Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,288
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 29:
Line 29: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Accademic career
According the ''The American Spectator'': {{quotebox|“Kolkhoz” order means “collective farm” order, so Ohr’s subtitle refers to the “stabilization” of the collective farm order. The phrasing alone is suggestive of some silverish lining after the [[holodomor|six million or more people were killed]] by [[Stalin]]’s state-created famine, mass deportations, and general war of “de-kulakization.”<br>In the introduction to her 418-page paper, Ohr sets forth her main arguments, citing many of “revisionism’s” leading figures — J. Arch Getty, Roberta Manning, Gabor Rittersporn, Sheila Fitzpatrick.<br>Speaking “revisionist” lingo, Nellie Ohr turns the millions killed by Stalin into “excesses,” which, in Ohr’s words, “sometimes represented desperate measures taken by a government that had little real control over the country.” (Poor Stalin.) She depicts purges as representing “to some degree a center-periphery conflict in which the ‘state-building’ central government tried to bring headstrong local satraps under control.”<br>Here, in full context, are the “revisionist” trends she says her thesis will “corroborate”:<br><br>''Recently, Western historians [i.e., "revisionists”] have been using materials from the Smolensk archive to back up their arguments that power flowed not only from the top down but also from the bottom up to some degree; that excesses [i.e. state sponsored mass murder] sometimes represented desperate measures taken by a government that had little real control over the country; that policies such as dekulakization and the purges of the later 1930s had some social constituency among aggrieved groups of poorer peasants; and that the purges represented to some degree a center-periphery conflict in which the ‘state-building’ central government tried to bring headstrong local satraps under control.''<ref>[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/34345397_Collective_farms_and_Russian_peasant_society_1933-1937_the_stabilization_of_the_Kolkhoz_order]</ref>
According the ''The American Spectator'': {{quotebox|“Kolkhoz” order means “collective farm” order, so Ohr’s subtitle refers to the “stabilization” of the collective farm order. The phrasing alone is suggestive of some silverish lining after the [[holodomor|six million or more people were killed]] by [[Stalin]]’s state-created famine, mass deportations, and general war of “de-kulakization.”<br>In the introduction to her 418-page paper, Ohr sets forth her main arguments, citing many of “revisionism’s” leading figures — J. Arch Getty, Roberta Manning, Gabor Rittersporn, Sheila Fitzpatrick.<br>Speaking “revisionist” lingo, Nellie Ohr turns the millions killed by Stalin into “excesses,” which, in Ohr’s words, “sometimes represented desperate measures taken by a government that had little real control over the country.” (Poor Stalin.) She depicts purges as representing “to some degree a center-periphery conflict in which the ‘state-building’ central government tried to bring headstrong local satraps under control.”<br>Here, in full context, are the “revisionist” trends she says her thesis will “corroborate”:<br><br>''Recently, Western historians [i.e., "revisionists”] have been using materials from the Smolensk archive to back up their arguments that power flowed not only from the top down but also from the bottom up to some degree; that excesses [i.e. state sponsored mass murder] sometimes represented desperate measures taken by a government that had little real control over the country; that policies such as dekulakization and the purges of the later 1930s had some social constituency among aggrieved groups of poorer peasants; and that the purges represented to some degree a center-periphery conflict in which the ‘state-building’ central government tried to bring headstrong local satraps under control.''<ref>[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/34345397_Collective_farms_and_Russian_peasant_society_1933-1937_the_stabilization_of_the_Kolkhoz_order]</ref>
}}
}}
==Ukrainian collusion==
:{{See also|Biden-Ukraine scandal}}
Nellie Ohr told congressional investigators on Oct. 19, 2018, that while she was working for FusionGPS, she was sometimes given leads from both Jake Berkowitz, her direct supervisor, and Fusion GPS co-founder [[Glenn Simpson]]. When asked if any Fusion research was based off “sources of theirs,” Nellie answered affirmatively but said the information that came from the sources wasn’t in relation to the Trump family.
When pressed, Nellie said she recalled them “mentioning someone named Serhiy Leshchenko, a Ukrainian.” She later admitted she knew of Leshchenko prior to her time at Fusion as he was a “very well-known, Ukrainian, anti-corruption activist” and said she had followed him in the press.
Leshchenko revealed the existence in 2016 of the so-called Ukrainian “Black Ledger,” which allegedly contained a list of secret payments made by Ukraine’s pro-Russian Party of Regions to [[Paul Manafort]] among many others.
Leshchenko had adopted a strong anti-Trump stance, telling the ''Financial Times'' of [[London]] in August 2016 that “a Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy” and that it was “important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world.” Leschenko noted that the majority of Ukrainian politicians were “on Hillary Clinton’s side.”
Nellie Ohr said she wasn’t aware how the connection between Leshchenko and FusionGPS was established, or if they were doing work for him, but she did agree that Leshchenko was “a source of information” and acknowledged that she then used that information in following up and formulating her opposition research.
Later in Ohr’s testimony, Leshchenko was briefly mentioned once again. She appeared to be very careful with her choice of wording—especially when Manafort’s name came up:
{{quotebox|'''Ms. Sachsman Grooms:''' You mentioned that, at some point, somebody from Fusion GPS told you that they were giving you a tip that was based off of a source that was a Ukrainian source, Serhiy Leshchenko. Is that right?
'''Ms. Ohr:''' Yes. That they were—that they were giving me some information that had originated with him in some way.
'''Ms. Sachsman Grooms:''' Do you recall whether that information related to Mr. Manafort?
'''Ms. Ohr:''' What I’ll say is that at the time—at the same meeting, if I recall correctly, that his name came up, this piece of paper that lists Mr. Manafort’s flights was given to me, and I’m not—I don’t recall exactly right now whether they said this particular piece of paper comes from Mr. Leshchenko or not.}}
At this point, the questioning abruptly moved on and no further questions involving either Manafort or Leshchenko were put forth. Ohr was never asked if she had ever met with Leshchenko directly.
==See also==
==See also==