Timeline for answer to Why is the fact that Ukraine President Zelenskyy publicly stated that Trump didn't pressure him whatsoever being ignored? by Bobson
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 25, 2019 at 1:40 | comment | added | phoog | @pagodat that reminds me of the phenomenon in which people vehemently protest a book or movie based on what they've heard other people saying about it rather than reading it themselves. It also reminds me of the controversy around "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." I read the transcript and Clinton was going out of his way not to evade the question, by pointing out "you gave me an opportunity here to hide the truth, but I will refrain from taking it." But everyone thinks he was being duplicitous. | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 21:31 | comment | added | Bobson | @Sentinel - The OP asks about both the media and the people leading the investigation, and I believe that I address both. Media -> "old news". People -> "Here's some possibilities". | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 21:27 | comment | added | Sentinel | This answer conflates the question OP 'ignored' with 'people ignored'. OP means mainstream media. Not what people think. | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 20:38 | comment | added | DariM | @phoog I'd even venture simpler than that. National leaders tend to avoid publicly embarassing themselves, or publicly embarassing other national leaders to their face. Providing the press with a quote admitting to being "pressured" by a president would have done exactly that. | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 19:32 | comment | added | pago dat | @phoog Yeah I watched the presser live and the fact that Zelensky didn't even finish his thought before Trump interrupted and finished his sentence for him didn't really inspire confidence. I think there are pretty big differences in perception between those who saw the presser vs those who just read about it. | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 17:54 | comment | added | Darrel Hoffman | Zelensky's in a tough spot. If he goes one way, he risks incurring the wrath of the current US president. If he goes the other way, he risks incurring the wrath of current front-runner for the next US president instead. I think he wants to stay out of it as much as possible just to hedge his bets and not get on either of their bad sides. | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 17:11 | comment | added | phoog | @BlackThorn fair point. Perhaps I should have written "... another country with which they are trying to maintain friendly diplomatic relations." | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 17:03 | comment | added | Draco18s no longer trusts SE | @BlackThorn You're not wrong, but generally speaking you don't say things like "Yes, he threatened to blackmail me" while the other person is still in the room two minutes after the blackmail threat you just capitulated to. | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 16:14 | comment | added | BlackThorn |
@phoog National leaders are not supposed to make statements that would obviously have an impact on the internal politics of another country. I have no idea where that notion came from, but it is easily refuted by countless examples from leaders from nearly every country. This is particularly true if you believe wrongdoing has been committed by a foreign leader. For example: Obama calling for the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad.
|
|
| Oct 24, 2019 at 15:49 | comment | added | phoog | I saw a brief clip from the interview. It was indeed extremely awkward. My take was that the awkwardness arose in large part from Zelensky's desire not to say something damaging while sitting right next to Trump in a room full of attentive reporters. His body language and vocal inflections were those of someone who's saying something that isn't so, who knows that everyone in the room knows that it isn't so, and who is saying it anyway because, well, answering truthfully would be even more awkward. | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 14:52 | comment | added | Bobson | @phoog - I didn't watch the interview, but the full quote (on the WP article I linked) definitely sounds like it was very awkward. Much more so than conveyed by the usual excerpts. | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 5:52 | comment | added | phoog | Another reason: norms of diplomacy. National leaders are not supposed to make statements that would obviously have an impact on the internal politics of another country. The president of Ukraine will have wanted to avoid saying anything that would put his US counterpart under pressure to resign. @DariM in other words, rather than being "OK" with the situation, he found it incredibly awkward, but wanted to keep the awkwardness quiet as much as possible. | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 3:56 | comment | added | DariM | I think the other possible aspect worth acknowledging in "People just didn't believe him" is that "People believed he was OK with a quid pro quo", given that the very nature of quid pro quo involves an exchange. He does get what he wants by offering something even if it is under pressure, and could have understood the hypothetical implicit threat, and could have been OK with that. To publicly claim he is under pressure (iirc, the press conference had Trump literally next to him) is destructive to him. There's no need to PRESSURE him into saying he wasn't pressured (although possible). | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 22:22 | comment | added | pago dat | There was also the issue that shortly after the news conference with Zelensky, the White House kind of stepped on the message by releasing the summary of the call, which reportedly surprised and upset the Ukrainians because of how Zelensky appeared in it (see politico.com/story/2019/09/26/… for example). My recollection of that news cycle was that Zelensky's statement was overshadowed so rapidly by the phone call summary that it was quickly dismissed, e.g. ecfr.eu/article/… | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 21:48 | history | answered | Bobson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |