Media Coverage of Ukraine Before and After the War

submitted by Tarrock from (media.communities.win)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Site_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Pdf here

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776075849/read-former-ukraine-ambassador-yovanovitchs-testimony-to-congress

Zero uses of the term "olive branch"

The term "anti-tank" appears once on page 189, and rather than trump asking for anticorruption measures, he's asking for Zelenskyy to look into Biden dirt.

So I'm not sure if your post is really grounded in reality

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The Javelin anti tank weapons, were material support the US had agreed to give Ukraine. They were talked about extensively in the testimony; how she agreed with arming them, pressuring Russia through doing so, and how it affected the EU/US relationship with Ukraine.

She detailed extensively how this wasn't "Biden dirt", but a serious corruption issue that plagued our State Department's efforts in supporting Ukraine an their anti-corruption overhaul. She explained how companies would hire on to their boards, prominent foreign people, to buy credibility, how Burisma was suspected of corruption, how the investigation was simply put on hold, and how all the things Trump asked about, where current and relevant large and long standing corruption issues related to the US and Ukraine, not personal dirt on a rival....like the falsified Steele Dossier.

Yet, you are right, the part about the olive branch is missing and so is her explaining when an ambassador should step down, before being confused at why she was fired, explaining how the accusations against her, fit the reason to step down, without realizing it.

There is also additions about Russia, and what seem more like current Ukraine/Russia propaganda, I don't recall being there. I think I will see if I can dig up a backup copy, in case the currently hosted one might be altered.

[–]Site_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Clearly you're trying to gaslight and lie to the fine truthseekers of saidit. I don't know if you're a paid cabalist shill or not, but I can prove you very wrong here.

The Javelin anti tank weapons, were material support the US had agreed to give Ukraine. They were talked about extensively in the testimony;

She detailed extensively how this wasn't "Biden dirt", but a serious corruption issue

'Anti-tank' appears once in the text on page 189. The word 'Javelin' appears 12 times and not once does she say they're held up for anything other than trump's domestic politics.

Q: Then immediately after President Zelensky mentions the Javelins, on the top of page 3, President Trump mentions CrowdStrike, and then he also says, The server, they say Ukraine has it.

A: Yeah.

Q: Do you have any understanding of what the President was talking about there?

A: Well, I didn't at the time that I first read this summary, but obviously, there has been explanation in the news.

Q: And what's your understanding?

A: Well, that the server that was used to hack the DNC

The fact that you think someone altered congressional record to cover up for trump's crimes speaks to your total derangement, nobody could be as crazy as your suggestion that the record has been altered, that's how I know you're probably a paid shill for the trumpist cabal

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why don't you just try reading the whole thing instead of searching for keywords, which never works well on crap PDF scans of documents.

Yes, we were giving anti-tank javelin rockets to Ukraine. That was really well known and not something you need to rely on this testimony to know about.

Don't worry, I was busy this weekend, but I have a backed up copy from before to verify. The part of the olive leave/branch line was in her into statement, which she dropped to the press before her deposition, in fear that she would be misrepresented by the Congressional investigators. Yes, lots of history gets rewritten on the Internet very regularly. Documents get altered, the Wayback machine gets it's history cropped, and Wikipedia gets its change log trimmed, especially for political reasons. A good example of that happening is here.

[–]Site_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

try reading the whole thing

Because it's 317 pages long and I have better things to do than reading 317 pages of dry testimony. You're the one saying it's relevant - why don't you go and read all 317 pages instead of telling others to. Then tell me which pages to look at.

That's like me saying - there's a flying spaghetti monster around mars. And it's existence is very clearly proven in the text. But you'll have to go read the entire corpus of human literature to find the proof because I'm not going to tell you where it is.

Here are a few of the unsubstantiated points you made, which aren't backed up in the text you cited.

  1. Trump was goaded/"set up" to ask for domestic political support.

  2. Trump just wanted some anti corruption measure before sending the agreed weaponry.

  3. She admitted to being corrupt and said those who blew the whistle on her were punished by the US criminal justice system.

The real truth is that Giuliani, Lev Parnas and corrupt prosecutor Lutsenko cooked up a "drug deal" of disinfo and accusations against Ambassador Yovanovic and trump was either stupid or crooked enough to believe them.

Now because the written record proves that, you're having to make up and spin a bunch of nonsense where she actually says the exact opposite of what she is recorded as saying. That's called gaslighting, and like trump, you're either stupid or a crook to go along with it

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You didn't read all this back when it was happening? Then you probably shouldn't have an opinion on this....

You are nit-picking super hard.

...and you've heavily misrepresented what I've said with your shitty numbered list.

You are not arguing in good faith.

[–]Site_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bruh it's not nitpicking, I'm pointing out how virtually everything you wrote is unsupported in the evidence you cite. You're not grounded in reality.

Oh you didn't read about the flying spaghetti monster yet? It's right there within the text, there in the entire corpus of human writings, and don't you dare hold an opinion on whether a flying monster made of spaghetti can exist in the vacuum of space until you've read it, because that would make you a hypocrite