Trolls and the Times
One of the most popular devices used by propagandists is the selected misleading quote. I’ve seen the method used so often that it can be called standard operating procedure. It’s not limited to the left – you can find it on the right, too – but it’s only on the left that it’s commonplace and becomes nearly constant.
In fact, that discovery was one of the reasons for my political change.
Yesterday we had a good example of the use of the technique in this post, in which I compared the treatment of Tim Morrison’s testimony and opening statement (it is only the latter for which we were allowed to see the text) by The Federalist and the NY Times. Needless to say, quite different things were emphasized by each publication.
Right on cue, our resident troll “Manju” chimed in with this, as a reply to my characterization “The [Times’] headline states ‘White House Aide Confirms He Saw Signs of a Quid Pro Quo on Ukraine.’ …directly contradicts what the Federalist reports.” Manju writes:
From Morrison’s opening statement:
“I had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector assistance might be conditioned on a public statement reopening the Burisma investigation until my September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland.”
The NYTimes characterization is correct. The Federalist’s is propaganda.
But even looking just at the short excerpt Manju offers as proof that the Times headline was correct and the Federalist incorrect, it doesn’t indicate that at all. Morrison isn’t saying that he himself saw any such thing. He has no direct knowledge of anything of the sort. Nor was he asserting that because Sondland said it, it must be the case.
The part of Morrison’s statement that Manju left out provides the context [emphasis and bracketed remarks mine]:
I was not aware that the White House was holding up the security sector assistance passed by Congress until my superior, Dr. Charles Kupperman, told me soon after I succeeded Dr. Hill. I was aware that the President thought Ukraine had a corruption problem, as did many others familiar with Ukraine. I was also aware that the President believed that Europe did not contribute enough assistance to Ukraine. I was directed by Dr. Kupperman to coordinate with the interagency stakeholders to put together a policy process to demonstrate that the interagency supported security sector assistance to Ukraine. I was confident that our national security principals—the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the head of the National Security Council—could convince President Trump to release the aid because President Zelensky and the reform-oriented Rada were genuinely invested in their anti-corruption agenda.
Ambassador Taylor and I were concerned that the longer the money was withheld, the more questions the Zelensky administration would ask about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine. Our initial hope was that the money would be released before the hold became public because we did not want the newly constituted Ukrainian government to question U.S. support.
I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the review until August 28, 2019. [that’s long after the Trump phone call in question] Ambassador Taylor and I had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector assistance might be conditioned on a public statement reopening the Burisma investigation until my September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland. Even then I hoped that Ambassador Sondland’s strategy was exclusively his own and would not be considered by leaders in the Administration and Congress, who understood the strategic importance of Ukraine to our national security.
I am pleased our process gave the President the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector assistance. My regret is that Ukraine ever learned of the review and that, with this impeachment inquiry, Ukraine has become subsumed in the U.S. political process.
The characterization by the Times and Manju lacks the context in which it can properly be understood. But that’s the point, isn’t it?
What’s more – although this is somewhat tangential to the subject matter of this post, how quotes can work as propaganda – even if Trump was doing exactly what he is accused of doing, so what? Didn’t Biden explicitly do something similar?
Plus, here’s a point made by Trey Gowdy:
Well, you know, that means something for something,” he said of the supposed “quid pro quo” at the center of the impeachment probe. “I need to know what both of those somethings is.”
“If the something is, ‘We’re not going to give you aid until you help us figure out who tried to interfere with the levers of democracy in 2016’ — Margaret, I can tell you if a Democrat did that we’d be adding something to Mt. Rushmore,” he said.
If it was the case that Mr. Trump and his allies inside and outside the administration pressured the government of Ukraine to help the U.S. determine who else, other than Russians, might have attempted to meddle in the 2016 election, Gowdy said the actions would not amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors” — the constitutional standard for impeachment.
“I mean, we spent two years as a country trying to figure out who tried to interfere with our elections. So clearly, it can’t be an impeachable offense,” he added.
But it’s moot, because there are no indications that’s what happened. And in particular, if Ukraine wasn’t even aware of any stoppage of aid, then there could not have been a quid pro quo for anything, and that includes the re-opening of the Burisma investigation.
There are several possible quid pro quo subjects, by the way, and they are often confused: an end to Ukrainian corruption in general, information about Ukrainian interference in the US election of 2016, and re-opening (note the “re”) the Ukrainian investigation into Burisma. IMHO they would all be valid subjects for Trump to insist upon, but I see no evidence that any of these subjects was made a requirement by Trump in terms of foreign aid to Ukraine, for the simple reason that Ukraine didn’t even know there was any disruption in aid.
The thing about this propaganda technique is that it’s generally very effective. That’s true for several reasons, but the main one is that most people will not go back to the original to find the context in order to check. Often it’s because they view the source of the quote as a trusted one. Often it’s because they don’t have the time or the inclination. Sometimes they even lack the knowledge that they can find the original if they try (and of course sometimes the text of the original is unavailable). Often they want to believe the version they read anyway, and aren’t especially interested in challenging it.
And so it continues.
Of course, the logical conclusion is that because Manju is a pathological liar, we can’t trust him to live among us, and he needs to be given the same choice the Founders gave the Tories: Leave or Die.
The times isn’t saying that Morrison has direct knowledge of the quid pro quo (security assistance in return for a public statement reopening the Burisma investigation). They say he saw “signs” of one. “Signs” is a qualifier.
But he also saw one hell of a sign. The guy who actually made the offer to Ukraine (Sondland) told him he had done so.
Manju is merely a running dog lackey. I see no upside to mentioning him, her, xer, 50,000 genders. A fool who does not realize it will be consumed by the flames of the cultural revolution.
I pity the fool, which is also a great song.
Manju:
Quit embarrassing yourself.
“Signs” is not the same as “somebody told me and I have no idea whether that person is telling the truth but my own opinion is quite to the contrary.”
The Times and you are being purposely misleading.
Or perhaps you’d like the Times to report on “signs” as in “a psychic told me” or “I heard some gossip” (which is often pretty much what they do – report gossip and pretend it’s a hot tip on something, and then when it doesn’t happen they just move on to the next thing).
Manju:
Oh, and about what Sondland told Morrison – Morrison’s statement doesn’t say exactly what Sondland told him, but it does say this (one of the parts you oh-so-conveniently left out, and which directly follows the sentence you did quote in order to make it look like what Sondland told Morrison somehow changed Morrison’s mind): “Even then I hoped that Ambassador Sondland’s strategy was exclusively his own and would not be considered by leaders in the Administration and Congress, who understood the strategic importance of Ukraine to our national security.”
So the indication is that Sondland never told Morrison that Trump or anyone else (other than perhaps Sondland himself) offered Ukraine this quid pro quo. What he says there indicates he thought Sondland did whatever he did on his own. The Times obviously wants the reader to conclude the quid pro quo was the one everyone’s talking about, supposedly by Trump. Who would give a rat’s ass if Sondland offered some quid pro quo on his own? No one. The Times knows that, as do you.
Give it up, Manju. You’re not being paid enough to prostitute yourself like this. I know you love the attention, but is it really worth it?
Right. While the Times isn’t saying that Morrison has direct knowledge of the quid pro quo, they are saying his knowledge is significant.
And indeed it is. The guy who did it told him that he did.
I would think we all would, especially Trump supporters. A guy going rouge in an administration?
Violating the norm that you do not ask a foreign country to investigate an American citizen?
A rouge agent doing an end-run around DOJ policy: that you do not publicly announce investigations, and if you do it must be done by the book?
Even if it were just Sonderland it would be a scandal.
Manju:
You seem to prefer to keep digging that hole.
Neo, thanks for chasing this down for me. I confess I didn’t do it myself, because I simply didn’t believe Manju. He’s got a history here. You proved me right to distrust his statements.
On a silly note, I realize it’s just his repeated typo, but I am trying to picture “rouge” agents. 🙂
Manju, you are pinned and wriggling. Wriggling for all you’re worth, but still pinned.
“Violating the norm that you do not ask a foreign country to investigate an American citizen?”
So the treaty concerning mutual assistance in investigations of wrongdoing isn’t a norm? Crackers.
Gowdy seems to be taking McCarthy’s position, which is more or less along the lines of: even IF Trump made a quid-pro-quo arrangement, it’s politics as usual and not a high crime or misdmeanor.
I agree, and also contend that, contra McCarthy and others, even if there was a QPQ that included the Bidens in some investigation, it still is neither condemnable nor impeachable.
They made their own bed with dirty linen; if it gets hung out on the line, that’s just too bad.
Plus, if Hunter didn’t do anything wrong, why are they afraid of an investigation?
Aren’t the Democrats trying to obstruct justice here?
Oh, and Manju and anyone who might actually be interested:
Since we don’t have access to Sonderland’s or Morrison’s actual testimony, we don’t really know exactly what either said except for Morrison’s opening remarks, which don’t even say exactly what Sonderland told him.
But this article supposedly based on Sonderland’s testimony according to his lawyer, indicates that Sonderland was merely expressing his opinion:
Thanks Neo.
I’m a snarky ass myself but some of these disingenuous dickheads need your own brand of vivisection.
The White House position going back long before the call has consistently been the mil aid was withheld for two reasons: 1) waiting to see whether Ukraine tackled corruption inside Ukraine, and 2) discontent with the level of EU aid to Ukraine. Once satisfied that Ukraine was serious about getting after internal government corruption the aid was pushed forward.
All this quid pro quo stuff is crap, plain and simple.
If Pence were to tell California it would not receive any federal funding unless they recalled Schiff because of his corrupt investigations of Trump, Democrats, the media and the vast of Republicans would explode and demand both Pence and Trump be removed from office.
Isn’t this exactly what Biden did to Ukraine? Why is Biden untouchable for this which he admitted. Trump never did anything like this in regards to Ukraine yet is excoriated as being corrupt. Biden is still getting a walk on his actions. Hilary the same with hers.
Quid pro quo is normal for most aid. It is given or denied on many grounds such as human rights abuses or who they are friendly with. Turkey has been removed from the F-35 program because they have been purchasing military hardware from Russia. If those purchases were stopped, they would probably be allowed back in.
Is it a big thrill to waste other people’s’ time? Sad!
https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/01/donald-trump-versus-the-interagency-consensus/
neo on November 1, 2019 at 7:58 pm said:
Oh, and Manju and anyone who might actually be interested:
Since we don’t have access to Sonderland’s or Morrison’s actual testimony, we don’t really know exactly what either said except for Morrison’s opening remarks, which don’t even say exactly what Sonderland told him.
But this article supposedly based on Sonderland’s testimony according to his lawyer, indicates that Sonderland was merely expressing his opinion:
* * *
I asked that very question here
https://www.thenewneo.com/2019/10/31/this-is-the-sort-of-thing-the-democrats-wont-be-leaking/#comment-2463023
Thanks for answering it — but, it’s so irritating to get testimony in bits and pieces though.
It’s like trying to make sense of an episode of some TV cop show when isolated and incomplete excerpts are aired in random order.
The headline, though, says something entirely different than the excerpt you quoted, although I can’t get past the adblocker to copy it.
Here’s John Podhoretz, a Never-T guy, but seemingly more rational. With Taylor’s claims, Trump’s impeachment is ensured:
_________________________________________________
We have a veteran U.S. diplomat on the record saying that a Trump intimate told him Trump was holding up Congressionally authorized and appropriated military aid to Ukraine because he wanted a public statement from the Zelensky government that it was investigating Joe Biden’s son.
Taylor said this of a September 1 phone call with Gordon Sondland, our ambassador to the European Union about the $275 million in U.S. security assistance to Ukraine as well as a possible meeting between Trump and Ukranian president Zelensky:
“Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations—in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelenskyy ‘in a public box’ by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.”
So that’s it. Unless Trump and Sondland deny this, and offer evidence that Taylor is wrong or lying, we now have contemporaneous confirmation that the president intended to hold up military aid to the Ukranians to secure domestic political advantage.
That’s the ballgame. That’s impeachment. In doing this Trump was contravening U.S. law, which does not give the president the right to deny Ukraine the money appropriated by Congress for Ukraine.
________________________________________________
I haven’t been following the latest twists in the impeachment plot, so I’m not sure how JPod is so sure or what he is sure of. That the Democrats will impeach Trump? Well, he’s got that right. But is it justified in an objective sense? There is a range of authoritative opinion.
As a casual observer, it seems to me Democrats are playing demolition derby with the law. But if Trump jaywalks it’s a big hairy deal.
manju will keep posting here as long as it keeps him from begging at freeway off-ramps.
huxley:
Have you read Podhoretz’s latest in the NY Post? — “Impeachment: Sifting the serious from the silly”
sdferr,
You can ask a foreign govt to assist in an American Govt investigation. But you can’t ask a foreign govt to investigate an American citizen, let alone your political rival, via their own system.
The Ukraine and China, the two countries Trump has asked to investigate his political rivals, do not have systems in place that protect the Natural Rights of Man.
You certainly can’t instruct a foreign government to violate a rule that protects the rights of the accused, like publicly announcing an investigation.
Which brings us to Rudy Guilliani. You absolutely double-certainly can’t ask a foreign govt to coordinate with a political operative and his two goons who are paid by a Putin Mobster who is under arrest and fighting extradition to the US.
It doesn’t help that the Putin Mobster is feeding disinformation to a well-know Propagandist named John Solomon, whose investigations form the basis of what the Ukraine is supposed to deliver.
Have you read Podhoretz’s latest in the NY Post? —
Why should he read it? Podhoretz is filling his contractual column-inches. The column is vaporous.
The Democratic Party is a collecting pool of dishonest people seeking emotional validation. This gangrene in our political culture is a challenge, and quite possibly an insuperable one.
The natural rights of man? Well tickle my ass and call me Curly. I forget where that emerges in materialist dialectic theoretic.
The source of the corruption in Ukraine Hunter Biden is taking advantage of is a Ukrainian gas Co., Burisma, which is where the Ukrainian investigation goes. Don’t give me that bullshit as if Trump wants anything else. If Biden needs prosecution in the US for breaking US law(s) his due process rights will be well preserved, so we oughtn’t worry on that score.
As to the remainder of your malarkey? pppppft. Wholly unimpressive tripe.
Trump’s impeachment has been ensured since about .4 seconds after it became known he’d won the election.
Both the demonrats and the gop establishment wanted him gone and both still do. That should be the most incandescently obvious thing about American politics since everyone agreed that poverty was bad.
I find it tedious that various people I used to respect- like John Podhoretz- somehow manage to pretend that this isn’t the case, and further pretend something Trump has done or hasn’t done has somehow managed to inspire his impeachment.
It hasn’t. Trump could have literally done everything the Deep State wanted him to do post election, and they’d still have tried to get him thrown out of office. We know that because the effort to evict him literally began before he took office, before Trump could take any impeachable action, or any action at all.
Believing that, I see no reason to take the anti-Trump folks seriously. Period.
Both the demonrats and the gop establishment wanted him gone and both still do.
Disagree. The GOP establishment wants him to execute their agenda and not his. There isn’t much of a NeverTrump element left in Congress. Some of them retired (Flake, Corker) and some have been so appalled at the tactics of the Democratic caucus that they came around, more or less. Susan Collins is who she’s always been, a problem for party whips but not a rude and confrontational problem.
The inveterate NeverTrumpers are opinion journalists and security establishment operatives. That includes John Podhoretz. Opinion journalists are less influential than they were a generation ago, and most were not particularly consequential even then. (I’d wager what Walter Lippmann had to say, ca. 1947 and what George Will had to say, ca. 1985 mattered). Now they’re just howling at the moon or providing emotional validation for liberals who read topical commentary. The security establishment operatives are proving to be a real problem, as we have seen. They aren’t, however, very numerous.
Manju,
Give it up. You’ve been taken out behind the backstop in the playground and pantsed.
Quit running around flapping your less than stunning endowment.
“Disagree”
Art Deco,
Uhm, I think I can agree with every word of your comment except this one.
Certainly the gop establishment would want him to execute their agenda and not his- but I think that the gop establishment concluded pretty early that he wasn’t willing to do that,
Hence, their relentless and savage yet flailing and impotent attacks against the demon Trump that began immediately after he announced his candidacy.
But yes, there isn’t much left of that, thankfully.
Hence, their relentless and savage yet flailing and impotent attacks against the demon Trump that began immediately after he announced his candidacy.
Except they haven’t been. The attacks have been coming from the security establishment (a problem); some now-retired politicians like Katsh!t, Corker, and Flake (not much of a problem); and opinion journalists like Matt K. Lewis (who cares?).
The Dem “news” is not really about the news. They already have the story mostly written, with Trump and Reps as the villains.
They look for quotes which support that story – Reps are bad.
They will use such a quote, or make one up thru “rephrasing”, saying that Rep “meant” blah blah – Reps are bad – no matter what he really said.
“But you can’t ask a foreign govt to investigate an American citizen, let alone your political rival, via their own system.”
That’s just stupid. A President can ASK a foreign government to do anything that doesn’t violate U.S. laws…and I’m not even sure he can’t do that (See Bill Clinton and Rendition).
This is Calvinball, which is annoying but ultimately harmless in the online world of people shooting their mouths off. Calvinball in the real world ends in fire, screams, and blood.
Mike
MBunge,
Paul Mirengoff noted early on that “…asking a foreign leader to conduct an investigation — is wrong under almost any circumstance.”
At the time, Mirengoff positioned Trump’s ask as “Trump wanted cooperation with American investigators” but has since conceded that he wanted that which “is wrong under almost any circumstance.”
So that’s the norm. No one moved the goalposts for Trump.
But ironically, the more troubling ask is the one concerning American “investigators”…because of the presence of Guilliani, his two goons, incarcerated Putin Mobster Dmytro Firtash, and propagandist John Solomon.
“…asking a foreign leader to conduct an investigation — is wrong under almost any circumstance.”
They key part being “almost any circumstance.” What are the circumstances confronting Donald Trump.
1. He was just subjected to a baseless two-year investigation where he was essentially accused of committing treason and repeatedly threatened not only with his removal as President but actual imprisonment.
2. There is evidence, actual evidence, that members of the American intelligence and law enforcement communities may have been involved in fraudulently generating that investigation.
3. There is also evidence, actual evidence, that members of the American government are actively working to subvert, oppose, and undermine his Administration.
4. To date, NONE of the people who spread the baseless smear against Donald Trump have been held accountable in any way by the American media or political class.
5. Virtually the entire media and much of our political class is willfully ignoring all the evidence referred to #2 and #3.
Yes, the goalposts are being moved out of the stadium and off the planet when it comes to Donald Trump. He is confronted with an extraordinary threat to not only his Presidency but to the very principles of the American democratic system. Any action he takes must be evaluated in the context of that.
But, to return to the original point, I don’t care if it is Paul Mirengoff or the Risen Lord, anyone who says it is wrong for the President to ask a foreign leader to take a COMPLETELY LEGAL ACTION is mistaken. That is a standard which has NEVER been applied to any previous President or political/elected official, as demonstrated by the fact that when Joe Biden boasted of practically extorting the Ukrainian government to fire that prosecutor, no one raised a peep.
Mike
MBurge:
So you place the potential actions of President Trump above Jesus Christ, the Risen Lord? You might want to reconsider your words, as they sound like a fanatic or even more extreme than zealots of old. Almost like the victim of a personality cult.
MBunge:
Not only is it not wrong, but we have an agreement with Ukraine to share information of that sort. Also, this was not the sudden opening of a new investigation that was requested. This was the re-opening of an investigation that previously had been ongoing in Ukraine during the Obama administration and that Joe Biden as VP had stopped by threatening to withhold aid. That little bit of information keeps getting lost.
“So you place the potential actions of President Trump above Jesus Christ, the Risen Lord?”
Have you ever heard of hyperbole? Fire up the old search engine and see if you can find the definition.
Eh. Let me just explain it. I was using an exaggerated statement NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY to demonstrate the absurdity of an opposing argument. A U.S. President asking a foreign leader to do something completely legal and ethical may, based on many factors, be unseemly or impolitic or…to use a phrase associated with anti-Trumpism…”icky.” But to say that is it WRONG?
Mike
Neo said,
“Also, this was not the sudden opening of a new investigation that was requested. This was the re-opening of an investigation that previously had been ongoing in Ukraine during the Obama administration and that Joe Biden as VP had stopped by threatening to withhold aid. That little bit of information keeps getting lost.”
For certain definitions of ‘lost’. More like in manju’s case, hidden and smothered with a pillow.
MBurge:
Not too clever, Mike; using all caps doesn’t make your point any less foolish or your explanation less condescending. Do you write with crayons too? That is hyperbole as well. Whatever, dude.
One last thing on propaganda.
This whole back and forth started with Neo’s observation that the Times’ headline (“White House Aide Confirms He Saw Signs of a Quid Pro Quo on Ukraine”) “directly contradicts what the Federalist reports.”
But does it?
It would indeed seem so. After all, the Federalist reports; “Morrison also said Taylor falsely claimed that Ambassador Gordon Sondland demanded a public statement from the Ukrainian president committing to investigate Burisma…”
But keep reading. And you will see a sleight of hand.
The Federalist isn’t actually saying, in characterizing Morrison’s view, that claims of a quid pro quo involving a public statement from the Ukraine are false.
The only thing that is false is who was supposed to make the public statement.
And that doesn’t contradict the Times headline at all.
Actually, the reallast thing, is this, for the entire inquiry and not just the Morrison-Taylor-Sondland ambiguities: we only know what Schiff & Co. has leaked from the testimony of witnesses who have not faced any serious cross-examination, and what some people have claimed they heard, or said, or inferred, or guessed, or were told by people “knowledgeable about the situation,” to use the now current disclaimer.
Arguing about whose headline contradicts whose story is not even on par with rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, which at least was a real ship with real chairs.
Paul Mirengoff and Manju arre full of it:
President Trump was authorized to seek Ukrainian cooperation by ratified treaty, and REQUIRED to seek Ukrainian cooperation as part of fulfilling his oath of office that the laws (in this case, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) will be faithfully executed.