Test-marketing a new impeachment narrative: 'Luck' prevented a quid pro quo

In the fever swamp of impeachment frenzy, absence of evidence can be explained away with the help of friends.  The awkward fact that aid to Ukraine was flowing before any official statements were made about Ukraine investigating Democrats discredits the central claim of the impeachers: that the Trump administration was blackmailing President Zelensky into "investigating a political rival" and holding up vital military aid to force it.

But why let facts get in the way?

The New York Times comes up with a counter-narrative: that only "luck" prevented the proof from emerging.  Seriously.  That's the argument.  Here's the headline:

"Ukraine's Zelensky Bowed to Trump's Demands, Until Luck Spared Him"


Source.

You can trust this "news" because it is based on multiple sources, none of whom has a name "fit to print."

[I]nterviews in Kiev with government officials, lawmakers and others close to the Zelensky government have revealed new details of how high-level Ukrainian officials ultimately decided to acquiesce to President Trump's request — and, by a stroke of luck, never had to follow through.

Here's the "luck" that prevented the Dems from having the proof that's rightfully theirs:

Though plans were in motion to give the White House the public statement it had sought, events in Washington saved the Ukrainian government from any final decision and eliminated the need to make the statement.

Word of the freeze in military aid had leaked out, and Congress was in an uproar. Two days before the scheduled interview, the Trump administration released the assistance and Mr. Zelensky's office quickly canceled the interview.

Notice how the implication is laid that because Congress "was in an uproar," the Trump administration released the aid.  However, there is no evidence at all of a causal relationship.

But trust the New York Times and all its friends and sources: the Trump administration was gonna do something bad and just got lucky.

Hat tip: Roger Luchs.

In the fever swamp of impeachment frenzy, absence of evidence can be explained away with the help of friends.  The awkward fact that aid to Ukraine was flowing before any official statements were made about Ukraine investigating Democrats discredits the central claim of the impeachers: that the Trump administration was blackmailing President Zelensky into "investigating a political rival" and holding up vital military aid to force it.

But why let facts get in the way?

The New York Times comes up with a counter-narrative: that only "luck" prevented the proof from emerging.  Seriously.  That's the argument.  Here's the headline:

"Ukraine's Zelensky Bowed to Trump's Demands, Until Luck Spared Him"


Source.

You can trust this "news" because it is based on multiple sources, none of whom has a name "fit to print."

[I]nterviews in Kiev with government officials, lawmakers and others close to the Zelensky government have revealed new details of how high-level Ukrainian officials ultimately decided to acquiesce to President Trump's request — and, by a stroke of luck, never had to follow through.

Here's the "luck" that prevented the Dems from having the proof that's rightfully theirs:

Though plans were in motion to give the White House the public statement it had sought, events in Washington saved the Ukrainian government from any final decision and eliminated the need to make the statement.

Word of the freeze in military aid had leaked out, and Congress was in an uproar. Two days before the scheduled interview, the Trump administration released the assistance and Mr. Zelensky's office quickly canceled the interview.

Notice how the implication is laid that because Congress "was in an uproar," the Trump administration released the aid.  However, there is no evidence at all of a causal relationship.

But trust the New York Times and all its friends and sources: the Trump administration was gonna do something bad and just got lucky.

Hat tip: Roger Luchs.