House Impeachment Inquiry

[Upchurch]

No problem. I remember the word "activists" is in there and can find the links pretty easily. Sorry you spent 14 pages of time looking!

Here's the link.
https://www.ft.com/content/c98078d0-6ae7-11e6-a0b1-d87a9fea034f

You might not have access. I seem to get one view a month with Financial Times. I (and you) might only be able to get in via grabbing a line of the text and putting it in through google and finding it that way, too. Not sure why I have access that seems spotty like that.

Here's where I was able to get the link to work and C&P a bunch in response to someone.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12891834&postcount=1727

There might be more of the texts in the screenshots in the journalist Aaron Mate's twitter post here: https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1194675914971463681

The journalist who wrote the FT article is a guy named Roman Olearchyk, who has no controversies associated with him and his work (including with this article) if my google searching of the topic is anything to go by, but I only went a few pages into google checking.

Here are his FT headlines:
https://www.ft.com/stream/7b2da31d-9bac-3e56-8fc8-c71deb29949b

I can't really get a totally reliable sense of his work without having a subscription to FT, but his headlines make him seem like a good, normal "financial press" journalist who can be assumed to have dine basic due diligence. FT itself has a really good reputation, as well.

Thank you for the effort, but why is there no other news source backing this up? Even if the Financial Times is completely reputable, I would expect this story to be reflected or picked up by other news publications. When someone breaks an incredible news story, I often go check out if it is being picket up and vetted by other groups. That this hasn't happened has to make you wonder, doesn't it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Jr Tweets

Donald Trump Jr.
@DonaldJTrumpJr
America hired @realDonaldTrump to fire people like the first three witnesses we’ve seen. Career government bureaucrats and nothing more.

 

[kellyb]

Thank you for the effort, but why is there no other news source backing this up? Even if the Financial Times is completely reputable, I would expect this story to be reflected or picked up by other news publications. When someone breaks an incredible news story, I often go check out if it is being picket up and vetted by other groups. That this hasn't happened has to make you wonder, doesn't it?

I think it was just considered a non-issue at the time. Because it was out in the open and not, to my knowledge, breaking any international laws, and it wasn't done as a result of a bribe or something scandalous like that, but rather just completely understandable self-interest, it wasn't a huge deal. The "legitimacy" and legality of actions of one country doing things to meddle/influence/sway or whatever the electoral outcomes in another doesn't seem to be firmly codified, as far as I can tell.

I am definitely open to being shown otherwise, though.

 

[smartcooky]

Thank you for the effort, but why is there no other news source backing this up? Even if the Financial Times is completely reputable, I would expect this story to be reflected or picked up by other news publications. When someone breaks an incredible news story, I often go check out if it is being picket up and vetted by other groups. That this hasn't happened has to make you wonder, doesn't it?

The only other news service I can find backing it up is Pravda

https://forum.pravda.com.ua/index.php?topic=943819.35;wap2

What a surprise!

It doesn't matter if the source was reliable
It doesn't matter if the journalist who wrote the article was uncontroversial
It doesn't matter if the journalist did due diligence
It doesn't matter if the article passed editorial standards and approval

The statement kellyb has quoted is irrelevant to the question asked by Goldman and answered by Kent.

kellyb has cherry picked ONE question and its answer, removed it from the context in which it was asked, and in so doing, has characterized to fit his/her made up preferred narrative that George Kent lied to congress.

I repeat, for the umpteenth time, George Kent answered a question about the origins of the 'Ukraine Hacked the DNC Server and Tried to Frame Russia' conspiracy theory, and he did so truthfully, he was emphatically NOT, repeat NOT answering a question about Ukraine election interference in general, because the question was not about that.

Like a good conspiracy theorist, kellyb will not let go of her dearly-held belief despite the overwhelming facts that he/she is wrong.

 

[dudalb]

Thanks.

I just dismiss as disinformation, without reading, anything from any Russian source .

ALL such sources, e.g. RT, are just Putin's propaganda arm, much like Radio Moscow, Radio P&P, Pravda and Izvestiya were propaganda outlets for the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Yeah, pretty much the same crap just different packaging.

 

[dudalb]

While I'm not in agreement with kellyb on her interpretation, this "we" business that you flog is something that impresses me as a sign of weakness in your argument, it's highly presumptuous, and downright obnoxious.

Uh, maybe you should consider getting off your high horse?

 

[kellyb]

Thank you for the effort, but why is there no other news source backing this up? Even if the Financial Times is completely reputable, I would expect this story to be reflected or picked up by other news publications. When someone breaks an incredible news story, I often go check out if it is being picket up and vetted by other groups. That this hasn't happened has to make you wonder, doesn't it?

Actually, it looks like there were more:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

By KENNETH P. VOGEL and DAVID STERN 01/11/2017

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election.

https://observer.com/2017/01/ukraine-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-election/

Ukraine Tried to Tip the Election in Clinton’s Favor
Evidence reveals that Ukraine intervened to tilt the election in favor of its national interests
By Michael Sainato • 01/12/17

That one mostly just rips off the politico article.

I only looked for a minute and can probably find more. But it was just considered a non-issue, it really looks like. Interesting as trivia, more or less, unless you're Donald Trump or one of his supporters.

 

[varwoche]

Uh, maybe you should consider getting off your high horse?

We decline that advice, thank you.

 

[kellyb]

I repeat, for the umpteenth time, George Kent answered a question about the origins of the 'Ukraine Hacked the DNC Server and Tried to Frame Russia' conspiracy theory, and he did so truthfully, he was emphatically NOT, repeat NOT answering a question about Ukraine election interference in general, because the question was not about that.

He had mentioned a DNC server previously, but this was the whole train of thought and line of questioning at the end (direct quote from the transcript):

Goldman: And to your knowledge, is there any factual basis to support the allegation that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election?

Kent: To my knowledge, there is no factual basis. No.

Goldman: And in fact, who did interfere in the 2016 election?

Kent: I think it's amply clear that Russian interference was at the heart of the interference in the 2016 election cycle.

He can't even answer, there's "some" factual basis? That's how bad we eed the closing line from what seems like a "narrative" that ends with "I think it's amply clear that Russian interference was at the heart of the interference in the 2016 election cycle"?

The Trump impeachment has to be at least a little about validating Russiagate or something, because reasons???

This is such a bad, stupid strategy.

 

[smartcooky]

While I'm not in agreement with kellyb on her interpretation, this "we" business that you flog is something that impresses me as a sign of weakness in your argument, it's highly presumptuous, and downright obnoxious.

If you think I'm wrong, and the rest of the users here are not as smart as I think they are, then make your case.

PS: If you were able to read between the lines, you would understand that I wasn't referring to everyone else the forum, I was referring to the others arguing against kellyb's absurd points.

Belz
McHronzni
autumn1971
Phantom Wolf (perhaps)

If they don't think they are smart, they can speak for themselves...

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Warning: I am about to explain to kellyb how I think the 23 posts she has made in this thread so far today (not counting yesterday or the days before) stack up in the context of today's events.

Every time I see this, it sinks in a little deeper that He. Is. Just. Lying.

Roger Stone was convicted today of all seven counts, including five charges of lying, notably lying to the House Intelligence Committee. He is now a convicted felon. Considering the recommended sentences for his crimes, he should be preparing to spend most of his remaining years in federal prison.

George Kent has not been convicted of lying, nor will he be. George Kent will not be charged with lying, nor should he be.

There will of course be people like kellyb who accuse others at the drop of a hat, just as we have seen such people accuse Obama of thin-skinned narcissism, George W Bush of creating "vic-sims" on 9/11, Einstein of fabricating his theories of relativity, or Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch of contributing to problems in Somalia.

I am happy to see that so many have pushed back against kellyb's spin and smears, even as I sympathize with those who have already seen far too many of those responses and are wondering why they are reading yet another. I promise not to respond to anything kellyb may post from here on out.

I can't really get a totally reliable sense of his work without having a subscription to FT, but his headlines make him seem like a good, normal "financial press" journalist who can be assumed to have dine basic due diligence. FT itself has a really good reputation, as well.

Well if that isn't enough to convict someone of a federal crime, I don't know what is.

 

[smartcooky]

He had mentioned a DNC server previously, but this was the whole train of thought and line of questioning at the end (direct quote from the transcript):

And you again have left out the train of relevant questioning that led to this.

FFS, what is it going to take!?

 

[kellyb]

The only other news service I can find backing it up is Pravda

https://forum.pravda.com.ua/index.php?topic=943819.35;wap2

Now that you've gotten me looking, here's another:
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-mp-derkach-seeks-probe-of-ukraine-hillary-clinton-ties/

Ukrainian MP seeks probe of Ukraine-Clinton ties
Parliament member demands to know whether his country’s government targeted Trump in the 2016 campaign.

By DAVID STERN 8/16/17, 7:28 PM CET Updated 8/17/17, 10:46 PM CET
KIEV — A Ukrainian member of parliament has requested a criminal investigation into possible meddling by his country’s government in last year’s U.S. presidential election, claiming the interference has “seriously damaged Ukrainian-American relations.”

Would you like me to keep looking for more, or something more interesting?

I'm getting the sense we might actually live in a media bubble.

 

[kellyb]

And you again have left out the train of relevant questioning that led to this.

FFS, what is it going to take!?

I love how you never take the time to go fine the transcript and quote it to your own satisfaction yourself. But okay, I'll try again. Brb.

 

[kellyb]

Warning: I am about to explain to kellyb how I think the 23 posts she has made in this thread so far today (not counting yesterday or the days before) stack up in the context of today's events.


Roger Stone was convicted today of all seven counts, including five charges of lying, notably lying to the House Intelligence Committee. He is now a convicted felon. Considering the recommended sentences for his crimes, he should be preparing to spend most of his remaining years in federal prison.

George Kent has not been convicted of lying, nor will he be. George Kent will not be charged with lying, nor should he be.

There will of course be people like kellyb who accuse others at the drop of a hat, just as we have seen such people accuse Obama of thin-skinned narcissism, George W Bush of creating "vic-sims" on 9/11, Einstein of fabricating his theories of relativity, or Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch of contributing to problems in Somalia.

I am happy to see that so many have pushed back against kellyb's spin and smears, even as I sympathize with those who have already seen far too many of those responses and are wondering why they are reading yet another. I promise not to respond to anything kellyb may post from here on out.


Well if that isn't enough to convict someone of a federal crime, I don't know what is.

Was George Kent under oath when he was talking on TV? Serious question...

I'm pretty sure he wasn't.

 

[kellyb]

If you think I'm wrong, and the rest of the users here are not as smart as I think they are, then make your case.

PS: If you were able to read between the lines, you would understand that I wasn't referring to everyone else the forum, I was referring to the others arguing against kellyb's absurd points.

Belz
McHronzni
autumn1971
Phantom Wolf (perhaps)

If they don't think they are smart, they can speak for themselves...

It should be very clear that I don't form and express opinions to win popularity contests.

I just happen to take an application of ruthlessly universal skepticism and apply it to things like politics, too, and not just stuff like bigfoot and telepathy.

You don't win popularity contests that way. Which I'm (obviously) fine with.

 

[acbytesla]

Now that you've gotten me looking, here's another:
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-mp-derkach-seeks-probe-of-ukraine-hillary-clinton-ties/


Would you like me to keep looking for more, or something more interesting?

I'm getting the sense we might actually live in a media bubble.

Big deal. Could it be just another blowhard politician like Jim Jordan etc. How many times have you heard politicians in our own country make similar demands only to chalk it up to political partisanship?

 

[kellyb]

Big deal. Could it be just another blowhard politician like Jim Jordan etc. How many times have you heard politicians in our own country make similar demands only to chalk it up to political partisanship?

Yeah. I'm not really caring about it, but it definitely does demonstrate that the FT article is about something which was widespread info at the time.

Nobody seemed to actually care much, tho, besides Trump (and apparently some person in Ukrainian gov.)

 

[kellyb]

And you again have left out the train of relevant questioning that led to this.

FFS, what is it going to take!?

Is this enough for you?

Goldman: Now when he talks about this CrowdStrike in a server, what do you understand this to be a reference to?

Kent: To be honest, I had not heard of CrowdStrike until I read this transcript on September 25th.

Goldman: Do you now understand what it relates to?

Kent: I understand it has to do with the story that there's a server with missing emails. I also understand that one of the owners of CrowdStrike is a Russian-American. I am not aware of any Ukrainian connection to the company.

Goldman: Now, are you aware that this is all part of a larger allegation that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election?

Kent: Yes. That is my understanding.

Goldman: And to your knowledge, is there any factual basis to support the allegation that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election?

Kent: To my knowledge, there is no factual basis. No.

Goldman: And in fact, who did interfere in the 2016 election?

Kent: I think it's amply clear that Russian interference was at the heart of the interference in the 2016 election cycle.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Yesterday, when I posted my summary of the public testimony given to the House Intelligence Committee by George Kent and William Taylor, I failed to mention that all of the public witnesses in these proceedings are testifying under oath. In CSPAN's video record of Wednesday's proceedings, Kent and Taylor are sworn in at about the 27:50 mark.