The Horowitz report is here: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf It is a very long and boring document. One thing that stands out is the heavy use of acronyms. So here is a partial list:
AAG - Acting Attorney General
AD - Assistant Director
AG - Attorney General
ALAT - Assistant Legal Attache
ASAC - Assistant Special Agent in Charge
CD - Counterintelligence Division
CDC - Chief Division Counsel
CDPG - Counterintelligence Division Policy Guide
CES - Counterintelligence and Export Control Section
C.F.R. - Code of Federal Regulations
CHS - Confidential Human Source
CHSPG - Confidential Human Source Policy Guide
CI - Counterintelligence
CIA - Central Intelligence Agency
CRM - Criminal Division
DAD - Deputy Assistant Director
DAG - Deputy Attorney General
DCCC - Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
DIOG - Domestic Investigations Operations Guide
DNC - Democratic National Committee
DNI - Director of National Intelligence
DOJ - Department of Justice
EAD - Executive Assistant Director
EC - Electronic Communication
EO - Executive Order
FARA - Foreign Agents Registration Act
FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
FD-302 - ??? (FBI report)
FFG - Friendly Foreign Government
FIFA - International Federation of Association Football [Yes this is in the report, page v]
FISA - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
FISAMS - FISA Management System
FISC - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
FOASR - Field Office Annual Source Report
FSB - Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation
GPS - as in Fusion GPS. Not defined.
GS-15 - ??? (government level)
HPSCI - House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
HSVR - Human Source Validation Review
ICA - Intelligence Community Assessment
IIR - Intelligence Information Report
Legat - FBI Legal Attache
LHM - Letterhead Memoranda
MLARS - Money Launderation and Asset Recovery Section
NARA - National Archive and Records Administration
NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NSCLB - National Security and Cyber Law Branch
NSD - National Security Division
NYFO - New York Field Office
OCDETF - Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force
ODAG - Office of the Deputy Attorney General
ODNI - Office of the Director of National Intelligence
OGC - Office of General Counsel
OI - Office of Intelligence
OIG - Office of the Inspector General
PADAG - Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General
PC - probable cause
POTUS - President of the United States (at the time, Obama)
QSSR - Quarterly Supervisory Source Report
RIS - Russian Intelligence Service
RNC - Republican National Convention (or Committee)
SAC - Special Agent in Charge
SC - Section Chief
SCINet - ??? (FBI secret network)
SDNY - Southern District of New York
SES - Senior Executive Service
SIM - Sensitive Investigative Matter
SMPPG - Standard Minimization Procedures Policy Guide
SORM - ??? (Russian monitoring network)
SOS - Staff Operations Specialist
SSA - Supervisory Special Agent
SSCI - Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
SVR - ??? (Russian intelligence)
TDY - Temporary Duty Assignment
TOC-East - Transnational Organized Crime East
TOCIU - Transnational Organized Crime Intelligence Unit
TP - Talking Point
UC - Unit Chief
UCE - Undercover Employee
UDP - Undisclosed Participation
USG - US Government
USIC - United States Intelligence Community
VMU - Validation Management Unit
VSM - Confidential Human Source Validation Standards Manual
WFO - Washington Field Office
Friday, December 27, 2019
How the City of Tomorrow became a total nightmare
https://www.thedailybeast.com/celebration-florida-how-disneys-community-of-tomorrow-became-a-total-nightmare?ref=home
In the movie version of Celebration, the story might start in 1966, when Walt Disney released a 25-minute video outlining plans for what he called The Florida Project. Later that year, Disney died. The EPCOT plan was shelved, though Disney did name one of their theme parks, EPCOT Center, in its honor. But in 1994, the company resurrected the idea, annexing some 4,900 acres of land and breaking ground on what would become Celebration. The intentional community was an experiment in New Urbanism, a neo-traditional planning movement that sought a return to early American small town life by designing compact, walkable cities with diverse housing options, mixed local businesses, and abundant public space.
The basic problem was that the buildings were owned by Town Center Foundation, a non-profit organization, not the Condominium Association, and the condo owners had no voice. The Foundation could decide to repair the buildings or let them fall into neglect. And when they repaired the buildings, they could assess (basically tax) the owners. It was taxation without representation.
See also: The Experimental Prototype Hellhole of Tomorrow.
In the movie version of Celebration, the story might start in 1966, when Walt Disney released a 25-minute video outlining plans for what he called The Florida Project. Later that year, Disney died. The EPCOT plan was shelved, though Disney did name one of their theme parks, EPCOT Center, in its honor. But in 1994, the company resurrected the idea, annexing some 4,900 acres of land and breaking ground on what would become Celebration. The intentional community was an experiment in New Urbanism, a neo-traditional planning movement that sought a return to early American small town life by designing compact, walkable cities with diverse housing options, mixed local businesses, and abundant public space.
The basic problem was that the buildings were owned by Town Center Foundation, a non-profit organization, not the Condominium Association, and the condo owners had no voice. The Foundation could decide to repair the buildings or let them fall into neglect. And when they repaired the buildings, they could assess (basically tax) the owners. It was taxation without representation.
See also: The Experimental Prototype Hellhole of Tomorrow.
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
The power of a 14 hour intermittent fast
A 14-hour intermittent fast isn't very hard to do. But it resulted in an average 5% weight loss of participants over 12 weeks, and the drop-out rate was very low.
Abuse of quasi-governments in Colorado
Colorado has entities called Metropolitan Districts and there are over 1,900 of them in the state. They were designed to pay for roads, sidewalks, sewer and water lines and they can issue bonds and levy taxes. In some cases they operate well, but in others there are outrageous abuses.
They can be formed by developers who initially have total control over spending. Then the homeowners who buy homes in the district are stuck with huge property tax bills. For example, Coal Creek, in Aurora, has 5 metro districts that borrowed $192 million. Only 6 people, all developers, voted to authorize the debt in 2015.
There are master and servant districts. In this arrangement, a tiny piece of land is the master, and it is subdivided microscopically so a handful of people control the master, which controls the spending. The servant districts have to pay for the taxes but don't get to vote.
The Denver Post has written extensively about the problems but the articles are all behind a paywall.
They can be formed by developers who initially have total control over spending. Then the homeowners who buy homes in the district are stuck with huge property tax bills. For example, Coal Creek, in Aurora, has 5 metro districts that borrowed $192 million. Only 6 people, all developers, voted to authorize the debt in 2015.
There are master and servant districts. In this arrangement, a tiny piece of land is the master, and it is subdivided microscopically so a handful of people control the master, which controls the spending. The servant districts have to pay for the taxes but don't get to vote.
The Denver Post has written extensively about the problems but the articles are all behind a paywall.
Declaration of War
President Trump declared war on the Democrats yesterday with his letter to Pelosi. Here is the most incendiary language:
This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history. By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme—yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America’s founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build.
Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening. Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College landslide (306-227), and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat. You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it! You are unwilling and unable to accept the verdict issued at the ballot box during the great Election of 2016. So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and nullify their votes. You View democracy as your enemy!
Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment—against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle—is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America’s Constitutional order.
You and others on your committees have long said impeachment must be bipartisan—it is not. You said it was very divisive—it certainly is, even far more than you ever thought possible—and it will only get worse!
You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans.
=====================
Here is a completely unrelated article which says nothing about impeachment but has the same theme:
================================
I don't know what to say. I think everyone should take a break and chill down the rhetoric. I don't blame Trump for defending himself.
No one will read this, but I call on Congress to put the impeachment on hold until after the 2020 elections. Give the voters a chance to weigh in. If Trump is really that evil, as his detractors say, then they will have much more to charge him with.
The Democrats are idiots. As a strategic matter, they should hold off until they have a decent chance of winning. If you take a shot at the king, you better not miss. Payback is a bitch. But the Democrats don't understand that. They are about to fire the opening shot in the war which they are about to lose.
This thing could escalate from a war of words to more street violence. I hope not.
This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history. By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme—yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America’s founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build.
Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening. Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College landslide (306-227), and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat. You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it! You are unwilling and unable to accept the verdict issued at the ballot box during the great Election of 2016. So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and nullify their votes. You View democracy as your enemy!
Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment—against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle—is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America’s Constitutional order.
You and others on your committees have long said impeachment must be bipartisan—it is not. You said it was very divisive—it certainly is, even far more than you ever thought possible—and it will only get worse!
You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans.
=====================
Here is a completely unrelated article which says nothing about impeachment but has the same theme:
- We don’t believe you.
- You are all dishonest crooks and horrible people who should never be trusted again.
- The intelligence community is the enemy of the people and must be dismantled if any American is to ever be truly free.
- We are not going to voluntarily hand over our guns. You may come try to take them by force, but we will shoot you if you try.
- We are withdrawing our consent. You are now a rogue enemy government that we finally recognize as the ENEMY.
- We are never going to vote for establishment candidates ever again.
- We will not live as slaves, suffering under your tyranny. We would rather die as Americans, defending our liberty and our republic.
- If we ever get the chance, we will arrest all of you and throw you in prison for as long as you live.
- We will no longer cooperate with your sham court system, your corrupt FBI and your lawless federal regulators. They are all fraudulent, criminal cartels that have no legitimate authority. You have lost the consent of “the governed.”
- Your fiat currency financial system and debt Ponzi scheme is a criminal fraud that steals money from the working class. We will no longer hold your dollars and will seek alternatives at every opportunity.
================================
I don't know what to say. I think everyone should take a break and chill down the rhetoric. I don't blame Trump for defending himself.
No one will read this, but I call on Congress to put the impeachment on hold until after the 2020 elections. Give the voters a chance to weigh in. If Trump is really that evil, as his detractors say, then they will have much more to charge him with.
The Democrats are idiots. As a strategic matter, they should hold off until they have a decent chance of winning. If you take a shot at the king, you better not miss. Payback is a bitch. But the Democrats don't understand that. They are about to fire the opening shot in the war which they are about to lose.
This thing could escalate from a war of words to more street violence. I hope not.
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
House Judiciary Report
It is available here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6579566/House-Judiciary-Committee-Impeachment-Report.pdf
I haven't read it but it seems similar to the Intelligence report. Here are uses of the word "debunked" or "bogus":
a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election (5)
He asked Ukraine to announce two bogus investigations: one into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., then his leading opponent in the 2020 election, and another to advance a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, attacked our elections in 2016. (9)
into a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election (15)
a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election (83)
into a discredited theory (91)
On that call, he requested that President Zelensky investigate the widely debunked conspiracy theory that the Ukrainian government—and not Russia—was behind the hack of Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network in 2016. (94)
as President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert made clear, the idea of Ukraine hacking the DNC server was “not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.” (101)
None of the 17 witnesses who appeared as part of this inquiry testified that they were aware of any factual basis to support the allegation that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election; rather, multiple witnesses confirmed that these were false, debunked conspiracy theories. As Dr. Fiona Hill testified, “[t]his is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.” (116)
FBI Director Pushes Back on Debunked Conspiracy Theory About 2016 Election Interference, (117)
this theory has “no validity” and is “completely debunked.” Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Theory Was ‘Completely Debunked’ (117)
President Trump’s removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch following a discredited smear campaign on her character (121)
into discredited claims about election interference in 2016 (127)
He has abused his power in soliciting and pressuring a vulnerable foreign nation to corrupt the next United States Presidential election by sabotaging a political opponent and endorsing a debunked conspiracy theory promoted by our adversary, Russia. (143)
a discredited conspiracy theory (160)
Although Democrats have attempted to discredit these assertions as “debunked,” the statements by Ukrainian leaders speak for themselves and shed light on President Trump’s mindset when interacting with President Zelensky in 2019. (246)
Calling these allegations “debunked” and “conspiracy theories,” Democrats ignore irrefutable evidence that is inconvenient for their political narrative. (315)
a discredited theory (372)
a discredited conspiracy theory (373)
Mr. Giuliani also made discredited public allegations about former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter (398)
Mr. Lutsenko promoted debunked conspiracy theories that had gained traction with President Trump and Mr. Giuliani. Those debunked conspiracy theories alleged (402)
President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor, Tom Bossert, said that the idea of Ukraine hacking the DNC server was “not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.” (402)
Rudy Giuliani also announced a plan to visit Ukraine in mid-May 2019—not on official U.S. government business, but instead to pursue on behalf of his client, President Trump, the debunked conspiracy theories about alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and discredited claims about the Bidens. (411)
into the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. election (443)
Mr. Giuliani and Ambassador Volker discussed the discredited allegations against former Vice President Biden (452)
a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. ...a debunked conspiracy theory (458)
She noted that President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster repeatedly advised the President that the so-called “CrowdStrike” conspiracy theory that President Trump raised in the July 25 call is completely “debunked,” and that allegations Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election are false. (458)
Witnesses unanimously testified that President Trump’s claims about former Vice President Biden and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election have been discredited. (458)
He first requested that Ukraine investigate a discredited conspiracy theory aimed at undercutting the U.S. Intelligence Community’s unanimous conclusion that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. election (461)
President Trump was referencing the widely debunked conspiracy theory (461)
Tom Bossert, President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor, stated publicly that the CrowdStrike theory is “not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.” (461)
Lt. Col. Vindman testified during his deposition that, prior to the July 25 call, he was aware of concerns from former National Security Advisor John Bolton and other U.S. officials that President Trump might raise these discredited issues with President Zelensky (465)
a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election (486)
the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton. (490)
Solomon, John Author of articles promoting debunked conspiracy theories (655)
Again, who is the debunker? Is there some report that debunks these ideas? Is anything that Fiona Hill said absolutely true and anything the John Solomon says absolutely false?
And what are the supposed "debunked" conspiracy theories? 1. That Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential elections to help Hillary Clinton. Is this possible? 2. That Joe Biden interfered to stop the investigation of Burisma? That is absolutely a fact and is not debunked.
I haven't read it but it seems similar to the Intelligence report. Here are uses of the word "debunked" or "bogus":
a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election (5)
He asked Ukraine to announce two bogus investigations: one into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., then his leading opponent in the 2020 election, and another to advance a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, attacked our elections in 2016. (9)
into a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election (15)
a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election (83)
into a discredited theory (91)
On that call, he requested that President Zelensky investigate the widely debunked conspiracy theory that the Ukrainian government—and not Russia—was behind the hack of Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network in 2016. (94)
as President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert made clear, the idea of Ukraine hacking the DNC server was “not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.” (101)
None of the 17 witnesses who appeared as part of this inquiry testified that they were aware of any factual basis to support the allegation that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election; rather, multiple witnesses confirmed that these were false, debunked conspiracy theories. As Dr. Fiona Hill testified, “[t]his is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.” (116)
FBI Director Pushes Back on Debunked Conspiracy Theory About 2016 Election Interference, (117)
this theory has “no validity” and is “completely debunked.” Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Theory Was ‘Completely Debunked’ (117)
President Trump’s removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch following a discredited smear campaign on her character (121)
into discredited claims about election interference in 2016 (127)
He has abused his power in soliciting and pressuring a vulnerable foreign nation to corrupt the next United States Presidential election by sabotaging a political opponent and endorsing a debunked conspiracy theory promoted by our adversary, Russia. (143)
a discredited conspiracy theory (160)
Although Democrats have attempted to discredit these assertions as “debunked,” the statements by Ukrainian leaders speak for themselves and shed light on President Trump’s mindset when interacting with President Zelensky in 2019. (246)
Calling these allegations “debunked” and “conspiracy theories,” Democrats ignore irrefutable evidence that is inconvenient for their political narrative. (315)
a discredited theory (372)
a discredited conspiracy theory (373)
Mr. Giuliani also made discredited public allegations about former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter (398)
Mr. Lutsenko promoted debunked conspiracy theories that had gained traction with President Trump and Mr. Giuliani. Those debunked conspiracy theories alleged (402)
President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor, Tom Bossert, said that the idea of Ukraine hacking the DNC server was “not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.” (402)
Rudy Giuliani also announced a plan to visit Ukraine in mid-May 2019—not on official U.S. government business, but instead to pursue on behalf of his client, President Trump, the debunked conspiracy theories about alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and discredited claims about the Bidens. (411)
into the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. election (443)
Mr. Giuliani and Ambassador Volker discussed the discredited allegations against former Vice President Biden (452)
a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. ...a debunked conspiracy theory (458)
She noted that President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster repeatedly advised the President that the so-called “CrowdStrike” conspiracy theory that President Trump raised in the July 25 call is completely “debunked,” and that allegations Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election are false. (458)
Witnesses unanimously testified that President Trump’s claims about former Vice President Biden and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election have been discredited. (458)
He first requested that Ukraine investigate a discredited conspiracy theory aimed at undercutting the U.S. Intelligence Community’s unanimous conclusion that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. election (461)
President Trump was referencing the widely debunked conspiracy theory (461)
Tom Bossert, President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor, stated publicly that the CrowdStrike theory is “not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.” (461)
Lt. Col. Vindman testified during his deposition that, prior to the July 25 call, he was aware of concerns from former National Security Advisor John Bolton and other U.S. officials that President Trump might raise these discredited issues with President Zelensky (465)
a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election (486)
the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton. (490)
Solomon, John Author of articles promoting debunked conspiracy theories (655)
Again, who is the debunker? Is there some report that debunks these ideas? Is anything that Fiona Hill said absolutely true and anything the John Solomon says absolutely false?
And what are the supposed "debunked" conspiracy theories? 1. That Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential elections to help Hillary Clinton. Is this possible? 2. That Joe Biden interfered to stop the investigation of Burisma? That is absolutely a fact and is not debunked.
Monday, December 16, 2019
Omad
This video is extremely confusing because the guy has a strong accent and he talks fast and throws out lots of technical terms and doesn't really have a conclusion. Its probably worth watching a couple of times. But I did get that you can burn fat with up to 100g of carbs a day while doing OMAD.
Friday, December 13, 2019
Can you lose weight on a high carb diet?
I think I have posted about this before but can't find it. I am proposing a diet similar to the following:
1. Intermittent fasting. No eating before noon, no eating after 9. So an 8 hour eating windows. This is basically 16/8 intermittent fasting.
2. High starch. The bulk of the calories will come from either potatoes or rice. Or beans.
3. Veggies of course are allowed, with an emphasis on cabbage, but just because I like cabbage.
4. No animal products. No meat, cheese, butter, or oil. Well they aren't totally banned, but just in limited quantities for flavor or salad dressing or a topping on a salad or potato.
5. No wheat or corn. No bread or tortillas. A limited amount of pasta is allowed.
6. French fries are allowed, as are potato salad and baked potato with toppings.
7. Junk food is allowed in limited quantities. (Twinkies, ice cream). Fruit is also allowed in limited quantities.
8. Absolutely no high fructose corn syrup. Sugar is much to be preferred.
Ok, this sounds crazy but here is the logic:
1. Fasting is where the weight loss occurs.
2. Meat and cheese actually make you hungrier and they also make you constipated. Protein isn't actually needed unless you are a body builder or trying to gain weight. Protein also has an effect on insulin, not as much as carbs, but it is still there. But the main reason for going low protein is because something has to give if you are eating high carb and medium fat.
3. Carbs have more fiber than protein, obviously.
4. Carbs cause weight gain but only if you are on a low-carb diet and then eat carbs again. If you lose weight on a high-carb diet, then you won't have this problem. You don't have to worry about a cheat meal because you can cheat every day.
5. Carbs are more satisfying.
6. This is still better than the standard american diet because there is no hamburgers or pizza or burritos. This is kind of a vegetarian diet, although not strict.
Anyways that is what I am thinking about at the moment.
Update: I think one meal a day after 4PM is preferable. With a 1 hour eating window this is a 23:1 plan.
1. Intermittent fasting. No eating before noon, no eating after 9. So an 8 hour eating windows. This is basically 16/8 intermittent fasting.
2. High starch. The bulk of the calories will come from either potatoes or rice. Or beans.
3. Veggies of course are allowed, with an emphasis on cabbage, but just because I like cabbage.
4. No animal products. No meat, cheese, butter, or oil. Well they aren't totally banned, but just in limited quantities for flavor or salad dressing or a topping on a salad or potato.
5. No wheat or corn. No bread or tortillas. A limited amount of pasta is allowed.
6. French fries are allowed, as are potato salad and baked potato with toppings.
7. Junk food is allowed in limited quantities. (Twinkies, ice cream). Fruit is also allowed in limited quantities.
8. Absolutely no high fructose corn syrup. Sugar is much to be preferred.
Ok, this sounds crazy but here is the logic:
1. Fasting is where the weight loss occurs.
2. Meat and cheese actually make you hungrier and they also make you constipated. Protein isn't actually needed unless you are a body builder or trying to gain weight. Protein also has an effect on insulin, not as much as carbs, but it is still there. But the main reason for going low protein is because something has to give if you are eating high carb and medium fat.
3. Carbs have more fiber than protein, obviously.
4. Carbs cause weight gain but only if you are on a low-carb diet and then eat carbs again. If you lose weight on a high-carb diet, then you won't have this problem. You don't have to worry about a cheat meal because you can cheat every day.
5. Carbs are more satisfying.
6. This is still better than the standard american diet because there is no hamburgers or pizza or burritos. This is kind of a vegetarian diet, although not strict.
Anyways that is what I am thinking about at the moment.
Update: I think one meal a day after 4PM is preferable. With a 1 hour eating window this is a 23:1 plan.
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
IG Report and Articles of Impeachment
The IG report is here: https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf. It is 476 pages.
The Articles of Impeachment are here: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/Articles%20of%20Impeachment.pdf
A summary of the Articles are:
1. Abuse of Power
Trump solicited the interference of Ukraine in the 2020 elections. He tried to get Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into: (A) Joseph Biden, a political opponent and (B) the theory that Ukraine interfered into the 2016 elections. Trump pressured Ukraine by: (A) suspending $391 million of military funds and (B) promising a meeting of Ukraine with Trump.
2. Obstruction of Congress.
Trump directed Executive Branch employees not to comply with subpoenas. Specifically: (1) the White House withheld documents, (2) other departments such as the State Department withheld documents, and (3) Trump directed officials such as Mick Mulvaney not to cooperate.
That's it. My quick thoughts:
1. Did Trump ever mention the name Joe Biden during his phone call with the Ukrainian president?
The transcript is here: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/trump-ukraine-phone-call-transcript-text-pdf-1510770 . Here are the key lines:
Trump: "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it .. it sounds horrible to me."
Ukrainian president Zelenskyy: "He or she [the new prosecutor] will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue".
It sounds to me like Trump is asking Zelenskyy to open an investigation as to why the previous prosecutor [Viktor Shokin] was fired. Was it because he was corrupt, or was it to stop him from investigating Burisma, which was corrupt-but-untouchable? Did Biden's threat have anything to do with it? Trump isn't trying to dig up dirt on Biden, he is trying to get clarity on what happened (was Shokin corrupt or was Burisma corrupt). I don't see what this has to do with the 2020 elections at all.
I don't see anything wrong at all with Trump asking a foreign country to do an investigation. Furthermore, I don't see anything wrong at all with Trump temporarily withhold aid to put pressure on Ukraine. This is certainly not abuse of power.
2. On obstruction of Congress. This is a much stronger case against Trump. However, it is clear that the President has some executive privilege. Congress doesn't have any absolute right to order the president to produce documents or have officials testify. If the president claims it, then this must be tested in court. The claim would have been fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, which would have analyzed the situation. In some cases, the privilege is upheld, in some cases the privilege is denied. It is a balancing test: the "public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution" vs the need for confidentiality. If it is a criminal matter, then the executive privilege probably will not be upheld. The Supreme Court has only overturned executive privilege twice, once for Nixon and once for Clinton. So it is an open question as to whether the court would have overturned it or not. This is primarily a legal argument. However, Congress did not test it in court and Nadler did not make any legal arguments or go through the analysis of balancing the competing interests. Because of the lack of legal analysis, the obstruction of Congress charge must fail.
In conclusion, I don't think this is a serious effort at making a case against Trump. This is intended only as a blot on Trump's record, like a censure, except a little stronger because it is labeled "impeachment".
What should the Judiciary Committee have done? I don't know why they didn't hire an independent prosecutor or special counsel to research the issues, like what happened with Nixon and Clinton and with Trump previously, or have a joint committee, like what happened with Reagan. Also, they should have gone to court to force the issue of complying with subpoenas.
==================
Update: Here is another analysis of the Articles of Impeachment.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/10/pollak-line-by-line-debunking-democrats-articles-of-impeachment-against-trump/
The Articles of Impeachment are here: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/Articles%20of%20Impeachment.pdf
A summary of the Articles are:
1. Abuse of Power
Trump solicited the interference of Ukraine in the 2020 elections. He tried to get Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into: (A) Joseph Biden, a political opponent and (B) the theory that Ukraine interfered into the 2016 elections. Trump pressured Ukraine by: (A) suspending $391 million of military funds and (B) promising a meeting of Ukraine with Trump.
2. Obstruction of Congress.
Trump directed Executive Branch employees not to comply with subpoenas. Specifically: (1) the White House withheld documents, (2) other departments such as the State Department withheld documents, and (3) Trump directed officials such as Mick Mulvaney not to cooperate.
That's it. My quick thoughts:
1. Did Trump ever mention the name Joe Biden during his phone call with the Ukrainian president?
The transcript is here: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/trump-ukraine-phone-call-transcript-text-pdf-1510770 . Here are the key lines:
Trump: "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it .. it sounds horrible to me."
Ukrainian president Zelenskyy: "He or she [the new prosecutor] will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue".
It sounds to me like Trump is asking Zelenskyy to open an investigation as to why the previous prosecutor [Viktor Shokin] was fired. Was it because he was corrupt, or was it to stop him from investigating Burisma, which was corrupt-but-untouchable? Did Biden's threat have anything to do with it? Trump isn't trying to dig up dirt on Biden, he is trying to get clarity on what happened (was Shokin corrupt or was Burisma corrupt). I don't see what this has to do with the 2020 elections at all.
I don't see anything wrong at all with Trump asking a foreign country to do an investigation. Furthermore, I don't see anything wrong at all with Trump temporarily withhold aid to put pressure on Ukraine. This is certainly not abuse of power.
2. On obstruction of Congress. This is a much stronger case against Trump. However, it is clear that the President has some executive privilege. Congress doesn't have any absolute right to order the president to produce documents or have officials testify. If the president claims it, then this must be tested in court. The claim would have been fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, which would have analyzed the situation. In some cases, the privilege is upheld, in some cases the privilege is denied. It is a balancing test: the "public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution" vs the need for confidentiality. If it is a criminal matter, then the executive privilege probably will not be upheld. The Supreme Court has only overturned executive privilege twice, once for Nixon and once for Clinton. So it is an open question as to whether the court would have overturned it or not. This is primarily a legal argument. However, Congress did not test it in court and Nadler did not make any legal arguments or go through the analysis of balancing the competing interests. Because of the lack of legal analysis, the obstruction of Congress charge must fail.
In conclusion, I don't think this is a serious effort at making a case against Trump. This is intended only as a blot on Trump's record, like a censure, except a little stronger because it is labeled "impeachment".
What should the Judiciary Committee have done? I don't know why they didn't hire an independent prosecutor or special counsel to research the issues, like what happened with Nixon and Clinton and with Trump previously, or have a joint committee, like what happened with Reagan. Also, they should have gone to court to force the issue of complying with subpoenas.
==================
Update: Here is another analysis of the Articles of Impeachment.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/10/pollak-line-by-line-debunking-democrats-articles-of-impeachment-against-trump/
Friday, December 6, 2019
Technical Analysis Part IV
Here I am looking for the words corruption and anti-corruption, and who the supposed corrupt or anti-corrupt party is.
Any future President will feel empowered to resist an investigation into their own wrongdoing, malfeasance, or corruption, and the result will be a nation at far greater risk of all three. [Supposed corrupt party: Trump] (10)
From their homes and their jail cells, from their public squares and their refugee camps, from their waking hours until their last breath, individuals fighting human rights abuses, journalists uncovering and exposing corruption, persecuted minorities struggling to survive and preserve their faith, and countless others around the globe just hoping for a better life look to America. [Supposed anti-corrupt party: journalists] (11)
It had been more than three months since President Zelensky, a political neophyte, had been swept into office in a landslide victory on a platform of rooting out corruption and ending the war between his country and Russia. [Supposed anti-corrupt party: Ukrainian President Zelensky] (13) The talking points included recommendations to encourage President Zelensky to continue to promote anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine, a pillar of American foreign policy in the country as far back as its independence in the 1990s when Ukraine first rid itself of Kremlin control. (same)
President Trump then asked President Zelensky “to look into” former Vice President Biden’s role in encouraging Ukraine to remove a prosecutor widely viewed by the United States and numerous European partners to be corrupt. [Supposed corrupt party: Ukrainian prosecutor, apparently Viktor Shokin; supposed anti-corrupt party: Biden] (14)
In so doing, President Trump gave currency to a baseless allegation that Vice President Biden wanted to remove the corrupt prosecutor because he was investigating Burisma, a company on whose board the Vice President’s son sat at the time. (14) [Note: Here we have competing narratives. From Trump's perspective, he (Trump) was trying to root out corruption by seeking an investigation of the supposedly corrupt Biden, who got the anti-corrupt Shokin fired, who was investigating the corrupt Burisma and Hunter Biden. From Schiff's perspective: Trump was corrupt because he was seeking an investigation of the anti-corrupt Biden, who got the corrupt prosecutor Shokin fired].
During the call, President Trump also disparaged Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who championed anti-corruption reforms in the country, and whom President Trump had unceremoniously removed months earlier following a smear campaign waged against her by Mr. Giuliani and others. (Supposed anti-corrupt party: Marie Yovanovitch) (14) He [Trump] praised the current prosecutor at the time [Lutsenko?], who was widely viewed as corrupt and who helped initiate the smear campaign against her [Yovanovitch]. (14) [Supposed corrupt parties: Trump and Lutsenko]
The President Removed Anti-Corruption Champion Ambassador Yovanovitch. She was known throughout Ukraine and among her peers for aggressively advocating for anti-corruption reforms consistent with U.S. foreign policy and only recently had been asked to extend her stay in Ukraine. Her effectiveness in anti-corruption efforts earned her enemies in Kyiv and in Washington. As Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified in praising Ambassador Yovanovitch: “You can’t promote principled anticorruption action without pissing off corrupt people.” Beginning on March 20, The Hill newspaper published several op-eds attacking Ambassador Yovanovitch and former Vice President Joe Biden, relying on information from a Ukrainian prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, who was widely viewed to be corrupt. (Anti-corrupt parties: Yovanovitch and Biden; Corrupt parties: Trump and Lutsenko) (15)
That is the first 14 uses of the word corrupt. There are 172 uses in the document. This is worth looking into more.
Any future President will feel empowered to resist an investigation into their own wrongdoing, malfeasance, or corruption, and the result will be a nation at far greater risk of all three. [Supposed corrupt party: Trump] (10)
From their homes and their jail cells, from their public squares and their refugee camps, from their waking hours until their last breath, individuals fighting human rights abuses, journalists uncovering and exposing corruption, persecuted minorities struggling to survive and preserve their faith, and countless others around the globe just hoping for a better life look to America. [Supposed anti-corrupt party: journalists] (11)
It had been more than three months since President Zelensky, a political neophyte, had been swept into office in a landslide victory on a platform of rooting out corruption and ending the war between his country and Russia. [Supposed anti-corrupt party: Ukrainian President Zelensky] (13) The talking points included recommendations to encourage President Zelensky to continue to promote anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine, a pillar of American foreign policy in the country as far back as its independence in the 1990s when Ukraine first rid itself of Kremlin control. (same)
President Trump then asked President Zelensky “to look into” former Vice President Biden’s role in encouraging Ukraine to remove a prosecutor widely viewed by the United States and numerous European partners to be corrupt. [Supposed corrupt party: Ukrainian prosecutor, apparently Viktor Shokin; supposed anti-corrupt party: Biden] (14)
In so doing, President Trump gave currency to a baseless allegation that Vice President Biden wanted to remove the corrupt prosecutor because he was investigating Burisma, a company on whose board the Vice President’s son sat at the time. (14) [Note: Here we have competing narratives. From Trump's perspective, he (Trump) was trying to root out corruption by seeking an investigation of the supposedly corrupt Biden, who got the anti-corrupt Shokin fired, who was investigating the corrupt Burisma and Hunter Biden. From Schiff's perspective: Trump was corrupt because he was seeking an investigation of the anti-corrupt Biden, who got the corrupt prosecutor Shokin fired].
During the call, President Trump also disparaged Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who championed anti-corruption reforms in the country, and whom President Trump had unceremoniously removed months earlier following a smear campaign waged against her by Mr. Giuliani and others. (Supposed anti-corrupt party: Marie Yovanovitch) (14) He [Trump] praised the current prosecutor at the time [Lutsenko?], who was widely viewed as corrupt and who helped initiate the smear campaign against her [Yovanovitch]. (14) [Supposed corrupt parties: Trump and Lutsenko]
The President Removed Anti-Corruption Champion Ambassador Yovanovitch. She was known throughout Ukraine and among her peers for aggressively advocating for anti-corruption reforms consistent with U.S. foreign policy and only recently had been asked to extend her stay in Ukraine. Her effectiveness in anti-corruption efforts earned her enemies in Kyiv and in Washington. As Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent testified in praising Ambassador Yovanovitch: “You can’t promote principled anticorruption action without pissing off corrupt people.” Beginning on March 20, The Hill newspaper published several op-eds attacking Ambassador Yovanovitch and former Vice President Joe Biden, relying on information from a Ukrainian prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, who was widely viewed to be corrupt. (Anti-corrupt parties: Yovanovitch and Biden; Corrupt parties: Trump and Lutsenko) (15)
That is the first 14 uses of the word corrupt. There are 172 uses in the document. This is worth looking into more.
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Questions about the Schiff Report
Answer True or False (or Agree or Disagree), as applicable.
1. A President must never withhold foreign aid, even for a short period of time, that Congress has authorized and appropriated because of the Impoundment Control Act. Doing so is an impeachable offense.
(Note: this statement must be answered false if there is a single prior precedent of a President withholding aid).
2. Similar to #1, if a President withholds foreign aid, even for a short period of time, without Congressional approval, then this is a threat to national security, effectively treason, and this is an impeachable offense.
3. A President has no say in deciding foreign policy. Only the NSC staff through their interagency meetings (e.g. Lt. Col. Vindman) have a say. If the President disagrees with the NSC, this is an impeachable offense.
4. A President must never fire or insult an Ambassador. If he does, this is misconduct, which is an impeachable offense.
5. A President must never talk directly to a foreign leader. Instead, he must go though the Ambassador, who must approve the message. If a President bypasses the official channel, this is an impeachable offense.
6. A President must never ask another country to investigate corruption. Asking another country to investigate corruption can be done only if the NSC agrees, and if you do so without their approval, this is a threat to national security, and is an impeachable offense.
7. A President must never investigate whether another politician's family member is corrupt, since doing so is "digging up dirt" and is election interference and is an impeachable offense.
8. A President must never listen to any ideas or political thoughts that have not been approved by the mainstream media. If he does so, this is considered believing a debunked conspiracy theory. And asking someone else to investigate whether such a debunked conspiracy theory is true, is an impeachable offense.
9. If a political rival (e.g. Joe Biden) coerces a foreign government to stop investigating his son then this is perfectly fine, but asking questions about whether this is corruption is an impeachable offense.
1. A President must never withhold foreign aid, even for a short period of time, that Congress has authorized and appropriated because of the Impoundment Control Act. Doing so is an impeachable offense.
(Note: this statement must be answered false if there is a single prior precedent of a President withholding aid).
2. Similar to #1, if a President withholds foreign aid, even for a short period of time, without Congressional approval, then this is a threat to national security, effectively treason, and this is an impeachable offense.
3. A President has no say in deciding foreign policy. Only the NSC staff through their interagency meetings (e.g. Lt. Col. Vindman) have a say. If the President disagrees with the NSC, this is an impeachable offense.
4. A President must never fire or insult an Ambassador. If he does, this is misconduct, which is an impeachable offense.
5. A President must never talk directly to a foreign leader. Instead, he must go though the Ambassador, who must approve the message. If a President bypasses the official channel, this is an impeachable offense.
6. A President must never ask another country to investigate corruption. Asking another country to investigate corruption can be done only if the NSC agrees, and if you do so without their approval, this is a threat to national security, and is an impeachable offense.
7. A President must never investigate whether another politician's family member is corrupt, since doing so is "digging up dirt" and is election interference and is an impeachable offense.
8. A President must never listen to any ideas or political thoughts that have not been approved by the mainstream media. If he does so, this is considered believing a debunked conspiracy theory. And asking someone else to investigate whether such a debunked conspiracy theory is true, is an impeachable offense.
9. If a political rival (e.g. Joe Biden) coerces a foreign government to stop investigating his son then this is perfectly fine, but asking questions about whether this is corruption is an impeachable offense.
Technical Analysis Part III
Here I am looking for mentions of Burisma, and any characterization of their corruption as baseless.
Ambassador Sondland understood these phrases to refer to two investigations politically beneficial to the President’s reelection campaign: one into former Vice President Joe Biden and a Ukrainian gas company called Burisma, on which his son sat on the board, (13)
President Trump then asked President Zelensky “to look into” former Vice President Biden’s role in encouraging Ukraine to remove a prosecutor widely viewed by the United States and numerous European partners to be corrupt. In so doing, President Trump gave currency to a baseless allegation that Vice President Biden wanted to remove the corrupt prosecutor because he was investigating Burisma, a company on whose board the Vice President’s son sat at the time. (14)
In the second meeting, Ambassador Sondland explained that he had an agreement with Mr. Mulvaney that the White House visit would come only after Ukraine announced the Burisma/Biden and 2016 Ukraine election interference investigations. (19)
According to Ambassador Sondland, he was referring in the email to the Burisma/Biden and 2016 election interference investigations. (20)
The following morning, Ambassadors Sondland and Volker spoke with Mr. Giuliani, who made clear that if the statement “doesn’t say Burisma and 2016, it’s not credible.” (22)
Ambassador Volker eventually agreed with Mr. Yermak that the announcement of the Biden/Burisma and 2016 elections investigations would “look like it would play into our domestic politics,” so the statement was temporarily “shelved.” (22)
Following this meeting, Ambassador Sondland pulled aside President Zelensky’s advisor, Mr. Yermak, to explain that the hold on security assistance was conditioned on the public announcement of the Burisma/Biden and the 2016 election interference investigations. (24)
Those debunked conspiracy theories alleged that the Ukrainian government—not Russia—was behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server in 2016, and that former Vice President Biden had petitioned for the removal of Mr. Shokin to prevent an investigation into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company for which Vice President Biden’s son, Hunter, served as a board member. (42)
According to notes of the call, Mr. Shokin made allegations about Vice President Biden and Burisma. (43)
Over the course of two days, on January 25 and 26, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Lutsenko, Mr. Parnas, and Mr. Fruman, reportedly discussed whether Ambassador Yovanovitch was “loyal to President Trump,” as well as investigations into Burisma and the Bidens. (43)
These Ukrainian officials claimed to have evidence of wrongdoing about Vice President Biden’s efforts in 2015 to remove Mr. Shokin, Hunter Biden’s role as a Burisma board member, 46 Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election in favor of Hillary Clinton, and the misappropriation and transfer of Ukrainian funds abroad. (45)
And then all of a sudden, they revealed the story about Burisma and Biden’s son … [Vice President Biden] bragged about pressuring Ukraine’s president to firing [sic] a top prosecutor who was being criticized on a whole bunch of areas but was conducting investigation of this gas company which Hunter Biden served as a director. (46)
Multiple witnesses testified that Mr. Shokin’s dismissal in 2016 made it more—not less—likely that Ukrainian authorities might investigate any allegations or wrongdoing at Burisma or other allegedly corrupt companies. (56)
They allegedly struck a deal with [Prosecutor-General Yuriy] Lutsenko about the fate of this criminal case—Burisma, [former Vice President] Biden, meddling in the U.S. election and so on.”(60)
Ambassador Taylor relayed this conversation to Mr. Holmes, who testified that he understood “investigations” in that context to mean the “Burisma-Biden investigations that Mr. Giuliani and his associates had been speaking about” publicly. (84)
In his public testimony, Ambassador Volker confirmed that he mentioned “investigations” to President Zelensky in Toronto, explaining that he was “thinking of Burisma and 2016” in raising the subject, and that his “assumption” was that Ukrainian officials also understood his reference to “investigations” to be “Burisma/2016.” (86)
President Zelensky also specifically referenced “Burisma” during the call. (86)
According to Ambassador Sondland, President Zelensky’s commitment to make a public announcement about investigations into Burisma and the 2016 election was a “prerequisite[]” for the White House meeting. (86)
There was no ambiguity” and that Ambassador Sondland also mentioned “Burisma.” (89)
I think I proved my point. This is the first 20 mentions of the word Burisma out of 85.
Ambassador Sondland understood these phrases to refer to two investigations politically beneficial to the President’s reelection campaign: one into former Vice President Joe Biden and a Ukrainian gas company called Burisma, on which his son sat on the board, (13)
President Trump then asked President Zelensky “to look into” former Vice President Biden’s role in encouraging Ukraine to remove a prosecutor widely viewed by the United States and numerous European partners to be corrupt. In so doing, President Trump gave currency to a baseless allegation that Vice President Biden wanted to remove the corrupt prosecutor because he was investigating Burisma, a company on whose board the Vice President’s son sat at the time. (14)
In the second meeting, Ambassador Sondland explained that he had an agreement with Mr. Mulvaney that the White House visit would come only after Ukraine announced the Burisma/Biden and 2016 Ukraine election interference investigations. (19)
According to Ambassador Sondland, he was referring in the email to the Burisma/Biden and 2016 election interference investigations. (20)
The following morning, Ambassadors Sondland and Volker spoke with Mr. Giuliani, who made clear that if the statement “doesn’t say Burisma and 2016, it’s not credible.” (22)
Ambassador Volker eventually agreed with Mr. Yermak that the announcement of the Biden/Burisma and 2016 elections investigations would “look like it would play into our domestic politics,” so the statement was temporarily “shelved.” (22)
Following this meeting, Ambassador Sondland pulled aside President Zelensky’s advisor, Mr. Yermak, to explain that the hold on security assistance was conditioned on the public announcement of the Burisma/Biden and the 2016 election interference investigations. (24)
Those debunked conspiracy theories alleged that the Ukrainian government—not Russia—was behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server in 2016, and that former Vice President Biden had petitioned for the removal of Mr. Shokin to prevent an investigation into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company for which Vice President Biden’s son, Hunter, served as a board member. (42)
According to notes of the call, Mr. Shokin made allegations about Vice President Biden and Burisma. (43)
Over the course of two days, on January 25 and 26, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Lutsenko, Mr. Parnas, and Mr. Fruman, reportedly discussed whether Ambassador Yovanovitch was “loyal to President Trump,” as well as investigations into Burisma and the Bidens. (43)
These Ukrainian officials claimed to have evidence of wrongdoing about Vice President Biden’s efforts in 2015 to remove Mr. Shokin, Hunter Biden’s role as a Burisma board member, 46 Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election in favor of Hillary Clinton, and the misappropriation and transfer of Ukrainian funds abroad. (45)
And then all of a sudden, they revealed the story about Burisma and Biden’s son … [Vice President Biden] bragged about pressuring Ukraine’s president to firing [sic] a top prosecutor who was being criticized on a whole bunch of areas but was conducting investigation of this gas company which Hunter Biden served as a director. (46)
Multiple witnesses testified that Mr. Shokin’s dismissal in 2016 made it more—not less—likely that Ukrainian authorities might investigate any allegations or wrongdoing at Burisma or other allegedly corrupt companies. (56)
They allegedly struck a deal with [Prosecutor-General Yuriy] Lutsenko about the fate of this criminal case—Burisma, [former Vice President] Biden, meddling in the U.S. election and so on.”(60)
Ambassador Taylor relayed this conversation to Mr. Holmes, who testified that he understood “investigations” in that context to mean the “Burisma-Biden investigations that Mr. Giuliani and his associates had been speaking about” publicly. (84)
In his public testimony, Ambassador Volker confirmed that he mentioned “investigations” to President Zelensky in Toronto, explaining that he was “thinking of Burisma and 2016” in raising the subject, and that his “assumption” was that Ukrainian officials also understood his reference to “investigations” to be “Burisma/2016.” (86)
President Zelensky also specifically referenced “Burisma” during the call. (86)
According to Ambassador Sondland, President Zelensky’s commitment to make a public announcement about investigations into Burisma and the 2016 election was a “prerequisite[]” for the White House meeting. (86)
There was no ambiguity” and that Ambassador Sondland also mentioned “Burisma.” (89)
I think I proved my point. This is the first 20 mentions of the word Burisma out of 85.
Wednesday, December 4, 2019
Technical Analysis Part II
National Security (with adjectives in bold):
endangered U.S. national security (8)
undermined our national security (12)
inimical to our national security (15)
Ukraine experts at DOD, the State Department, and the NSC argued that it was in the national security interest of the United States to continue to support Ukraine. (19)
President Trump continued to withhold the funding to Ukraine without explanation, against the interests of U.S. national security (19)
endangered U.S. national security (34)
the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anticorruption justification. (34)
undermined U.S. national security (35)
President Trump compromised national security (35)
“If our chief representative [Ambassador Yovanovitch] is kneecapped it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States.” (49)
Ukraine’s significance to U.S. national security as a bulwark against Russian aggression (61)
Lt. Col. Vindman also was concerned about the potentially negative consequences of Mr. Giuliani’s political efforts on behalf of President Trump—both for U.S. national security and also Ukraine’s longstanding history of bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress (61)
The President froze military assistance to Ukraine against U.S. national security interests and over the objections of career experts. (67)
Ukraine experts at DOD, the State Department, and the National Security Council (NSC) argued that it was in the national security interest of the United States to continue to support Ukraine. (67)
security assistance to Ukraine is vital to the national security of the United States and Europe. (68)
Despite the fact that DOD experts demonstrated that the security assistance was crucial for both Ukraine and U.S. national security and had strong bipartisan support in Congress, President Trump ordered OMB to freeze the funds in July. (71)
with the exception of OMB, all represented agencies supported Ukraine security assistance because it was in the national security interests of the United States (72)
the assistance was consistent with the national security strategy (79)
A White House meeting was 84 also important for U.S. national security because it would have served to bolster Ukraine’s negotiating position in peace talks with Russia. (84)
the request to investigate the Bidens and his son had nothing to do with national security (89)
They both believed that Ambassador Sondland’s statements were inappropriate and “had nothing to do with national security,” and that they would not get involved with the scheme (91)
it would undermine U.S. national security. It would undermine our Ukraine policy, and it would undermine our national security. (105)
contrary to the consensus recommendation of the President’s national security team (127)
“the importance of Ukraine and the security assistance to U.S. national security”. However, Mr. Holmes worried that the national security argument might not achieve its purpose given the reasons he 130 suspected for the hold on military aid (129)
Ambassador Taylor framed the broader national security implications of President Trump’s decision (136)
importance of Ukraine to our national security (166)
the heart of our national security dilemma (173)
subvert the national security process, the national security issues (180)
jeopardize national security (232)
privy to national security matters (239)
Threats of violence from the leader of our country have a chilling effect on the entire whistleblower process, with grave consequences for our democracy and national security. (261)
privy to national security matters (281)
It seems like Schiff is saying the President Trump committed treason, although that word is not used. In the national security world, Russia is bad and Ukraine is good, and withholding funds to Ukraine undermines national security.
endangered U.S. national security (8)
undermined our national security (12)
inimical to our national security (15)
Ukraine experts at DOD, the State Department, and the NSC argued that it was in the national security interest of the United States to continue to support Ukraine. (19)
President Trump continued to withhold the funding to Ukraine without explanation, against the interests of U.S. national security (19)
endangered U.S. national security (34)
the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anticorruption justification. (34)
undermined U.S. national security (35)
President Trump compromised national security (35)
“If our chief representative [Ambassador Yovanovitch] is kneecapped it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States.” (49)
Ukraine’s significance to U.S. national security as a bulwark against Russian aggression (61)
Lt. Col. Vindman also was concerned about the potentially negative consequences of Mr. Giuliani’s political efforts on behalf of President Trump—both for U.S. national security and also Ukraine’s longstanding history of bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress (61)
The President froze military assistance to Ukraine against U.S. national security interests and over the objections of career experts. (67)
Ukraine experts at DOD, the State Department, and the National Security Council (NSC) argued that it was in the national security interest of the United States to continue to support Ukraine. (67)
security assistance to Ukraine is vital to the national security of the United States and Europe. (68)
Despite the fact that DOD experts demonstrated that the security assistance was crucial for both Ukraine and U.S. national security and had strong bipartisan support in Congress, President Trump ordered OMB to freeze the funds in July. (71)
with the exception of OMB, all represented agencies supported Ukraine security assistance because it was in the national security interests of the United States (72)
the assistance was consistent with the national security strategy (79)
A White House meeting was 84 also important for U.S. national security because it would have served to bolster Ukraine’s negotiating position in peace talks with Russia. (84)
the request to investigate the Bidens and his son had nothing to do with national security (89)
They both believed that Ambassador Sondland’s statements were inappropriate and “had nothing to do with national security,” and that they would not get involved with the scheme (91)
it would undermine U.S. national security. It would undermine our Ukraine policy, and it would undermine our national security. (105)
contrary to the consensus recommendation of the President’s national security team (127)
“the importance of Ukraine and the security assistance to U.S. national security”. However, Mr. Holmes worried that the national security argument might not achieve its purpose given the reasons he 130 suspected for the hold on military aid (129)
Ambassador Taylor framed the broader national security implications of President Trump’s decision (136)
importance of Ukraine to our national security (166)
the heart of our national security dilemma (173)
subvert the national security process, the national security issues (180)
jeopardize national security (232)
privy to national security matters (239)
Threats of violence from the leader of our country have a chilling effect on the entire whistleblower process, with grave consequences for our democracy and national security. (261)
privy to national security matters (281)
It seems like Schiff is saying the President Trump committed treason, although that word is not used. In the national security world, Russia is bad and Ukraine is good, and withholding funds to Ukraine undermines national security.
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
Technical Analysis of the House Intelligence Report
It is too boring to read the report so I am looking for a few keywords. The page number is in parentheses.
Without Merit, Debunked, Discredited, No Credible Evidence, False or the equivalent:
a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election. (12)
the other into a discredited conspiracy theory alleging that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. The allegations about Vice President Biden were without evidence, and the U.S. Intelligence Community had unanimously determined that Russia, not Ukraine, interfered in the 2016 election to help the candidacy of Donald Trump. Despite the falsehoods (13)
He counseled Mr. Giuliani that the Ukrainian prosecutor pushing the false narrative, Mr. Lutsenko, was promoting “a self-serving narrative to preserve himself in power.” (20)
this false narrative has been promoted by President Putin (26)
Like the White House, the Department of State refused to produce a single document in response to its subpoena, even though there is no legal basis for the Department’s actions. (30)
the Department is withholding responsive documents from Congress without any valid legal basis (30)
—sought to pressure and induce Ukraine’s newly-elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to publicly announce unfounded investigations (34)
Mr. Giuliani and his associates promoted false conspiracy theories about Ukraine colluding with Democrats to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election. This false claim was promoted by Russian President Vladimir Putin in February 2017—less than a month after the unanimous U.S. Intelligence Community assessment that Russia alone was responsible for a covert influence campaign aimed at helping President Trump during the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani also made discredited public allegations about former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in an apparent effort to hurt President Trump’s political rival in the 2020 presidential election. Mr. Giuliani’s associates, with their own ties to President Trump, also worked to enter into arrangements with current and former corrupt Ukrainian officials to promote these false allegations—the same unfounded allegations President Trump requested that Ukraine investigate on his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. (38)
Ambassador Yovanovitch asked Ambassador Perez specifically whether this order had anything to do with President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who had been making unfounded allegations against her in the media. (40)
Mr. Lutsenko promoted debunked conspiracy theories that had gained traction with President Trump and Mr. Giuliani. Those debunked conspiracy theories alleged that the Ukrainian government—not Russia—was behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server in 2016, and that former Vice President Biden had petitioned for the removal of Mr. Shokin to prevent an investigation into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company for which Vice President Biden’s son, Hunter, served as a board member. (42)
President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor, Tom Bossert, said that the idea of Ukraine hacking the DNC server was “not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.” (42)
The allegations that Vice President Biden inappropriately pressured the Ukrainians to remove Mr. Shokin also are without merit. (42)
even Mr. Lutsenko himself admitted that there was no credible evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or Vice President Biden (42)
Ambassador Hale agreed that the allegations were without merit. (44)
there was a coordinated effort by associates of President Trump to push these false narratives publicly (45)
alleged “evidence” of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections (47)
Rudy Giuliani also announced a plan to visit Ukraine in mid-May 2019—not on official U.S. government business, but instead to pursue on behalf of his client, President Trump, the debunked conspiracy theories about alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and discredited claims about the Bidens. (51)
Like Mr. Solomon’s previous work, this April 25 piece repeated unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. (54)
Nonetheless, President Trump and his supporters sought to perpetuate the false narrative that Mr. Shokin should not have been removed from office and that Vice President Biden had acted corruptly in carrying out U.S. policy. (56)
Ambassador Volker had learned that Mr. Giuliani intended to travel to Ukraine “to pursue these allegations that Lutsenko had made, and he was going to investigate these things”—specifically, the debunked story that Vice President Biden had improperly pressured Ukraine to fire a corrupt prosecutor general, as well as the Russian-backed conspiracy that the Ukrainians interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. Ambassador Volker testified that he had a simple warning for Mr. Giuliani: Prosecutor General Lutsenko “is not credible. (58)
President Trump also alleged, without offering any evidence, that Ukraine “tried to take me down” in the 2016 election. (63)
In 2019, that bipartisan policy was undermined when President Trump ordered, without justification, a freeze on military assistance to Ukraine. (67)
After ordering the hold on security assistance to Ukraine against the unanimous advice of the relevant U.S. government agencies, President Trump used his hand-picked representatives to demand that Ukrainian leaders publicly announce investigations into his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. (83)
Ambassador Volker clarified that by “the Giuliani factor,” he meant “a negative narrative about Ukraine” (86)
Mr. Giuliani and Ambassador Volker discussed the discredited allegations against former Vice President Biden relating to Ukraine (92)
During a call on July 25, President Trump asked President Zelensky of Ukraine to “do us a favor though” and investigate his political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. (97)
Witnesses unanimously testified that President Trump’s claims about former Vice President Biden and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election have been discredited. (98)
Dr. Fiona Hill, former Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs at the National Security Council, testified that the conspiracy theories about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election touted by President Trump are a “fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services.” She noted that President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster repeatedly advised the President that the so-called “CrowdStrike” conspiracy theory that President Trump raised in the July 25 call is completely “debunked,” and that allegations Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election are false. (98)
He first requested that Ukraine investigate a discredited conspiracy theory (101)
President Trump was referencing the widely debunked conspiracy theory that the Ukrainian government—and not Russia—was behind the hack of Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers in 2016 (101)
“a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.” (101)
Tom Bossert, President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor, stated publicly that the CrowdStrike theory is “not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.” Dr. Hill testified that White House officials—including Mr. Bossert and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster—“spent a lot of time” refuting the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory to President Trump. (101)
She affirmed that President Trump was advised that “the alternative theory that Ukraine had interfered in the election was false (102)
they were not aware of any credible evidence to support the claim that former Vice President Biden acted inappropriately when he advocated for the removal of Mr. Shokin (103)
Lt. Col. Vindman testified during his deposition that, prior to the July 25 call, he was aware of concerns from former National Security Advisor John Bolton and other U.S. officials that President Trump might raise these discredited issues with President Zelensky (105)
contingent on the Ukrainian president announcing investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.(126)
President Trump twice asked that the Ukrainian leader “get to the bottom of it,” including in connection to an investigation into the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton (130)
Ukraine Prosecutor Says No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Bidens (152)
the actions of President Trump, the President’s personal agent, Rudy Giuliani, and others to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and a debunked conspiracy theory alleging Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.(209)
These claims are without basis and unsupported by precedent. (212)
Nevertheless, Mr. Cipollone’s complaints are unfounded as the House has implemented procedural protections for the President in its exercise of its Constitutional power. (213)
Rather, Mr. Kent said that the language in Secretary Pompeo’s letter, which had been drafted by a State Department attorney without consulting Mr. Kent, “was inaccurate.” (222)
Solomon, John Author of articles promoting debunked conspiracy theories about the Bidens, Crowdstrike, and the 2016 U.S. election (297)
So this leads to a question - if theories are debunked or discredited, who is the debunker? In the above quotes, sometimes it is the intelligence community, sometimes it is the witnesses like Dr Hill, sometimes it is apparently self-evident like anything by John Solomon or anything that Putin said. Isn't it just the opinion of Adam Schiff?
Specifically, was it really debunked that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections? Just in the excepts above, I count 20 times that allegations that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections were debunked. Why do you have to endlessly repeat it? Why doesn't Schiff mention one time in the 300 page report with 441 footnotes who debunked this theory and when?
===========================
Huh. There is mention of a "unanimous U.S. Intelligence Community assessment" in January 2017. I did a search and found this: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf (Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution). It is a 25-page report by CIA/FBI/NSA that mentions how some Russians preferred President Trump because of his policies. (I don't know if it is unanimous since there are only 3 intelligence agencies listed and there are something like 17 that are part of the Intelligence Community). It doesn't say anything about alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections and it doesn't say that "Russian alone" was responsible. I don't think that this document "debunks" claims of alleged Ukrainian interference since it doesn't even address those claims.
Also, apparently Fiona Hill conclusively debunked the conspiracy theories during her testimony. I would have to read her testimony and see what she says about John Solomon.
Without Merit, Debunked, Discredited, No Credible Evidence, False or the equivalent:
a discredited theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 presidential election. (12)
the other into a discredited conspiracy theory alleging that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. The allegations about Vice President Biden were without evidence, and the U.S. Intelligence Community had unanimously determined that Russia, not Ukraine, interfered in the 2016 election to help the candidacy of Donald Trump. Despite the falsehoods (13)
He counseled Mr. Giuliani that the Ukrainian prosecutor pushing the false narrative, Mr. Lutsenko, was promoting “a self-serving narrative to preserve himself in power.” (20)
this false narrative has been promoted by President Putin (26)
Like the White House, the Department of State refused to produce a single document in response to its subpoena, even though there is no legal basis for the Department’s actions. (30)
the Department is withholding responsive documents from Congress without any valid legal basis (30)
—sought to pressure and induce Ukraine’s newly-elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to publicly announce unfounded investigations (34)
Mr. Giuliani and his associates promoted false conspiracy theories about Ukraine colluding with Democrats to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election. This false claim was promoted by Russian President Vladimir Putin in February 2017—less than a month after the unanimous U.S. Intelligence Community assessment that Russia alone was responsible for a covert influence campaign aimed at helping President Trump during the 2016 election. Mr. Giuliani also made discredited public allegations about former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in an apparent effort to hurt President Trump’s political rival in the 2020 presidential election. Mr. Giuliani’s associates, with their own ties to President Trump, also worked to enter into arrangements with current and former corrupt Ukrainian officials to promote these false allegations—the same unfounded allegations President Trump requested that Ukraine investigate on his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. (38)
Ambassador Yovanovitch asked Ambassador Perez specifically whether this order had anything to do with President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who had been making unfounded allegations against her in the media. (40)
Mr. Lutsenko promoted debunked conspiracy theories that had gained traction with President Trump and Mr. Giuliani. Those debunked conspiracy theories alleged that the Ukrainian government—not Russia—was behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server in 2016, and that former Vice President Biden had petitioned for the removal of Mr. Shokin to prevent an investigation into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company for which Vice President Biden’s son, Hunter, served as a board member. (42)
President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor, Tom Bossert, said that the idea of Ukraine hacking the DNC server was “not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.” (42)
The allegations that Vice President Biden inappropriately pressured the Ukrainians to remove Mr. Shokin also are without merit. (42)
even Mr. Lutsenko himself admitted that there was no credible evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or Vice President Biden (42)
Ambassador Hale agreed that the allegations were without merit. (44)
there was a coordinated effort by associates of President Trump to push these false narratives publicly (45)
alleged “evidence” of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections (47)
Rudy Giuliani also announced a plan to visit Ukraine in mid-May 2019—not on official U.S. government business, but instead to pursue on behalf of his client, President Trump, the debunked conspiracy theories about alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and discredited claims about the Bidens. (51)
Like Mr. Solomon’s previous work, this April 25 piece repeated unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. (54)
Nonetheless, President Trump and his supporters sought to perpetuate the false narrative that Mr. Shokin should not have been removed from office and that Vice President Biden had acted corruptly in carrying out U.S. policy. (56)
Ambassador Volker had learned that Mr. Giuliani intended to travel to Ukraine “to pursue these allegations that Lutsenko had made, and he was going to investigate these things”—specifically, the debunked story that Vice President Biden had improperly pressured Ukraine to fire a corrupt prosecutor general, as well as the Russian-backed conspiracy that the Ukrainians interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. Ambassador Volker testified that he had a simple warning for Mr. Giuliani: Prosecutor General Lutsenko “is not credible. (58)
President Trump also alleged, without offering any evidence, that Ukraine “tried to take me down” in the 2016 election. (63)
In 2019, that bipartisan policy was undermined when President Trump ordered, without justification, a freeze on military assistance to Ukraine. (67)
After ordering the hold on security assistance to Ukraine against the unanimous advice of the relevant U.S. government agencies, President Trump used his hand-picked representatives to demand that Ukrainian leaders publicly announce investigations into his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, and into the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. (83)
Ambassador Volker clarified that by “the Giuliani factor,” he meant “a negative narrative about Ukraine” (86)
Mr. Giuliani and Ambassador Volker discussed the discredited allegations against former Vice President Biden relating to Ukraine (92)
During a call on July 25, President Trump asked President Zelensky of Ukraine to “do us a favor though” and investigate his political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, and a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. (97)
Witnesses unanimously testified that President Trump’s claims about former Vice President Biden and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election have been discredited. (98)
Dr. Fiona Hill, former Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs at the National Security Council, testified that the conspiracy theories about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election touted by President Trump are a “fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services.” She noted that President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster repeatedly advised the President that the so-called “CrowdStrike” conspiracy theory that President Trump raised in the July 25 call is completely “debunked,” and that allegations Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. election are false. (98)
He first requested that Ukraine investigate a discredited conspiracy theory (101)
President Trump was referencing the widely debunked conspiracy theory that the Ukrainian government—and not Russia—was behind the hack of Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers in 2016 (101)
“a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.” (101)
Tom Bossert, President Trump’s former Homeland Security Advisor, stated publicly that the CrowdStrike theory is “not only a conspiracy theory, it is completely debunked.” Dr. Hill testified that White House officials—including Mr. Bossert and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster—“spent a lot of time” refuting the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory to President Trump. (101)
She affirmed that President Trump was advised that “the alternative theory that Ukraine had interfered in the election was false (102)
they were not aware of any credible evidence to support the claim that former Vice President Biden acted inappropriately when he advocated for the removal of Mr. Shokin (103)
Lt. Col. Vindman testified during his deposition that, prior to the July 25 call, he was aware of concerns from former National Security Advisor John Bolton and other U.S. officials that President Trump might raise these discredited issues with President Zelensky (105)
contingent on the Ukrainian president announcing investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.(126)
President Trump twice asked that the Ukrainian leader “get to the bottom of it,” including in connection to an investigation into the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to help Hillary Clinton (130)
Ukraine Prosecutor Says No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Bidens (152)
the actions of President Trump, the President’s personal agent, Rudy Giuliani, and others to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and a debunked conspiracy theory alleging Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.(209)
These claims are without basis and unsupported by precedent. (212)
Nevertheless, Mr. Cipollone’s complaints are unfounded as the House has implemented procedural protections for the President in its exercise of its Constitutional power. (213)
Rather, Mr. Kent said that the language in Secretary Pompeo’s letter, which had been drafted by a State Department attorney without consulting Mr. Kent, “was inaccurate.” (222)
Solomon, John Author of articles promoting debunked conspiracy theories about the Bidens, Crowdstrike, and the 2016 U.S. election (297)
So this leads to a question - if theories are debunked or discredited, who is the debunker? In the above quotes, sometimes it is the intelligence community, sometimes it is the witnesses like Dr Hill, sometimes it is apparently self-evident like anything by John Solomon or anything that Putin said. Isn't it just the opinion of Adam Schiff?
Specifically, was it really debunked that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections? Just in the excepts above, I count 20 times that allegations that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections were debunked. Why do you have to endlessly repeat it? Why doesn't Schiff mention one time in the 300 page report with 441 footnotes who debunked this theory and when?
===========================
Huh. There is mention of a "unanimous U.S. Intelligence Community assessment" in January 2017. I did a search and found this: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf (Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution). It is a 25-page report by CIA/FBI/NSA that mentions how some Russians preferred President Trump because of his policies. (I don't know if it is unanimous since there are only 3 intelligence agencies listed and there are something like 17 that are part of the Intelligence Community). It doesn't say anything about alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections and it doesn't say that "Russian alone" was responsible. I don't think that this document "debunks" claims of alleged Ukrainian interference since it doesn't even address those claims.
Also, apparently Fiona Hill conclusively debunked the conspiracy theories during her testimony. I would have to read her testimony and see what she says about John Solomon.
Impeachment Inquiry Report
Adam Schiff's Report is here: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf
The Republic response is here: https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-12-02-Report-of-Evidence-in-the-Democrats-Impeachment-Inquiry-in-the-House-of-Representatives.pdf
Here is another independent summary of the evidence: https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-wrote-starr-report-account-record-laffaire-ukrainienne
I'm going to try to give a neutral analysis of it.
The Republic response is here: https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-12-02-Report-of-Evidence-in-the-Democrats-Impeachment-Inquiry-in-the-House-of-Representatives.pdf
Here is another independent summary of the evidence: https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-wrote-starr-report-account-record-laffaire-ukrainienne
I'm going to try to give a neutral analysis of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)