Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, December 09, 2019

On December 2, 2019, Republican staff of the three committees overseeing the impeachment inquiry published a report prepared for the GOP Chairs: Representatives Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan, and Michael McCaul. This report, however, is not a serious examination of the evidence, nor is it intended to be.


Alternate links: Google News | Twitter


Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Unlike the House Intelligence Committee's Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report , the minority staff report makes no attempt to construct a coherent statement of facts, nor to offer its own version of events as an alternative to the one set forth in the majority's report. The point of the minority report is not to offer an explanation of what really happened, but to make what really happened seem unknowable.

Not everything in the report is a lie. In many instances, it is clear that, where possible, there was great care taken to avoid outright mistruths, through the careful phrasing of arguments to suggest a more sweeping defense than is actually offered, or through focusing on irrelevant and ambiguous witness testimony while ignoring direct and clear testimony to the contrary.

Here is a list of the seven most damaging falsehoods included in the minority report:

1. "Although the security assistance was paused in July, it is not unusual for U.S. foreign assistance to become delayed." (Minority at 32)

2. "The President's initial hesitation [ ] to provide U.S. taxpayer-funded security assistance to Ukraine without thoughtful review is entirely prudent." (Minority at ii)

3. "President Trump was reluctant to meet with President Zelensky for a different reason"Ukraine's long history of pervasive corruption and uncertainty about whether President Zelensky would break from this history and live up to his anti-corruption campaign platform." (Minority at 14)

4. "The security assistance was ultimately disbursed to Ukraine in September 2019 without any Ukrainian action to investigate President Trump's political rival." (Minority at 64)

5. "The Ukrainian government denied any awareness of a linkage between U.S. security assistance and investigations" (Minority at 52)

6. "Although subsequent reporting has connoted a connection between "Burisma" and the Bidens, the Democrats' witnesses testified that they did not have that understanding while working with the Ukrainian government about a potential statement." (Minority at 57)

7. "Indisputable evidence shows that senior Ukrainian government officials sought to influence the 2016 election in favor of Secretary Clinton and against then-candidate Trump." (Minority at 86)

There are voluminously detailed factual recitations of every lie listed under each question's heading within this thread's article based on documented facts and sworn testimony.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-09 01:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here is the problem with Dems - they hold an OPINION and they think you are lying if you hold a different OPINION. In short, they no longer are able to separate FACTS from OPINIONS.

Take #2 as an example:

"The President's initial hesitation to provide U.S. taxpayer-funded security assistance to Ukraine without thoughtful review is entirely prudent."

There is no ability to factually debate this - IT IS AN OPINION.

or #7 as a further example:

"Indisputable evidence shows that senior Ukrainian government officials sought to influence the 2016 election in favor of Secretary Clinton and against then-candidate Trump."

Again - there is evidence. You want to debate whether it is 'indisputable' and call the statement a lie. That is moronic.

I think the issue boils down to the Loonie Lefties having free reign in academia, etc for too long where their moronic ideas go unchallenged because their collective bellowing doesn't amount to a pinch of ---- in reality or people are afraid of triggering them by interjecting actual facts in their arguments.

#2 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-09 04:29 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#2 | Posted by iragoldberg

Shameless, brainless, hack.

#3 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-12-09 07:08 AM | Reply


Douchebag hack that cannot understand the difference between an opinion and a fact. I would say you are brainwashed but the loonie left lacks the prerequisite materials.

#4 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-09 07:19 AM | Reply

What is amazing is that Fat Nixon had no problem giving all that aid to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018 with all that corruption there.

It was only when Biden entered the race did Fat Nixon have concerns about Ukraine.

#5 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-12-09 07:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The President's initial hesitation to provide U.S. taxpayer-funded security assistance to Ukraine without thoughtful review is entirely prudent."

There is no ability to factually debate this - IT IS AN OPINION.

Except there is a factual record that proves the assertion to be unmerited and false as I indicated could be found at the linked source:

The hold on the security assistance to Ukraine could have been neither "thoughtful" nor "prudent," as the minority report alleges, because it was devoid of any policy purpose whatsoever. As the witnesses unanimously testified, in announcing the hold, President Trump made no attempt to explain what policy purpose it was intended to serve:

*"The [OMB] official said that the order had come from the President and had been conveyed to OMB by Mr. Mulvaney without further explanation. ... NSC counterparts affirmed that there had been no change in our Ukraine policy, but could not determine the cause of the hold on how to lift it." (Holmes at 21)

*"OMB did not really explain why they were taking the position, other than they had been directed to do so," and "all that representative of *OMB said was the President has instructed, through Mr. Mulvaney, that [ ] the military aid be suspended." (Hale at 82, 105)

*"OMB never [ ] provide[d] a detailed explanation for the reason behind the hold." (Williams at 92)

*"There was great confusion among the rest of us because we didn't understand why that had happened." (Kent at 304)

*"I was adamantly [ ] opposed to any suspension of aid, as Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression. I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer; still haven't to this day." (Sondland public testimony)

*"And I couldn't tell [the Ukrainians why there was a hold]. I didn't know and I didn't tell them, because [ ] there'd been no guidance that I could give them." (Taylor at 138)

*"Nobody ever gave a reason why ... . There should have been [an explanation], but there wasn't." (Volker at 122)

*"Q: Was there any reason provided by the OMB reps on anyone else at the meeting for the hold? A: No." (Morrison at 162)
The agencies involved "were just wanting to find out [why the freeze had occurred]. And they were in touch with OMB, and they weren't getting much information apart from the fact there was a freeze." (Hill at 226)

*"The funds were held without explanation." (Cooper at 45)

*"[B]asically we were trying to get to the bottom of why this hold was in place, why OMB was applying this hold." (Vindman at 181)

*"It wasn't clear where [the decision] was coming from as we pushed this into the PCC process, which is the best way to come to a decision, and if somebody is blocking this, they need to sort of show their hand." (Reeker at 167)

At the time the hold was announced, the only known person to have knowledge as to why the hold was being implement was, once again, President Trump himself. Not a single other government official was able to offer an explanation as to why he had done this.

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-09 08:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Eventually, in the face of sustained questioning by both Cabinet Secretaries and members of Congress, the Trump administration would come to offer two explanations for why the hold had been placed: (1) that President Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, and (2) that President Trump was concerned about Europe not contributing enough to Ukraine. Neither of these after-the-fact justifications for Trump's actions find support in the record.

"President Trump was not prepared' to lift the pause on security assistance to Ukraine, citing Ukrainian corruption" (Minority at 48)

The first explanation for why President Trump had ordered the hold came during a Deputies Committee meeting convened in late July or early August in order to figure out a way to have the hold released. (Morrison at 165) During this meeting, OMB informed the other agencies "that the President was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, and he wanted to make sure that Ukraine was doing enough to manage that corruption." (Morrison at 165)

Neither President Trump nor the OMB have ever attempted to explain what sort of anticorruption reform measures President Trump was seeking, or what changes would be necessary to convince President Trump that Ukraine was "doing enough." And at no point has President Trump or the OMB or anyone else offered an explanation for why the anticorruption reform measures that are already part of the obligation process were not sufficient to satisfy President Trump's concerns.

In May, two months before the hold was announced, the federal government had already certified Ukraine's compliance with the anticorruption benchmarks established and monitored by an interagency process. That process was complete. Both the Department of Defense and the Department of State had signed off on a certification that "Ukraine had met all the necessary anticorruption requirements as well as other benchmarks [ ] under U.S. law in order to obtain" the security assistance. (Cooper at 32)In the end, the security assistance was released without any attempts to monitor whether Ukraine was meeting additional benchmarks or meeting any newly imposed anticorruption requirements. The certifications had already all been completed, and the Department of Defense "did not conduct any sort of review [ ] about whether Ukraine was making any sort of progress with regard to its anticorruption efforts in July or August or beginning of September." (Cooper at 92-93)

So as stated with certainty, not a shred of credible evidence exists that supports the GOP assertion that "thoughtful review" of Ukraine corruption already hadn't been done comprehensively, and that there was not a single effort made by any governmental agency nor the White House to review the already made efforts which would have precipitated the aides release in September. IE., the assertion by Trump and the GOP is based wholly on lies, not facts based on evidence nor actions any of them actually undertook.

#7 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-09 08:15 AM | Reply

Maybe Tony Spam-a-lot can post 5000 words today, breaking yesterday's gold medal performance.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-09 08:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

At least Tony actually has something to say Nulli, not just "get off my lawn." And Ira Goldberg, hilarious. I'm thinking lately that he must be a parody of a right wing moron because no one is really that idiotic. I hope.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-09 08:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

--At least Tony actually has something to say

More accurately, something to cut and paste.

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-09 08:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

At least Tony actually has something to say Nulli,

Is his plonked behind still stalking my posts? Glad that I can give him what little pleasure his miserable existence affords such an insecure, bitter man in miniscule dribs and drabs. As I've mentioned before, these threads read much more coherently if you have Nulli plonked and visually ignore his asinine asides.

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-09 08:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--if you have Nulli plonked and visually ignore his asinine asides.

You certainly can't ignore Spam-a-Roma's walls of text. All you can do is wear out your scroll down key.

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-09 08:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#12 stop whining you worthless waste of space.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-09 11:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Article's #7 is a lie, not only did Ukraine interfere in the 2016 election, they broke the law to do so, at least according to their own courts as reported by:

One must wonder why tonyroma would push a narrative that includes such a spectacularly false statement like that. Is tonyroma ignorant of the situation, or are they intentionally trying to mislead everyone?

#14 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-09 12:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

That number seems to way low.

#15 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-12-09 12:46 PM | Reply

As opposed to 17 lies in the FISA application.

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-09 06:25 PM | Reply


Them Deep Staters sure are incompetent ain't they?

#17 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-09 07:12 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort