Yes. I went through this 2-3 years ago.
Hey, remember that Trump said on that interview (earlier in this thread) he'd contacted the DoJ urging co-operative action? Turns out he's actually been obstructing them for months. So that was basically a lie - who'd have thought?
Most people resign because they don't like their boss. I imagine there's a good chance that's the case here.
They quite literally did, or more specifically the need for one.
I strongly disagree. She put special emphasis on the phrasing used. She did not simply agree to Schiff's language that the Ukrainian's were "concerned about the status of the military assistance". She hesitated to call that summary "correct", and she was very specific that their language "what was going on with", which is much more general phrasing than being concerned over the status. Do you not see when he asks if they were concerned over the status, she answers "sir that's......... correct, I would specifically say..." Laura Cooper wasn't even confident they were concerned over the status when she gave that testimony, and wanted to be clear on the record about exactly what was said.
Let's work with this. Because there are certainly lots of things in here where, in a vacuum, I would agree that I'm not taking the most likely interpretation. But these things aren't in a vacuum, nor are they in a series where each event just leads into the next. All these events exist in parallel, and provide hints towards one another, and if two 80s create a contradiction, you should be trying to figure out which one (if not both) is the 20. Like, coincidentally enough, 80:20 is almost exactly the mine density in expert minesweeper. One could describe that game as finding out where all the 20% probabilities landed. Your tactic is basically "every square is 80% to be clear, so I'll click them all". You are deciding to lose the game. You can say all you want that something isn't the most reasonable interpretation, but a lot of the time the most reasonable interpretation in a vacuum is an outright contradiction to the other information we have.
It just doesn't matter whether Zelenskyy found out precisely on the day of the call: it's a nitpick of no relevance to the bigger picture people care about.
You're right: it does require some 20% options. Mathematically, about a fifth of the time. This does not adequately explain why you pick the 20% almost all the time.
So, more convenient presumption.
No, you've misrepresented what happened. Again.
Special emphasis on phrasing. Yes. She also strongly emphasised that the Ukrainians knew something was amiss, but you're wilfully overlooking that snippet.
As far as I can tell, you are imagining this. She did not talk to Ukrainians about this, a member of her staff did. That staff member was asked "what is going on with assistance", and said they were moving forward with their part of it. That is what she testified about this inquiry by Ukraine, no more, no less. And she seems quite professional, I don't imagine I missed the part where she confidently made that much conjecture about a conversation somebody else had and relayed to her.
That this would be your takeaway is frankly amazing to me, to the point where I have to wonder whether it's merely a clear blind spot, or if you're wilfully overlooking the substance of the interview.
That this would be your argument is frankly amazing to me, to the point where I have to wonder if it's merely ignorance on your part, or if you're willfully listening to Adam Schiff.
I think we largely agree on the raw information. But information also requires interpretation and analysis. It's your too frequent contorted or implausible interpretations I take issue with.
If your argument is nothing but an ad hominem, what is the point of it?
No part of the argument rests on the credibility of the person asking the question. This is pure deflection.
Your contextual understanding of the English language cannot be this poor.
You should never trust any politician asking yes or no questions, they are an infamous tool for putting words into people's mouths in contrived ways.
You find my interpretations implausible and contorted because you you refuse to accept any explanation where people other than Donald Trump have agency over their own actions, which is your contorted view of things.
Oh, it does. Yes or no questions frequently force people into positions of giving misleading answers.
If you can't read the sentence "What's going on with the security assistance in at least two different tones, you're really missing out on a lot of options in your communication." Like, you're telling me that the specific phrase "what is going on" has a strictly negative connotation.
Firstly, Donald Trump implicated himself in things like his conversation with Zelenskyy, and implicated himself by sending Giuliani to dig dirt, by ordering Sondland to interfere in concert with Giuliani. So there is clear evidence of Trump's personal involvement in conspiracy. That's a baseline.
You should probably mention people from Ukraine, but they don't really mesh with your view of things. Better to just pretend they're all npcs, right?
This is all just so, so weak. The mental gymnastics required to dip, dive, and dodge away from the clearly intended meaning is... is amazing.
But nobody ever said "something is going on." The question "what is goin on with X" is a perfectly valid sentence for a simple status inquiry.
And it's not the exchange that happened.
