roadkill » 17 Jul 2017 7:22 am wrote:
'Schiff: Washington Democrats Meeting with Ukrainian Officials for Trump Dirt Would Have Been 'Inappropriate'
Finally that exhaustive investigation is over.
Let's move on.
Who in the Clinton campaign met with anyone in the Ukrainian gov't to receive dirt on The Terror of Twitter Chelsea? Her husband? John Podesta?
I get that this Ukrainian thing is the new talking point, but it falls flat.
First of all it was not nearly the same thing.
It was a low level operative (consultant) at the DNC who took it upon herself to look into Paul Manafort's work with the pro-Russian Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.
It was not the top people in the Clinton campaign meeting with people who said they were part of the Ukraine government's support for her.
"Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin (and) involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services," the article said. "There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine."
So, according to American intelligence agencies, the Kremlin shaped and directed the email hacking of Democrats and subsequent distribution. In contrast, a variety of actors on the Ukrainian side responded to American queries and provided public documents.
Which leads to the other big distinction: The Russians got their materials through cyber-attacks, while the only telling document revealed by a Ukrainian lawmaker was the product of an official investigation.
"There’s a difference between dealing with the embassy and dealing with a covert intelligence operation," Wittes said.
(Benjamin Wittes, editor of Lawfare blog.)
"Are you dealing with government records, or are you dealing in stolen dirt?"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... elped-tru/