...Re-Inverting It.
WhatWouldJohnnyAppleSay
RWVille
Kenneth Vogel and Michael Schmidt wrote a piece that was published, above the fold, on the front page of yesterday's dead tree version of the New York Times.
The headline over top the thing was 'U.S. Envoys Drafted Statement Binding Kiev To Inquiries'.
The first paragraph went like this:
Two of President Trump’s top envoys to Ukraine worked on a statement for the country’s new president in August that would have committed Ukraine to pursuing investigations sought by Mr. Trump into his political rivals, according to three people briefed on the effort and documents released Thursday night...
And if you wanted to know something about the validity of the 'investigations' being sought by Mr. Trump you had to wait for the 21st paragraph that appeared on pg 21 after the jump:
...Mr. Trump’s regular suggestions that Ukraine, rather than Russia, was responsible for the 2016 hacking of the Democratic National Committee have been thoroughly debunked. While some Ukrainian officials expressed opposition to Mr. Trump in 2016, claims by Mr. Trump and his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, that documents released in Ukraine that year implicating Mr. Manafort in financial fraud were falsified or doctored have not been substantiated...
Which is as straightforward and explicit as it should be.
So good on Mess'rs Vogel and Schmidt for getting it in there.
But...
When the facts that matter are buried so deep in the story that 98.3% of readers have already moved on to the latest slop from David Brooks on the same day's NYT OpEd page, is it any wonder that those not paying very close attention have no idea what's really going on here?
_______
Real question, of course, is...Who positioned 21on 21, the authors or the editors?
.
5 comments:
Excellent post!
Cathie!
Hope all is well with you and yours.
.
Giuliani, Barr, and Pompeo have been scurrying about internationally beating discredited conspiracy bushes in a desperate attempt to dig up something, anything, that will pin a tail on Biden. The slimiest election rocks are also being overturned by these upstanding heroes in hopes of finding Ukrainian meddlers instead of Russian. Distasteful to be sure. But illegal or impeachable?
Impeachment articles are unlikely to be founded on whether or not the witch hunt is based on discredited theory. They will be concerned and constructed according to the extent presidential power has been (ab)used in the hunt.
That’s where details of a certain presidential phone call, and subsequent official attempts to have the Ukrainian president tie a public ribbon around its major ask become salient.
“The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news,” Trump said, according to the transcript. He went on to add, “She’s going to go through some things.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/masha-yovanovitch-us-ambassador-to-ukraine-donald-trump
It seems that Mr. Giuliani is going to “go through some things” as well.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/politics/guliani-client-arrested-campaign-finance/index.html
Who knows, he might even make it from page 21 to above the fold.
Indeed. It would appear that this just may be Rudy's last act.
Post a Comment