Don't let Trump foist another redacted transcript of a Ukrainian call on us
Trump says he will release the transcript of a second Ukrainian call, one made after Velensky won the election.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/08/impeachment-inquiry-trump-may-release-summary-second-zelensky-call/2511360001/
He could well be distracting us from another, later call, or he will again feed us a highly redacted transcript with all evidence of his culpability omitted.
*****************************
Additional: Information on the first SUMMERY transcript:
As revealed in testimony, the July 27th call was redacted although Trump claims it was a full transcript (which should make the case for its subpoena strong):
The WH released a highly redacted summary of the Ukrainian call, cutting out more explicit references to quid pro quo. For weeks Trump and his supporters have either explicitly or implicitly represented the partial transcript as a full, word-for-word transcript which means, of course, the argument for subpoena is substantial.
An entire article in The New York Times (10.30.19) based on Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman's testimony makes this point directly:
"Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindmanthe top Ukraine expert on the National
Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that
the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and
Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts
to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.
The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump’s assertion that
there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing
Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed
Mr. Biden’s son Hunter."
But the President and his supporters have directly stated that the transcript we were given covered the entire call as reported by CNN:
“. . . Trump himself has repeatedly insisted that the transcript released
by his White House was absolutely exact.
Twice in a press conference earlier this month, Trump went out of his way
to say the rough transcript was, in fact, a verbatim recounting of his call
with Zelensky. "I had a transcript done by very, very talented people --
word for word, comma for comma," said Trump at one point in that
early October news conference. "Done by people that do it for a living.
We had an exact transcript." Later, he added that the document was
‘an exact transcript of my call, done by very talented people that do this -- exact, word for word.’”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/politics/donald-trump-transcript-ukraine/index.html
There are literally dozens of other examples. In a 7:30 a.m. tweet on October 9, Trump claimed the transcript covered the entire call:
“The so-called Whistleblower, before knowing I was going to release
the exact Transcript, stated that my call with the Ukrainian President
was ‘crazy, frightening, and completely lacking in substance related
to national security.’ This is a very big Lie. Read the Transcript!”
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212561976
At rallies in Minneapolis and Lake Charles, Louisiana (October10 &11), Trump continually characterized the document he released as a full transcript despite the fact that it is clearly labeled, in all caps, “MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION.”
Such official characterizations make the case behind a subpoena stronger since such a characterization leaves that, itself, open to investigation and overrides issues of presidential privilage.
The whistle-blower, however, claimed a fuller, word-for-word transcript exists. On page 3 of the report. he or she writes:
"In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials
that senior White House officials had intervened to 'lock down' all records
of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the
call that was produced—as is customary—by the White House
Situation Room." (Bottom, p. 3):
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html
***************************************************************************
Let's not let him distract us from another call or wrongly characterize the election night call!
= new reply since forum marked as read
