The Right Side of the News

The founder of Burisma Holdings, Mykola Zlochevsky, is a Ukrainian oligarch who fled the Ukraine in 2014 and is now living in Monaco. It is alleged that he awarded gas and oil contracts to companies he owned through Burisma Holdings while he was ecology minister from 2010-2012.Shokin refused to investigate Zlochevsky. He did open an investigation into Burisma Holdings, but then he sat on it (took no action). He also turned a blind eye to other corruption in the Ukraine.Biden was part of a coordinated effort by the U.S. and countries of the EU to influence the Ukraine to fire Shokin. The final straw came when British courts were forced to return $23 million in illegal money to Ukrainian oligarchs because Shokin was refusing to provide documentation. Under Lutsenko, Shokin's successor, 15 investigations of Zlochevsky were conducted.And no, that is not the same investigation Trump is asking for. Trump is asking the Ukraine to investigate Burisma Holdings and the Bidens. Trump is silent as to what it is he alleges they have done, so the only conclusion is that he wants the Ukraine to go on a fishing expedition to dig up dirt on the Bidens. You just described how that investigation had already been completed. The Ukrainian prosecutor is no longer Lutsenko but Riaboshapka - not the same person.Back in 2015/2016 as part of the effort to pressure the Ukraine into firing Shokin, Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees from the U.S., but that's peanuts compared to the International Monetary Fund's threat to withhold $40 billion. I think we can all understand why Biden would want people to think he single-handedly arm-twisted the Ukraine into dismissing a corrupt general prosecutor as he campaigns for president, but the truth is that it was a multinational effort.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

The conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy was very easy to follow. Yes, it's true that Mulvaney wasn't very clear. In fact, he was contradictory. He said that the money Congress allocated for Ukraine military aid both was and wasn't held up on condition of investigating the Bidens. See the transcript of Mulvaney's press conference. Read the transcript. Mulvaney said the money wasn't held up on condition the Ukraine investigate the Bidens, but that it was held up on condition they cooperate with DoJ investigations, which include investigating the Bidens. What are people to conclude when you assert both a thing and its opposite? The testimony by various witnesses before the House committees, especially by former Ukrainian Ambassador Bill Taylor, made it very clear that there was a quid pro quo. This is incorrect. Trump believes the conspiracy theory that it was the Ukraine that interfered in the 2016 election, not Russia, and that the Bidens were involved. Trump wants to investigate Biden corruption in the Ukraine of any type, election-related or otherwise, because anything uncovered will help him in the 2020 election. A Trumper who doesn't believe the Ukraine is hiding a server from the 2016 U.S. presidential election? I didn't know such people existed.--Percy

Yes, oh Faith of many repetitions. We would all like the truth to come out. One thing that would greatly help the truth come out is White House cooperation--Percy

I read Message 3099, but there's really nothing there in what you posted. The article itself is 37,000 words long. If you think there's evidence of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election in that article you'll have to narrow it down and quote specific portions.What you quoted does raise certain questions. For example, if a Ukrainian becomes aware that Paul Manafort is working with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election on Donald Trump's behalf, and if that Ukrainian alerts officials in Hillary Clinton's campaign, is that also campaign interference? If you intended to post a video, you forgot to include it. I don't really see things in terms of sides. I see things in terms of sound judgment, honesty, integrity, dignity, respect, and a high regard for the facts. Though politics tends to weed out those in possession of these qualities, there are still some people on both sides of the aisle who have them. Someone lacking these qualities might call someone who is only doing their job and telling the truth as they see it a "low life" or "human scum" and so forth. Or they might carry out a campaign of misdirection convincing the country the process is unfair instead of focusing on the facts.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improve 2nd to last sentence of last paragraph - it still says the same thing.

EvC Forum has always tried to encourage civil debate, with varying degrees of success and many notable failures. Some seem determined that debate not be civil since a losing proposition can be hidden and eventually forgotten by transforming the discussion into a war of insult and denigration.The Washington Post opinion piece Charles Krauthammer championed civil debate. His example is needed now more than ever, written by his son, contains some of the best advice I've ever seen for civil debate. A few excerpts:

quote:

---

...whoever holds power, all sides must respect the fundamental legitimacy of their political rivals; that their differences be seen not as treasonous or out of bounds, but rather as healthy disagreement within our divided and adversarial system of government, which as a whole and only as a whole retains ultimate authority. Members of the other party may be your opponents, but within the walls of our democratic constitutional order, they are not your enemy. Where freedom and pluralism reign, you must convince, not overpower.
...
...winning the debate means mounting the superior argument: using sounder reasoning and marshaling more compelling evidence. And it means not attempting shortcuts to victory by trying to delegitimize the other side before the debate even begins.
...
When we contend that those with differing views are not just wrong but are bad people criminals even we abandon genuine debate. If we hold that their conclusions stem not from faulty logic or evidence but from fundamental ill will and nefarious intentions, then no progress can be made. No one ever changed their mind because their opponents called them evil.

​

A second, twin strategy that my father criticized was apocalyptic alarmism...The other side’s program is leading to the destruction of all we hold dear, and certain disaster can be avoided only by following our own side’s particular political path. With the stakes so high sometimes even the literal end of the world everything else becomes secondary. Procedural obstacles even constitutional ones become intolerable. The only justifiable option becomes overpowering the opposition by any means necessary.

​

In today’s politics, neither side of the political divide has a monopoly on such hyperbole. We hear partisans on both sides claiming that their adversaries are full of evil intent and hatred; that if their own party doesn’t win, America will be lost forever.

​

Such strategies are good only for rallying those who already agree with you; for whipping them into a panic; for making them less willing to even consider the other side’s position and more willing to do whatever it takes to keep others out of power or even more drastically to silence them.
...
...my father came to the national debate with humility and in good faith. He saw his political sparring partners as mistaken and perhaps ill-informed, but still as fundamentally decent and well-intentioned souls who wanted the best for their country, too. He sought to dismantle their arguments and ideas, not to assault their character.

---

I quoted more than I originally intended, but I urge everyone to read the full piece. You'll be a better person for it.--Percy

The irony is strong with this one.--Percy

Help! Violent whiplash!--Percy

The prime contributor would be the tweetmaster-in-chief. Here's one of his more innocuous offerings: This is fictional. Just yesterday federal judge Beryl A. Howell dismissed Republican arguments that a House vote for initiating an impeachment inquiry was required, also noting that all prior impeachments had begun investigations before a full House vote anyway. Judge Howell also ordered that redacted portions of the Mueller report be made available to House committees, even if the reason was grand jury secrecy. This, too, is fiction. The person most visibly running roughshod over the Constitution is President Trump by refusing to cooperate with House oversight or with the impeachment inquiry (see White House counsel Pat Cipollone's letter), by pressuring the Ukraine for assistance with his domestic political campaign for reelection, by making military assistance and White House meetings contingent on such assistance, by violating the emoluments clause, and by redirecting funds allocated by Congress for other purposes to his wall. I'm probably forgetting some items. Neither side has a monopoly on truth and decency, but at present the Republicans are being prodded by a desperate president to commit rash acts, such as storm the secure House hearing room. This, too, is fiction. I replied to your Message 3100 in Message 3184. I pretty much summarized what your excerpt said and commented that it doesn't amount to much, but that it does raise some interesting questions, and I provided an example of one of those questions. You didn't reply to that message. In leveling these accusations of deviousness have you already forgotten your declarations of how innocent you are of committing attacks? This is just more fiction. Because these attempts you keep alluding to are fictional. Whoever you're listening to, they're making up the things they're telling you. But you think parody is criminal. This is just more fiction - you can't actually name any collusive activity between the Clinton campaign and Russia, nor any obstruction of justice. Many of Trump's crimes are committed out in the open, like saying China should investigate the Bidens, and choosing his own Doral resort as the site of the next G7, and pressuring the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens as documented in his own transcript of his phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. That is to say, Clinton campaigned against Trump. Nothing in the Steele dossier has been shown false, most is unverified, and some has been shown true. Wherever you're getting your information, they're lying to you. And the evidence mounting against Trump isn't about campaign fraud but about pressuring a foreign country to help his political campaign for president (one is illegal, and both are unconstitutional and a violation of his oath of office), and about obstruction of justice. Clinton stands accused of no crimes and is not being investigated for any crimes. Trump, on the other hand, is not only undergoing an impeachment inquiry, he's being investigated for campaign violations, he's charged with emoluments violations, he's being sued for defamation by Summer Zervos, his personal lawyer will probably be indicted soon (it would be his second personal lawyer to have that happen to him), and his tax returns seem likely to be made available to the appropriate authorities and might even become public.Do you never wonder why someone who has done nothing wrong would be so determined to keep everything about himself secret? We don't see it because there's nothing to see concerning your claims. You complain a lot about Clinton's crimes, but there's no evidence of any. You also claim that the issues for which Trump is under investigation and the actions for which he's being sued are mere smears, but there is a great deal of evidence for all of them with more on the way. What people are saying you're doing seems pretty much exactly what you're doing. I think we can all agree with that.--Percy

So you keep saying without ever backing it up. Like what? Please be specific and provide facts. Millions? You can't even name one. The threats to this country do not come from the right or left. They come from an unhinged president who is abusing his power to operate outside the law. This is pure fiction. The incivility and crassness flows from Trump like a fountain. Just for example in a single category, here are a few nicknames Trump uses on Twitter: Sleepy Joe (Biden), Crooked Hillary (Clinton), Lying James Comey, Liddle Bob Corker, Lyin' Ted (Cruz), Jeff Flakey, Al Frankenstein, Wacky Omarosa (Newman), Highly Conflicted Robert Mueller, Fat Jerry (Nadler), Cheatin' Obama, Crazy Nancy (Pelosi), Little Marco (Rubio), Crazy Bernie (Sanders), Sleazy Adam Schiff, Head Clown Chuck Schumer, Mr. Magoo (Jeff Sessions), Pocahontas (Elizabeth Warren), Low-IQ Maxine Waters.--Percy

The news media only reports and comments on what Trump says and does, like this crude tweet from earlier this month: If Zucker's personal feelings about Trump are influencing the objectivity and accuracy of CNN reporting then you should call those stories to our attention. It's easy to say (paraphrasing), "CNN is biased and it comes from the top," but it's a lot harder to show it. You're actually referring to Trump lawyer Charles Harder's letter to CNN. It's not a lawsuit, it's just a letter full of accusations and threats. About Project Veritas Wikipedia writes:

quote:

---

Project Veritas is an American right-wing activist group. The group uses "disguises and hidden cameras to uncover supposed liberal bias and corruption." The group is known for producing deceptively edited videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups. In a 2018 book on propaganda and disinformation in U.S. politics, three Harvard University scholars refer to Project Veritas as a "right-wing disinformation outfit."

---

Now that we have Project Veritas in context, here's the video your quote from Project Veritas is referring to. It seems to be a prime example of what Wikipedia describes: If you really believe that CNN President Zucker is keeping CNN's primary focus on impeachment to an inappropriate degree then you should try to show it. Here's a link to the CNN webpage. At present all the stories at the top of the page are about the raid that killed Baghdadi, even the one that touches on impeachment, which is an analysis piece. That article list will change as we move through the news cycle. Keep your eye on it and let us know when it steps over the line.--Percy

Well, duh! You say Hillary Clinton committed crimes about which you're very vague, so you should tell us what those crimes are. How fair would it be for someone to say about you, "Faith was a criminal in her past and committed many crimes, like robbing gas stations and dealing drugs," then when asked to support it not be able to provide anything.So tell us about the "Russian collusion and obstruction of justice" you claimed she committed in your Message 3199. I think you mean deletion of emails, and the server was never destroyed as it was ultimately in the hands of government investigators. How serious a crime do you think inadvertent violation of secrecy regulations should be? Did you know that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner use personal email and messaging to conduct official business? The William Barr Department of Justice just last week issued a report concluding that, in the words of a New York Times article:

quote:

---

A yearslong State Department investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server found that while the use of the system for official business increased the risk of compromising classified information, there was no systemic or deliberate mishandling of classified information.

---

Here's a link to the DoJ report itself: DS Report on Security Incidents Related to Potentially Classified Emails sent to Former Secretary of State Clinton's Private Email Server. Now it's "Clinton's crime"? What happened to the (paraphrasing) "many Clinton crimes"? Except that I didn't deny what it said. I said there wasn't much there. The only item that might be considered significant was that a "Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia," which was redundant information since the FBI had already been investigating Manafort for two years by that time. They already knew that Manafort had assisted Russia-sponsored Yanukovych's campaign for the Ukrainian presidency. You're being manipulated with partial information. You get the whole story, instead of bias, lies and partial truths.--Percy

The economic decline of rural America is a reality and has been for a very long time. The outmigration from rural areas into cities began back in the 1800's and continues today. It's why the number of hospitals and shopping malls and so forth keeps declining in the hinterlands - the smaller and smaller populations cannot sustain them. But you cannot argue that that justifies the rich purchasing political influence to make them richer. Wealth disparity is greater today than at any time in our country's history except for the last few years of the 1920's. Oh, so this was about climate change, too. In her own words, "How dare you!" You're against taking action against climate change. Check. Your justifying anti-intellectualism, racism, bigotry and parochialism on the basis of tradition? Really?

quote:

---

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us...etc...

​

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

---

I think we've become a bit more enlightened in our thinking in the century since Teddy Roosevelt. Of course it's Trump being Trump, a very insecure man who feels the constant need to denigrate others and engage in exaggerated braggadocio. Then why did you say that economic issues aren't going to sway any Trump voters? People who live in or near urban areas have many more economic opportunities than those who live in the country. Self-reliance didn't pay for the electrification of rural American - it was paid for (subsidized) by those who live in more urban regions. Self-reliance doesn't help the poor rural inhabitant who lives two hours from the nearest hospital. Self-reliance can't provide the economies of scale that make electricity, gas, oil and propane cheaper in urban areas than rural ("Overall, Americans living in rural
areas spend a disproportionally high share of their income on energy bills. Rural households have
a median energy burden of 4.4%, compared to the national burden of 3.3%." The High Cost of
Energy in Rural America).The urban/rural economic disparity has nothing to do with self reliance. It has to do with living in an economically disadvantaged region. The economic opportunities that exist in and closer to cities simply aren't present out in the country. But that's not what you said. You referred to "the disastrous results of many past socialist experiments worldwide." If when you say "socialist experiments" you mean socialism in the classical sense of state ownership of business and industry then we're not talking about the same thing. By socialism is only meant social programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and in Europe it would include healthcare. Europe's doing fine, having done an excellent job of blending social programs into free enterprise economies. Moving closer to the European model would make a lot of sense.--Percy

You missed the irony. You said the fountain of hate from the Democrats and the media is greater than the incivility exhibited by Trump, and I answered that they're mostly only printing or broadcasting what Trump says, and provided the example of a crude and uncivil Trump tweet that was reported in the media.No Democrat in Congress or anyone in the news media is being crude or uncivil on anywhere near the scale of Trump. Trump is the master of crudeness and incivility and no one sees any point in getting down in the mud with the master. As they say, you only get muddy and the pig likes it.Tell ya what, we'll just go one for one. My sources are Trump and Fox News, your sources are the entire Congress and the mainstream news media , and we'll go insult for insult. I'll cite or quote a Trump insult, then you'll cite or quote one from Congress or the mainstream news media. We'll see who runs out first. I'll start (this one includes the irony of Trump not understanding the difference between a hyphen and an apostrophe): They are not. They're just one of the many measures of Trump's unfitness for high office, or any office at all, including dog catcher. Why is there so much crudeness and bluntness at the top in politics today and not four years ago when Obama was president, or before him Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter or Ford? But you didn't show it. You didn't cite a single CNN article that you felt showed bias. You just referred to someone describing Project Veritas's video. Yes. That Harder made those threats can be verified and proven. What can't be verified and proven are the accusations Harder made. If you think they can then go ahead and try. I don't know who any of these people are - I'll have to look them up. I see that David Muir is an anchor for ABC World News Tonight. Here's a recent news story he broadcast. Please tell us the deceptive edits, commentary and omissions: You constructed the goalposts yourself in the form of unsubstantiated claims. You should substantiate them or drop them. Ah, time enough to make unsupported accusations, but not enough time to back them up. Let's take a look at what's at the top of the news for CNN right now. It's organized a little differently this time with only a couple top stories because the first one is a "breaking news" story with four links to older but related stories beneath it, then other stories below that. Here's my summary of the top of CNN's page right now:

• The notes obtained by CNN give the first publicly available behind-the-scenes look at Mueller's investigative work
  
  • Mueller addresses Trump's 2016 praise of Wikileaks
    
  • Analysis: The totally debunked conspiracy theory Donald Trump pushed in the Ukraine call
    
  • What is CrowdStrike and why is it part of the Trump whistleblower complaint?
    
  • State Department finds no 'deliberate mishandling of classified information' related to Clinton email server
• WashPost: Border agents say smugglers in Mexico are sawing through parts of Trump's border wall

If you think this is focused on impeachment to an inappropriate degree then please explain how.--Percy

As an addendum, here's a bar graph showing the number of Trump tweets for each week of his presidency. It's taken from How Trump Reshaped the Presidency in Over 11,000 Tweets. The orange portion of the bars indicate attacks or insults: --Percy

No. Here's what I said about them in the very message you replied to where it was right before your eyes: Moving on: Poor impulse control? He was tweeting long before he ran for office. The volume of Trump attacks far exceeds those of any other source. I offer the same challenge to you that I did to Marc: I'll go one-for-one with you on Trump/Fox News attack/insult comments versus those from Congressional Democrats/mainstream media (opinion pieces excluded). Here's a Trump tweet from last night: No one has to make a case that Trump is the one on the attack. He states publicly that his response is to always hit back hard against any offense, whether real or imagined, fair or unfair. One only has to listen to what Trump says and tweets to see this is so. You need a mirror. By "get away with it completely" you mean holding Trump accountable for his crimes. And since he can't tell the difference between right and wrong in most things, he commits many of his crimes out in the open, such as releasing the incriminating Ukraine phone call reconstructed transcript and inviting China to join the Ukraine in investigating a political rival.--Percy