Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The conspiracy to harm Marie Yovanovitch

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I don't accept your premise.
    What you call a premise is a fact. The foriegn minister said: I never met Parnas, and I don't trust a thing he says.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      What you call a premise is a fact. The foriegn minister said: I never met Parnas, and I don't trust a thing he says.
      That's not the premise I reject.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Surveillance of members of the Trump campaign for legitimate reasons is not the same thing as spying on Trump.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          That's not the premise I reject.
          Whatever it is you object to, the fact of the matter is that Lev Parnas' accusations are corroborated by documentary evidence, so whatever the foreign ministers reason, for saying, "I don't trust a thing he says" is moot, and the reason for his saying it, in question.
          Last edited by JimL; 01-18-2020, 08:26 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Surveillance of members of the Trump campaign for legitimate reasons is not the same thing as spying on Trump.
            Keep repeating that, Jim....
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Whatever it is you object to, the fact of the matter is that Lev Parnas' accusations are corroborated by documentary evidence, so whatever the foreign ministers reason, for saying, "I don't trust a thing he says" is moot, and the reason for his saying it, in question.
              Here's the part of your premise I don't accept....
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              ....a man who knows nothing at all about another man ...

              Can you substantiate that? Cause you frequently just toss out speculation as though it were fact. It's not at all unusual for you to set up some goofy premise, then come to a conclusion based on that false premise.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Here's the part of your premise I don't accept....

                Can you substantiate that? Cause you frequently just toss out speculation as though it were fact. It's not at all unusual for you to set up some goofy premise, then come to a conclusion based on that false premise.
                Here is his quote: "I understand that this individual, which I don't know personally, is trying to save his own case, and I again, I don't trust what he is saying.

                Okay, so if he doesn't know him personally, never met with him, never talked to him, then his reasons for not trusting a word he says, has nothing to do with Parnas himself. That leaves one wondering why he so vehemently mistrusts this man he doesn't know. Obvious reasons are that he is covering up what he does know, or what he himself may have been in on, or he wants to keep good relations between his country and the Trump Administration.

                Comment


                • See, here's the problem, Jim... when you said "who I have absolutely no knowledge of" - - I strongly suspected you were telling a big 'un. Here is your claim....

                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Right, that's because being neutral is not in the foriegn ministers or Ukraines best interests, but saying, "I don't believe a word the man, (who I have absolutely no knowledge of) says" is.
                  I strongly suspected that was your version, which is why I said...

                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  In your version.
                  I questioned you, so you came up with...

                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Well, let's hear your version as to why a man who knows nothing at all about another man says, "I don't believe a word he has to say?"
                  And I clarified that I was challenging the premise that he had actually said "who I have absolutely no knowledge of".

                  Then you provide an alleged actual quote (as usual, without any cite, but I managed to find it) and it's different....

                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Here is his quote: "I understand that this individual, which I don't know personally, is trying to save his own case, and I again, I don't trust what he is saying.
                  And there's a big difference between...
                  A) "which I don't know personally", (apparently the actual quote) and
                  2) "who I have absolutely no knowledge of" - your Jimminized version.
                  Okay, so if he doesn't know him personally,

                  That's what he said, but then you go on to add....
                  never met with him, never talked to him

                  and even added
                  who I have absolutely no knowledge of

                  I KNEW you were being deceptive, which is why I couldn't accept your premise. You seem absolutely incapable of telling the truth the first time.

                  It's like I have to beat it out of you. Sheeeeesh!!!!! Use ACTUAL QUOTE function or ACTUAL CITES, because simply cannot be trusted to give an honest report.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • The video can be watched here and I'd recommend watching the full interview before spending too much more time on this tangent. Prystaiko's claim is not merely that he doesn't have a personal relationship with Parnas but -- as a close personal adviser to Zelensky and now the Foreign Minister -- he was never approached by Parnas or other "unofficial channel" characters about a quid pro quo.

                    That's newsworthy -- but Amanpour does the right journalism when she brings up Giuliani, Sondland and others approaching other Ukrainian officials. Here, Prystaiko doesn't deny that happened but positions himself as someone who reiterated the need for Zelensky not to be caught up in US affairs and maintain a straight formal channel of diplomacy. This is tacit acknowledgement of what's already heavily evidenced from documentary and testimonial evidence and renders Prystaiko's interview null -- it doesn't advance any new facts that support or contradict Parnas' claims or the larger set of claims around Trump's impeachment.

                    --Sam
                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • The fence-sitting is obvious throughout the interview but, in case people need further elaboration, Prystaiko became foreign minister on August 29, 2019 -- after the whistleblower complaint and shortly before the implosion of Trump's quid pro quo demands. Before then, he was head of the Mission of Ukraine to NATO, which does not seem a likely target for the "irregular channel" actors.

                      --Sam
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • For the record, Sondland's claim that he offered a quid pro quo is denied by the guy Sondland supposedly spoke with.

                        A top aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is refuting U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s testimony in the impeachment inquiry against President Trump.

                        Sondland last month testified before a House committee that he told Zelensky's aide that the U.S. would not resume foreign aid until the country announced two investigations into Trump political rivals; however, the aide, Andriy Yermak, told Time in an interview published Tuesday that the conversation never happened.

                        “Gordon and I were never alone together,” Yermak told Time.

                        "We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out,” he continued, adding that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations, bodyguards and hotel staff were nearby. “And I remember — everything is fine with my memory — we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about."

                        https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...land-testimony
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          For the record, Sondland's claim that he offered a quid pro quo is denied by the guy Sondland supposedly spoke with.

                          A top aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is refuting U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s testimony in the impeachment inquiry against President Trump.

                          Sondland last month testified before a House committee that he told Zelensky's aide that the U.S. would not resume foreign aid until the country announced two investigations into Trump political rivals; however, the aide, Andriy Yermak, told Time in an interview published Tuesday that the conversation never happened.

                          “Gordon and I were never alone together,” Yermak told Time.

                          "We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out,” he continued, adding that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations, bodyguards and hotel staff were nearby. “And I remember — everything is fine with my memory — we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about."

                          https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...land-testimony
                          I thought this was old news. Maybe I'm just having a deja vu.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            I thought this was old news. Maybe I'm just having a deja vu.
                            Not to beat this dead horse any more than necessary but whether Yermak is narrowly telling a truth regarding a meeting with Sondland as described, he very much was aware of the quid pro quo and understood it to be corrupt, as George Kent testified:

                            Source: Kent described Volker's "awkward conversation" with Ukrainian president's aide. Marshall Cohen. CNN.com. 2019.11.07

                            Senior State Department official George Kent described to lawmakers a pivotal conversation between former special envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker, diplomat Bill Taylor and the Ukrainian president's top aide Andriy Yermak on Sept. 14.

                            Volker didn’t allow Kent to participate in this meeting, but Kent got a readout from Taylor the next morning.


                            The meeting featured an “awkward conversation” where Volker told Yermak that he thought it would be inappropriate for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's administration to investigate former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.


                            “And then Andriy Yermak said: What? You mean the type of investigations you're pushing for us to do on Biden and Clinton?" Kent told lawmakers, retelling what he heard from Taylor’s readout.


                            Volker did not respond to that, Kent said. But later, the conversation touched on the quid pro quo.


                            “Later on in the conversation, when it came to the potential for Zelensky and President Trump to meet, according to Charge Taylor, Special Representative Volker said: And it’s important that President Zelensky give the message that we discussed before,” Kent said. But Taylor told Yermak “don’t do that,” Kent said.
                            The “message that we discussed before,” Kent said, was understood to be a public announcement by Zelensky that he was investigating Burisma, former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and the hacking of Democratic National Committee's server.


                            One possibility was that it would take place in a CNN interview during the UN General Assembly in New York City. Zelensky never gave that interview.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Contemporaneous account from Taylor, not disputed by Volker.

                            --Sam
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • Not to beat a dead horse any more than necessary but Kent was relating what others had told him as he candidly acknowledged. IOW, hearsay. And often hearsay several times removed.

                              He testified that his information was not based on first hand knowledge but was based upon what William Taylor (who testified that he had no first hand knowledge) told him and Taylor in turn said he heard it from Tim Morrison (who also testified that he has no first hand knowledge) who in turn got his gossip from Gordon Sondland. So you have Kent testifying about what Taylor said, which was based on what Morrison may or may not have said, based upon what Sondland assumed and guessed.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • There are a few posts in this thread where CP went to the trouble to look up and post original documentation.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                148 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                395 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                365 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X