.”
Nevertheless, despite overheated responses from both sides, the bottom line was that nothing had really changed. Cohen is still an admitted perjurer who may tell more when he testifies before the House Oversight Committee.
Mueller is continuing to investigate the extent to which Trump, his campaign and the Russians cooperated, colluded or conspired during the 2016 campaign and the administration’s first months.
And despite the eagerness of some Democrats to proceed promptly with impeachment proceedings, the party’s congressional high command seems determined to move with care, avoiding any overt steps until Mueller concludes his probe.
After all, talk is easy, but impeaching and convicting a president is sufficiently difficult that no American president in the country’s 230 years has been ousted that way.
Both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by a partisan House but acquitted by less partisan Senate, though Richard Nixon would almost certainly have been both impeached and convicted in 1974, had he not resigned.
Having lived through the 1974 Nixon impeachment hearings as a congressional reporter and the 1998 Clinton impeachment managing my paper’s Washington coverage, I’m left with the recollection of how long the proceedings took and how not every initial presumption proved to be true.
Donald Trump’s presidency will likely end one of three ways: At the ballot box, with Senate conviction following House impeachment, or in resignation, perhaps the way Vice President Spiro Agnew quit in 1974 with a deal barring further prosecution.
Until one of these occurs, everyone ought to relax, while reporters report what they can about the processes and developments, and the constitutional procedures play out, recognizing that the flood of daily coverage is but “the first rough draft of history,” not the conclusive version.
Carl P. Leubsdorf is the former Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News. Readers may write to him via email at: carl.p.leubsdorf@gmail.com.