Don’t want to break the hotel TV. Had to mute the farmer. Hopefully as more come forward and more things come out that ole Dev gets on the list for criminal prosecution.
The first or second thing in the “transcript” that was released was the statement that it wasn’t a transcript, but a summary of the transcript. The WB complaint says the actual verbatim transcript was placed on a different service to keep it from going to other people in the government and is meant for things with national security implications.
It’s nice to know you still are keeeeeeeding shit up by not bothering to actually read the shit you’re talking about.
In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple US officials that multiple White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call , especially the word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced - as is customary - by the White House Situation Room.
So a word-for-word should exist - and, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, 30 minutes is a looooong time.
Summary: Trump made it clear to the President of Ukraine that he expects him to investigate Biden. When that didn‘t happen Trump for no reason withheld military aid given by Congress. Trump also hid the evidence of the conversation.
I’m still trying to fathom the decision to waive executive privilege.
Lewandowski was claiming constitutional executive immunity for conversations he had as a private citizen, yet they release this obviously incriminating call and the even more damning complaint.
This is a good post. Without having read the actual whistleblower report yet, the commentary here makes it pretty clear that the report establishes mens rea. It’s pretty hard to take Team Trump at their word that this wasn’t a quid pro quo when everyone behind the scenes was acting like it was exactly that damning in trying to cover it up. This isn’t even a situation like having a special server where all communication is going so as to be able to avoid FOIAs and subpoenas, a la Hillary. That may be bad and suggestive of impropriety, but this is much worse, and much more clear. This is taking specific measures about one particular conversation, precisely because they know how damning it is.
This is also the part that jumped out to me. This is the sort of behavior that they accuse Hillary Clinton of doing with her email server. Projection strikes again.
I did read it, though it seems you didn’t. It doesn’t say that it is a summary of the conversation. This is what it says:
“CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty Oficers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the coversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation. The word “inaudible” is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.”
So it’s not a summary as you say. As I’ve said before, all reports I’ve seen indicate that this is the only transcript, and it seems to be the “word-for-word” transcript that the whistleblower complaint mentions: “especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced – as is customary – by the White House Situation Room.” As the quoted warning of the transcript says, it was produced by White House Situation Room staff. I’ve seen no reports that another more complete transcript exists, if you know of such reports please link to them.