Sharyl Attkisson was good enough to fact-check the claims of Trump’s quid pro quo in Ukraine in a fairly spectacular read.
Quid pro quo in Ukraine? No, not yet
Read the full story:https://t.co/G3o2gESezW
Via @SharylAttkisson pic.twitter.com/XGPXdRARsS
— TheHillOpinion (@TheHillOpinion) October 24, 2019
From The Hill:
Foreign aid is widely considered a tool to allow the U.S. “access and influence in the domestic and foreign affairs of other states,” particularly “national security policy.” It also “helps governments achieve mutual cooperation on a wide range of issues.”
All of this appears to neatly fit the definition of the very things President Trump’s critics allege he did: try to ensure Ukraine’s cooperation in the U.S. investigation into the 2016 presidential campaign, and obtain a commitment from Ukraine to open an investigation into widespread corruption that could have U.S. ties — including a possible tie to the 2020 presidential election.
Here’s the best part:
All things considered, it begins to look like the quid pro quo accusations are an extension of the strategy that sought to keep President Trump from providing typical direction to the Justice Department for the better part of two years … because his critics cried that it would be obstruction of justice or interfering with the Mueller probe. With that investigation closed, Trump’s enemies appear to be trying to keep him from digging into dark, uncomfortable places about how it all came about and who was behind it, from Washington, D.C., to Kyiv, Ukraine.
And why would they want to keep Trump from digging?
She tweeted out some more points:
Here's a problem with *some* fact checking: a lot of the issues are subjective or undecided. One cannot necessarily fairly determine someone is "lying" if it's a matter of opinion. Also, "facts" (or what we believe to be true) constantly change.
— Sharyl Attkisson?️♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) October 24, 2019
Recommended
Opinion.
Subjective.
Key words.
2- What's more, to label a "lie" often involves getting into someone's head to determine intent. Even when it seems "obvious," I think it's usually just ill advised for a reporter to take that leap, short of an admission by the subject. https://t.co/MJWaZnmEJK
— Sharyl Attkisson?️♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) October 24, 2019
She’s so good at this.
3-Which is why in my new reporting, I don't label someone a "liar" or what they said "lies" even when I am pretty darn sure in my own mind… Best to leave it with– "the document contradicts" them or a statement is "false." Viewers can draw their own conclusions. https://t.co/1zEclT2fIL
— Sharyl Attkisson?️♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) October 24, 2019
Other reporters could learn a thing or five from her.
1-Diplomatic quid pro quo — requiring certain actions, behavior or “conditions” in return for U.S. aid — is common, according to current and former diplomats I spoke with, and foreign policy guidance. (Continued)…
— Sharyl Attkisson?️♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) October 24, 2019
So orange man not bad?
2-“Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President may determine the terms and conditions under which most forms of assistance are provided.” (Cont)
— Sharyl Attkisson?️♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) October 24, 2019
Womp womp, Dems.
3-A fmr Obama admin State Dept. official told me that, by controversializing this common practice [diplomatic quid pro quo for US aid], “the Democrats are basically hamstringing any future president.” He adds: “That’s why this is a constitutional moment.”https://t.co/Px7w0koZ7N
— Sharyl Attkisson?️♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) October 24, 2019
There ya’ go.
Always a troll or 12 who show up when Sharyl tweets … and she always handles them just fine.
"Be objective about and criticize?"
I'll have to give that oxymoron some thought.
? https://t.co/XzJlchjYNT— Sharyl Attkisson?️♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) October 24, 2019
Heh.
Quid pro no @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/g5EgvjZux1 pic.twitter.com/5ZxCFkkAHz
— Sharyl Attkisson?️♂️ (@SharylAttkisson) October 24, 2019
Boom.
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member