WaPo writer needs our help

[intrepidity]

Let's please help rewrite the below sentence so that it more accurately represents the point that is apparently trying to be made.

"There is also no credible evidence that Biden intervened with Ukrainian officials to remove the country’s top prosecutor to help his son, who sat on the board of a company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-new-york-times-reporter-dug-into-ukraine-and-the-democrats-critics-are-still-howling/2019/11/15/4fb97812-0661-11ea-ac12-3325d49eacaa_story.html

Why it matters:

Considering that the opening paragraph of Paul Farhi's story is this:

New York Times reporter Kenneth P. Vogel was on the Ukraine conspiracy story early and in depth. The question is, did his articles leave the wrong impression?

his own (poorly structured) sentence ought to be exceedingly clear. So let's help him out.

First, what's the problem? Let's break it down.

1. "There is also no credible evidence
2. that Biden intervened with Ukrainian officials
3. to remove the country’s top prosecutor
4. to help his son,
5. who sat on the board of a company
6. owned by a Ukrainian oligarch."

Read the paragraph like a Trump apologist, and you know that their brain already turned off by 2. and most certainly by 3. I know, I've had the pleasure of being yelled at to "Go listen to the tape!! Biden did exactly that!" It's not until 4. that we get to the crux, and the point that is the most laughably easy to refute: that Biden sought to remove the prosecutor (Shukin) who had terminated an investigation into Burisma's owner.

My own writing skills suck, so please DU, help Paul Farhi out and reword his paragraph to accurately reflect reality.

[tazkcmo]

1. Here...

It's all bull shit.




Then again I'm not a journalist or writer.

[Joinfortmill]

2. lol

[Hortensis]

3. Remove the inappropriate "credible." "There is no evidence..."

After all, if it's not credible, it's not evidence.

That takes care of 90% of it right up front. Including any suspicion that this sentence is intended to give the wrong impression.

[intrepidity]

4. But the fact is, Biden *did* appeal for Shukin's removal

That is not in dispute, by anyone. Fact is, the whole international community that was involved, also wanted his removal

Biden *did* make the comments they keep shouting about, easily found on YouTube.

The point is that the facts of the matter are more nuanced, and thus require super clarity by anyone writing about them. Not my strong suit, to be sure. But WaPo needs to do better. Thus my post.

ETA: removing parts 3., 5. & 6. from the paragraph makes it true, BTW.

[Hortensis]

5. That was in ridding Ukraine's gov't of corruption.

Don't confuse their lying lies with "evidence."

The world press has been in Ukraine since before the revolution and invasion. They probably knew Hunter had joined the board before Biden did. They certainly watched everything like hawks, disappointed hawks in many cases no doubt, as the other governments and organizations in our western alliance would have as a matter of course.

We KNOW Biden is a man of integrity who performed his VP's "critical" "cover" functions well, as all our witnesses from Ukraine have stated.

[intrepidity]

6. *I* know that

My point is precisely that, since many other's may not, the demand for clarity is critical.