House Impeachment Inquiry

[smartcooky]

You're essentially "pleading the 5th" on my question?

This is a really simple question. I'm asking if ONE sentence is true or false.

It's not a trick question, either. Why won't you just answer it? It's coming across kinda weird.

I'm not going to be conned into giving you a simple, direct answer - partly because there IS no simple, direct answer, and partly because I am not going to give you the satisfaction of trapping me into giving you somewhere to go with your flawed line of reasoning. Suffice to say, it is both true and false, and which it is depends on context.

This makes the statement irrelevant. See the rest of my last post (that you obviously ignored) - the explanation for why I have answered the way I have, is right there if your comprehension skills are up to it.

 

[kellyb]

I'm not going to be conned into giving you a simple, direct answer

There's no con here. You're just refusing.

- partly because there IS no simple, direct answer, and partly because I am not going to give you the satisfaction of trapping me into giving you somewhere to go with your flawed line of reasoning.

I have no "flawed line of reasoning" lined up, I swear. I think the sentence is essentially true, with the degree of truth predicated upon what implications someone chooses to draw from the word "intervene". That's the short version, but I could elaborate if requested to.

Suffice to say, it is both true and false, and which it is depends on context.

I'm not seeing "context" mattering at all here in terms of its truth or falseness. The context was Russia having recently invaded their country, and it was the 2016 election, and Trump was buddies with the authoritarian weirdo who invaded them.

 

[kellyb]

It's false. Paul Manafort was channeling (presumably Russian) dirty money to Ukrainian neo-Nazis and Ukraine exposed that. How's that questionable? There is clear evidence Manafort was guilty, he's doing time already FFS. Yes, he was the campaign manager for Trump and yes that presumably affected the election, but none of that is the fault of Ukraine.

If that's intervening in the election than anything is intervening in election. Not opting to buy american APCs in an election year? Intervening in election to harm the incumbent. Opting to buy americans APCs in an election year? The same, but to harm the challenger.

Therefore if the statement is true it is also irrelevant. We can thus conclude the statement is false.

McHrozni

Manafort definitely had it coming, but I think the reason it can accurately be described as "intervening" is because 2) their motive was to influence the US election, and 2) additionally, I also don't think there's some sort of law that was broken by their action, or even laws saying things like "influencing is illegal, intervening is not", so you can call it whatever you want and it doesn't necessarily even actually matter. I think "sway" is the word that sounds most correct to my ears describing it, personally.

 

[Stacyhs]

I still don't see it as Kent lying.

 

[McHrozni]

Manafort definitely had it coming, but I think the reason it can accurately be described as "intervening" is because 2) their motive was to influence the US election, and 2) additionally, I also don't think there's some sort of law that was broken by their action, or even laws saying things like "influencing is illegal, intervening is not", so you can call it whatever you want and it doesn't necessarily even actually matter. I think "sway" is the word that sounds most correct to my ears describing it, personally.

Perhaps, but the whole episode is profoundly different from the Trump-Ukraine scandal. It's patently obvious that Ukraine had good, very good reasons to oust Manafort. He's doing time in a federal prison, after all. Whether or not they did it to fight corruption or to influence the American election - or both - is irrelevant. They found corruption and exposed it, the fact the person who financed their neo-Nazis also worked closely with a major presidential candidate in no way makes the relevation improper. Nor does it question the validity of the election result, Trump decided to hire Manafort after all. No one forced Manafort on Trump.

It's just as obvious Trump had no legitimate reason to go after Biden and just leaned on Ukraine to help him out. It wasn't even to find any dirt on Joe Biden, it was to make it seem as if there was dirt on Joe Biden. Testimonies all show Trump wasn't really interested in what Biden did in Ukraine, he didn't even want an investigation. Trump wanted the announcement of an investigation he could milk to smack Biden with.

This is a major violation of the US constitution and federal law, violation of oath of office and a blatant abuse of power that might merit 2nd Amendment remedies, if Trump is not restrained through political process. There is no question about any of those. There is no valid reason to bring up Ukraine in 2016 with regards to the impeachment inquiry, anyone doing so is aiding and abetting the traitor in the White House and his foreign sponsors.

McHrozni

 

[kellyb]

I still don't see it as Kent lying.

I guess that's a matter of opinion, but he even visually looked to me like he knew what he was saying was technically false (if justifiable). He even knew the question was coming up and had time to qualify his answer in some way, and the guy is wicked smart, from what I saw. I don't think it means anything bad, other than that he alone or he and Schiff together (something like that) decided to be okay with grotesque oversimplifications in advance, and at the end of the day, just roll with the KISS principle".

I really think it was him doing this, exactly:

http://www.psandman.com/col/madcow.htm

Misleading toward the truth is exceedingly common. It is well-intentioned – or at least it is grounded in a normal mix of self-serving and altruistic intentions.

So what’s the problem? Misleading people, even toward the truth, is a very dangerous behavior. If and when people learn they have been misled, they have great trouble thereafter believing the truth they were misled toward. If and when they discover that the company or agency they have been listening to cannot be trusted, they jump to the conclusion that the facts it withheld or papered over must be damning. In our field, risk communication, this is predictable – as sound as Sound Science gets.

If you hide information from people because you are afraid they will misinterpret it, and then they find the information you hid, they are bound to leap to the very misinterpretations you feared. And so once you start to mislead people, even toward the truth, you are started down a path from which retreat is extremely difficult – a slippery slope more than a path. The “soft cover-up” of hyperbole and de-emphasis morphs into more aggressive strategies of distortion and deception, and not infrequently ends in outright lies. This isn’t a new or hotly debated insight: “Oh what a tangled web we weave….”

They found themselves in a spot where they basically changed the fact to fit "the narrative", but with the right prep work, they could kept the fact AND just refined the narrative.

I'm just unhappy with Schiff. I wish someone who understood the psychology behind why lying/fudging/whatever makes everything worse was running this and just prepping better.

 

[kellyb]

Perhaps, but the whole episode is profoundly different from the Trump-Ukraine scandal. It's patently obvious that Ukraine had good, very good reasons to oust Manafort. He's doing time in a federal prison, after all. Whether or not they did it to fight corruption or to influence the American election - or both - is irrelevant. They found corruption and exposed it, the fact the person who financed their neo-Nazis also worked closely with a major presidential candidate in no way makes the relevation improper. Nor does it question the validity of the election result, Trump decided to hire Manafort after all. No one forced Manafort on Trump.

It's just as obvious Trump had no legitimate reason to go after Biden and just leaned on Ukraine to help him out. It wasn't even to find any dirt on Joe Biden, it was to make it seem as if there was dirt on Joe Biden. Testimonies all show Trump wasn't really interested in what Biden did in Ukraine, he didn't even want an investigation. Trump wanted the announcement of an investigation he could milk to smack Biden with.

This is a major violation of the US constitution and federal law, violation of oath of office and a blatant abuse of power that might merit 2nd Amendment remedies, if Trump is not restrained through political process. There is no question about any of those. There is no valid reason to bring up Ukraine in 2016 with regards to the impeachment inquiry, anyone doing so is aiding and abetting the traitor in the White House and his foreign sponsors.

McHrozni

No disagreement from me about any of that.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I guess that's a matter of opinion, but he even visually looked to me like he knew what he was saying was technically false (if justifiable). He even knew the question was coming up and had time to qualify his answer in some way, and the guy is wicked smart, from what I saw. I don't think it means anything bad, other than that he alone or he and Schiff together (something like that) decided to be okay with grotesque oversimplifications in advance, and at the end of the day, just roll with the KISS principle".

I really think it was him doing this, exactly:

http://www.psandman.com/col/madcow.htm



They found themselves in a spot where they basically changed the fact to fit "the narrative", but with the right prep work, they could kept the fact AND just refined the narrative.

I'm just unhappy with Schiff. I wish someone who understood the psychology behind why lying/fudging/whatever makes everything worse was running this and just prepping better.

The thing is that the interference that Giuliani and Co have been pushing is not did the Ukrainian officials spill the beans on Manafort, but rather were they behind the whole "Russia Hoax" in that they claimed that Russia was responsible, but in the reality of those that believe the conspiracy, that it was all Ukraine and the DNC and Clinton who were behind it. Kent was quite clear and quite correct that none of that ever happened.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Allsides' Media Bias Chart puts the Financial Times in the categories of "Neutral or Balanced Bias" and "Fact Reporting"/"Complex Analysis"

So, yes they're a source that's worth listening to, no it's not a conservative paper, and yes they are likely to have valid contributions on the subject of US-Ukraine-Russia relations.

 

[Belz...]

Kent's lying. No way has he not been made aware of this stuff.

Huh? He's saying that Ukraine, to his knowledge, did not interfere in the 2016 elections.

I guess that's a matter of opinion.

No, it isn't.

 

[Tero]

Very tired of Jordan badgering witnesses. With Taylor for example. Even if President Z had agreed to investigate Burisma/Bidens/2016, there would not ever have been an announcement:
"We are going to investigate Joe Biden, the criminal, so we can get US military aid."

 

[kellyb]

The thing is that the interference that Giuliani and Co have been pushing is not did the Ukrainian officials spill the beans on Manafort, but rather were they behind the whole "Russia Hoax" in that they claimed that Russia was responsible, but in the reality of those that believe the conspiracy, that it was all Ukraine and the DNC and Clinton who were behind it. Kent was quite clear and quite correct that none of that ever happened.

That wasn't what the question was about, though. It really was a question about if there was ANY factual basis for the allegation that Ukraine interfered in 2016.
Watch the video, starting at 02:12:30

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/impeachment-hearing-william-taylor-george-kent&start=7969


-------------------------------------------

NOW, WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT THIS CROWDSTRIKE AND SERVER, WHAT DO YOU WANTED THIS TO BE REFERENCE TO?

02:12:30
TO BE HONEST, I HAD NOT HEARD OF CROWDSTRIKE UNTIL I READ THIS TRANSCRIPT ON SEPTEMBER 25th.

02:12:36
DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND WHAT IT RELATES TO?

02:12:37
I UNDERSTAND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE STORY THAT THERE'S A SERVER WITH MISSING EMAILS. I ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT ONE OF THE OWNERS OF CROWDSTRIKE IS A RUSSIAN/AMERICAN I UNDERSTAND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE STORY THAT THERE'S A SERVER WITH MISSING EMAILS. I ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT ONE OF THE OWNERS OF CROWDSTRIKE IS A RUSSIAN/AMERICAN. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY UKRAINIAN CONNECTION TO THE COMPANY.
02:12:57
ARE YOU AWARE THIS IS ALL PART OF A LARGER ALLEGATION THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

02:13:07
YES, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

02:13:09
TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THERE ANY FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION?

02:13:17
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S NO FACTUAL BASIS, NO
------

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

The fact that the lie was a nifty "hook" into the narrative's "it was Russia!" exclamation point at the end, does not in any way make the lie better. It just makes "Russian interference" look like it might be BS, too.

 

[kellyb]

Huh? He's saying that Ukraine, to his knowledge, did not interfere in the 2016 elections.



No, it isn't.

Is this statement below true or false?

"The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine’s arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country’s biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election."

 

[Belz...]

Is this statement below true or false?

"The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine’s arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country’s biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election."

It didn't work on Smartcooky and you think you'll have better luck with me?

Did you think I wouldn't notice that this quote is entirely irrelevant to Mr. Kent's statements?

 

[kellyb]

It didn't work on Smartcooky and you think you'll have better luck with me?

Did you think I wouldn't notice that this quote is entirely irrelevant to Mr. Kent's statements?

1) Why won't you answer a simple, easy, no-brainer yes or no question? You know you doesn't like doing that? People who have issues with the correct and true, obvious answer. That's who.

2) How is the evidence that Ukraine absolutely did "intervene" not relevant to the question about if there's any basis for the allegation that they interfered?

Why you like quasi-trolling like this is beyond me, by the way. It's really weird.

 

[varwoche]

The "however indirectly" qualification is so all-encompassing it could implicate the wings of a butterfly.

 

[kellyb]

The "however indirectly" qualification is so all-encompassing it could implicate the wings of a butterfly.

Yeah, but they performed an action intended to sway the election, and were cheering when they thought it had probably swayed the election.

The correct answer here to the "Is there any factual basis" question is yes.

There's no way out of that.

 

[Belz...]

1) Why won't you answer a simple, easy, no-brainer yes or no question?

Because it isn't one. It's a dishonest question about an irrelevant fact that is more complex than you pretend it is.

(snipped childish personalisation)

2) How is the evidence that Ukraine absolutely did "intervene" not relevant to the question about if there's any basis for the allegation that they interfered?

If you had bothered to read your own quote you would've noticed that they mention that the intervention was "indirect". I'll say. It's so indirect that it has nothing to do with it. Manafort was involved in Ukraine prior to his stint with Trump, and they were investigating that and how it may relate to his new position. That's not interference in any meaningful way, and is thus unrelated to the question that Kent was asked.

But even beyond that, your repeated questions to us about this are just fishing for a "gotcha". As Smartcooky said, it's a trap; because regardless of whether any of us here agrees that Ukraine interfered, Kent himself might not, making his statement not a lie.

(snipped stupid personalisation)

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, but they performed an action intended to sway the election, and were cheering when they thought it had probably swayed the election.

The correct answer here to the "Is there any factual basis" question is yes.

There's no way out of that.

I love how you think that your personal interpretation binds Mr. Kent in his statements.

It's cute, in a way.

 

[kellyb]

Because it isn't one.

You are just refusing to answer the question.

It's a dishonest question about an irrelevant fact that is more complex than you pretend it is.

i'm pretending nothing. This is just giving you a fact-allergy.

If you had bothered to read your own quote you would've noticed that they mention that the intervention was "indirect". I'll say. It's so indirect that it has nothing to do with it. Manafort was involved in Ukraine prior to his stint with Trump, and they were investigating that and how it may relate to his new position. That's not interference in any meaningful way, and is thus unrelated to the question that Kent was asked.

At least you TRIED there. Thank you, sincerely.

That might work as effective obfuscation in a legalistic sense. That's a better answer than Kent's lie to his question. Screwit. I'll accept it. A+ job at achieving something that might be effective obfuscation.

It's not true, but teasing out all the places you're wrong would confuse people.

I would just be honest and say "I guess it's true, although the writer was using the word "intervened," and I wouldn't choose to word it like that. I'd call it "Attempted to sway"," or something like that.

But even beyond that, your repeated questions to us about this are just fishing for a "gotcha". As Smartcooky said, it's a trap; because regardless of whether any of us here agrees that Ukraine interfered, Kent himself might not, making his statement not a lie.

The question he was given was one which asked "was there ANY factual basis to support the allegation that Ukraine interfered."

He'd have to not know it was reported that they "intervened" at the time to not be lying there.