Washington Examiner: Two deceptions at the heart of Democrats’ impeachment brief

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/two-deceptions-at-heart-of-democrats-impeachment-brief

It will be interesting to see how the Senate responds if the House Managers repeat these two deceptions in the trial that starts today.

27 thoughts on “Washington Examiner: Two deceptions at the heart of Democrats’ impeachment brief

      1. @Roberts

        The intellectual dishonesty of that article is off the scale. The attempt to equate the multi-faceted Russian government and successful campaign to put Trump in the White House with the fact that some Ukrainian officials publicly expressed their disdain for Trump – the puppet of the country that was invading them immediately destroys what little credibility anything in the Washington Examiner might have.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “The attempt to equate the multi-faceted Russian government and successful campaign to put Trump in the White House with the fact that some Ukrainian officials publicly expressed their disdain for Trump…”

        You appear to be confused. York in fact argues for decoupling the Russian interference from the Ukainian interference. He contends it is deceptive for Democrats to suggest that the latter is a replacement for the former, because both happened independently.

        Like

        1. @Roberts

          “… both happened independently.”

          Unlike you, I am not eager to gobble up horseshit. Nor stupid enough to fall for Russian gas lighting about the country they are trying to consume. One thing happened. The other didn’t. Russia interfered in our election. Ukraine didn’t.

          I am sure that with no trouble at all you can find a Canadian or a Frenchman who had publicly disparaged Donald Trump before the election. Does that mean that Canada or France interfered in our election? Trump shows zero respect for your intellect when he peddles this crap. Is he right?

          Liked by 2 people

        2. RE: “Trump shows zero respect for your intellect when he peddles this crap.”

          I don’t know about Trump, but it is clear how lacking you are in intellect by your spin. The anti-Trumpers like you are trying to say that Ukrainians did not interfere in the election, despite the public record, which York recounts, and which shows that they did. Your spin is simply disproved by the facts.

          Like

          1. Which facts? The alternative ones you continually peddle?
            Big difference between a few Ukrainians stating there dislike of Trump and the actual Russian GOVERNEMNT backed disinformation campaign.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. @Roberts

            The point is that Ukraine’s “interference” requires a very, very broad definition of interference. Someone in their government DID out Paul Manafort’s criminal corruption. Is that what you call “interference?” LOL!

            I have offered no spin. By the dictionary definition of the word and according to our election and other laws, Ukraine did not interfere. Russia did. In fact, it is now clear that the idea of Ukraine meddling was planted in Dear Leader’s tiny brain by none other than Vladimir Putin.

            https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/12/ukraine-election-theory-discredited-but-trump-keeps-alive/4451168002/

            You can carry on with your goofy counterfactual obtuseness but, really, you are wearing it out.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “Big difference between a few Ukrainians stating there [sic] dislike of Trump and the actual Russian GOVERNEMNT backed disinformation campaign.”

            Yes, both you and Murphy claim that. But its a distinction without a difference. If Ukrainians interfered in our election in any capacity, inquiries about that are justified.

            Do you two really mean to say that because Russian interference was state-sponsored, the Ukrainian interference doesn’t matter? If so, I invite you to make your case.

            Like

          4. Ukrainian “interference” consisted of a few politicians voicing their dislike to Trump. Russian interference, as PROVEN by our own intelligence agencies (the same ones Trump claimed gave him the info necessary to take out Soliemani) consisted of disinformation, hacking of political computers, and attempts to infiltrate voter databases and probing of election computers to change votes. If you don’t see a major difference between the two, it is because you are either a Russian bot/troll or blind to realities.

            Several other people around the world voiced their dislike of Trump, yet none of them are being accused of interference. The only hoax is the idea that the Ukrainians interfered in any way shape or form.

            Like

          5. RE: “Ukrainian ‘interference’ consisted of a few politicians voicing their dislike to Trump.”

            It consisted of much more than that. Perhaps you should do some research, or even just read the article this thread is based on.

            Like

          6. Three year old articles that have been laid to waste by FACTS. Lot more NEW factual information comes out that you ignore while referring back to things that are 1) debunked and 2) irrelevant.

            Actual facts versus contrived conspiracy theories meant to distract and deflect from the truth are dangerous. Too bad you and Thadd don’t see that.

            Like

  1. Rudy Giuliani is Mr Trump’s private attorney, envoy, and investigator. He has been looking into the various Ukrainian issues that Marie Yovanovitch was trying to coverup. Ms Yovanovitch was also meddling in Ukraine’s domestic affairs and could not work with the new Ukraine president, who was elected to root out corruption.

    The Ukrainians did indeed meddle in an effort to help Ms Clinton and do not forget that the Steele dossier is a product of Russian intelligence. Clearly, then, the IG report suggests that it was the Clinton campaign and the FBI that conspired with Russia to meddle in the 2016 election.

    Once this impeachment hoax is dispensed with, Lindsey Graham’s committee will restart their Ukraine investigation and one way or another, the truth will be exposed.

    Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump
    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

    The Full Scope of Ukraine’s Impact on the 2016 Election Has Yet to Be Examined
    https://www.thenation.com/article/ukraine-elections-2016/

    Like

      1. So Manafort was incredibly corrupt. He committed his crimes in Ukraine. They caught him and turned the info over to the US. And as the article said this was long before Trump was even considered a long shot.

        And this is considered a blatant attempt to turn the election.

        They could have waited until just before the election. Like Comey did for Hillary.

        OK, I can see that is ridiculous. Just like the fixed trial in the Senate.

        Listening to bits and pieces of that circus is actually sad. The lies, twisted lies and fabrications of law without any regard for Trump’s illegal, immoral and unpatriotic actions is just plain depressing.

        There is not one Republican Senator with any sense of right and wrong. Or a backbone to stand up to a president who is making a mockery of our Constitution and our nation.

        His closest advisors are either in prison for lying, corruption or massive tax evasion. And his current ones probably will be.

        If Trump is above the law with the support of around 23% of the electorate or even 40% of the people, then God help us if we elect a smart person with a landslide.

        You Trump fans will get the monarchy you apparently wanted in the first place.

        I am holding back my opinions so as to not appear partisan.

        But this is still my opinion. Even though my pain meds haven’t taken hold yet.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “And this is considered a blatant attempt to turn the election.”

        No, it is considered a simple attempt to influence the election. One that merits more scrutiny than it has received, and less excuse-making than you give it.

        Like

        1. RE: “So you want to send a search party for the DNC server hidden in Ukraine?”

          Are you serious? If you really want an answer: I would like to know what happened to the DNC server, since the FBI violated its own standard procedures in not taking possession of it.

          Like

          1. “ CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm, was hired to analyze the server — which was actually more than 140 different servers. Rather than take possession of the server(s), CrowdStrike made digital copies of the whole shebang. This was allegedly a cover-up. As Trump tweeted in 2018, “Where is the DNC Server, and why didn’t the FBI take possession of it? Deep State?”

            “It gets loopier. As Trump suggested in his call with Zelensky, the theory is that CrowdStrike is a Ukrainian-owned or Ukrainian-connected company. It’s not. It’s based in California, and the alleged Ukrainian co-founder of the company was born in Russia. The suggestion that “the server” is being hidden in some Ukrainian warehouse, like the Ark of the Covenant at the end of the first Indiana Jones movie, is straight-up bonkers.”

            https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/missing-server-conspiracy-theories-are-a-convenient-smokescreen/

            And for this Trump was trying to extort Zelensky. I could understand trying to get dirt on his political opponent. Trump has said numerous times he would welcome foreign assistance. But to send the country into a Constitutional crisis over a debunked conspiracy theory, not even gettin the facts right, is just plain nuts.

            But Mitch has him covered, so no sweat.

            But still.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “This was allegedly a cover-up.”

            If you say so. I say it was a violation of the FBI’s own standard procedures.

            Like

          3. It is still sitting in the basement of DNC headquarters. And with advanced technologies, the FBI had no reason to take it. They were able to copy all of the information they needed form it.

            Like

      3. @Roberts
        From the Nation article which you find useful. . .

        “Earlier this year, I broke down Trump and Rudy Giuliani’s allegation that Biden forced Kiev to fire a corrupt prosecutor in order to protect his son Hunter. (As I and nearly every other Ukraine watcher pointed out, Giuliani’s claim is meritless.)”

        Meritless! But THAT is a claim that Trump and people like you keep pushing.

        As for the rest of the article, I will agree that the outing of someone committing crimes in their country when the criminal is the hand-picked leader of a Presidential campaign could have influenced the vote – information has that affect. It is still in no way comparable to the clandestine efforts of sabotage, hacking and misinformation that the Russians used to put their finger puppet in the White House. Legal influencing is one thing. Illegal interference is another.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Again: Do you really mean to say that because Russian interference was state-sponsored, the Ukrainian interference doesn’t matter? If so, I invite you to make your case. So far, you haven’t. You have only made self-defeating excuses to the effect that Manafort’s corruption is irrelevant.

          But if Manafort’s corruption is irrelevant, then it is, in fact, irrelevant, meaning there is no reason to make an issue of it, as you do.

          Like

          1. You keep claiming that alleged and unproven Ukrainian interference is relevant. What exactly is the PROVEN (not completely debunked counter factual nonsense) interference of which you speak? Every single claim of anything done by Ukraine to influence the election , in a manner even half of what Russia ACTUALLY did, is nothing but conspiracy, deflection and an attempt to deceive the American people in support of a corrupt and impeachable President.

            Like

          2. RE: “What exactly is the PROVEN (not completely debunked counter factual nonsense) interference of which you speak?”

            Why do you even ask the question? You have already been given three sources that answer it: The Washington Examiner piece this thread is based on, plus two links to articles provided by thaddeuskosciuszko, above.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s