President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Overheal

Nikki Haley complains on Hannity that the impeachment inquiry is too one sided because it isn’t focused on Hunter Biden. I wasn’t aware Hunter Biden was being impeached?

More argument of process, no defense of action.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/nikki-haley-theres-been-very-one-sided-investigations-against-trump-we-should-be-asking-questions-of-bidens/

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Am I witnessesing doublethink?

No, you're just not understanding what was said and also perhaps how things work when it comes to the creation of a memcon / call transcript.

You say Vindman and others would be raising hell over the missing parts of the call - and, they, did. You just alluded to that fact.

Nope, he was asked during his testimony what he felt differed between the released transcript and his own recollection / notes of the call and all he could point to was that Zelensky had used the word Burisma at one point (not company) and that Trump had mentioned that there were recordings of Joe Biden's bragging. That's about as far from raising hell as it gets and as I pointed out, in his opening statement he was more than happy to refer to what was released as "the transcript":

By the way, some of Vindman's edit suggestions were incorporated into the released transcript, just not those particular two.

As the above notice from the document makes clear those omissions were deliberate via epillepses

You're making an inference with no justification. 1) it's hardly a mystery that Trump was referencing Burisma and nor is it a secret that Biden was recorded when he was bragging and so deliberately leaving these things out (as you're suggesting) didn't have the desired effect as nobody was under any illusion that Burisma was not the company and nor did it escape anyone's attention that Biden's bragging was recorded.

Look, let's be honest, you said:

"We have not gotten the transcript of the call"

And you have no justification for making that claim. The call transcript was released.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

As the above notice from the document makes clear those omissions were deliberate via epillepses

Oh and just on this point re ellipses, they are not always indicative of words having been removed, as per Vindman's testimony:

hetuzozaho

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh and just on this point re ellipses, they are not always indicative of words having been removed, as per Vindman's testimony:

What does that mean. "something that required some content"

Not a word but...? A gesture by a person?

And isn't a Ukrainian word a word?

osarusan

I had thought that the transcript/memorandum released weeks/months ago only covered a section of the overall phone call.

Is it actually the case that the document, apart from a discussion over ellipses and the like, actually represents something very close to a verbatim transcript of the entire call?

I made the point earlier in the thread that if we are only seeing a section of the call in the document, we are in the dark about what else might have been said. I had thought it was something like a 10-minute excerpt from a call that lasted about 30 minutes.

But if, as it seems Vindman said, the publicly released document covers the entire call, then I don't see anything in there that Trump can't offer a plausible explanation for.

Cody montana

osarusan wrote: »

I had thought that the transcript/memorandum released weeks/months ago only covered a section of the overall phone call.

Is it actually the case that the document, apart from a discussion over ellipses and the like, actually represents something close to a verbatim transcript of the entire call?

I made the point earlier in the thread that if we are only seeing a section of the call in the document, we are in the dark about what else might have been said. I had thought it was something like a 10-minute excerpt from a call that lasted about 30 minutes.

But if, as it seems Vindman said, the publicly released document covers the entire call, then I don't see anything in there that Trump can't offer a plausible explanation for.

This is why John Bolton needs to testify.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1194035922066714625

Leaving aside the claim of transparency which doesn't hold any water for the only president to fight tooth and nail to hide his tax returns, this strategy of showing an innocent phone call is a bit like a character reference from someone that Jeffrey Dahmer didn't murder.

I mean, it's great that Dahmer was capable of not murdering people and it's great that Trump was able to have a phone call where he didn't extort a country for electoral help but it's really not exonerating. I've never heard of a thief having charges dropped because CCTV was produced of him going into the shop on a different day and not stealing from it.

I understand the argument that Trump, and therefore yourself are trying to make but you have to admit that it's very weak. Really, really weak.

Timberrrrrrrr

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You gotta stop relying on the parsing of the WaPo, as I'm afraid her testimony was yet more REO Speedwagon nonsense:


So just yet more 'Heard it from a friend who, heard it from another'.




We did get the transcript of the call. The testimony of those that were on the call make that clear.

No, we got a partial memorandum which is a totally different thing.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, you're just not understanding what was said and also perhaps how things work when it comes to the creation of a memcon / call transcript.



Nope, he was asked during his testimony what he felt differed between the released transcript and his own recollection / notes of the call and all he could point to was that Zelensky had used the word Burisma at one point (not company) and that Trump had mentioned that there were recordings of Joe Biden's bragging. That's about as far from raising hell as it gets and as I pointed out, in his opening statement he was more than happy to refer to what was released as "the transcript":



By the way, some of Vindman's edit suggestions were incorporated into the released transcript, just not those particular two.



You're making an inference with no justification. 1) it's hardly a mystery that Trump was referencing Burisma and nor is it a secret that Biden was recorded when he was bragging and so deliberately leaving these things out (as you're suggesting) didn't have the desired effect as nobody was under any illusion that Burisma was not the company and nor did it escape anyone's attention that Biden's bragging was recorded.

Look, let's be honest, you said:



And you have no justification for making that claim. The call transcript was released.

No. It. Has. Not. We have a memorandum of telephone conversation - not a transcript. Dig up.

osarusan

Overheal wrote: »

No. It. Has. Not. We have a memorandum of telephone conversation - not a transcript. Dig up.

Do you think that an actual transcript will have substantial differences from what has already been released? That quote from Vindman earlier, where he called it a transcript and suggested the public already knows what was said, would suggest to me that there won't be much difference.


To ask another question - does there exist somewhere right now a verbatim transcript of the call, and why was that not released instead of the memorandum that was released?

Overheal

osarusan wrote: »

Do you think that an actual transcript will have substantial differences from what has already been released? That quote from Vindman earlier, where he called it a transcript and suggested the public already knows what was said, would suggest to me that there won't be much difference.


To ask another question - does there exist somewhere right now a verbatim transcript of the call, and why was that not released instead of the memorandum that was released?

There is still the case of notes and other documentation that listeners will have produced. I wonder how many times Biden and Burisma show up. Very clear it was the focus of Trump’s agenda: dirt on Joe Biden.

duploelabs

osarusan wrote: »

Do you think that an actual transcript will have substantial differences from what has already been released? That quote from Vindman earlier, where he called it a transcript and suggested the public already knows what was said, would suggest to me that there won't be much difference.


To ask another question - does there exist somewhere right now a verbatim transcript of the call, and why was that not released instead of the memorandum that was released?

Strangely enough, that exact recording of that call was secured on a codeword-only secure server reserved for top secret negotiations and won't be released, for something so innocent it's strange that they're trying to conceal it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/29/i-helped-classify-calls-two-presidents-white-house-abuse-system-is-alarming/

osarusan

duploelabs wrote: »

Strangely enough, that exact recording of that call was secured on a codeword-only secure server reserved for top secret negotiations and won't be released, for something so innocent it's strange that they're trying to conceal it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/29/i-helped-classify-calls-two-presidents-white-house-abuse-system-is-alarming/

Yes, I remember reading about this. So there is either a verbatim transcript, or else the ability to produce one through the recording itself.


Does an impeachment process not have the power to compel the release of such things? It's a lame process if it can be hindered by putting things in a 'top secret' server which the impeachment process is unable access.

Igotadose

osarusan wrote: »

Do you think that an actual transcript will have substantial differences from what has already been released?

Umm, one Republican President resigned rather than release recorded conversations. How quickly we forget. Oh, on of the three actual impeachment charge then was failing to respond to a subpoena...

Overheal

osarusan wrote: »

Yes, I remember reading about this. So there is either a verbatim transcript, or else the ability to produce one through the recording itself.


Does an impeachment process not have the power to compel the release of such things? It's a lame process if it can be hindered by putting things in a 'top secret' server which the impeachment process is unable access.

The Executive has resisted most of the checks and balances of the Legislature and has been filing what amount to delay tactics via the Judiciary.

dinorebel

The mental gymnastics needed to defend Trump at this stage must be exhausting.

duploelabs

dinorebel wrote: »

The mental gymnastics needed to defend Trump at this stage must be exhausting.

Penn

I think it's a fairly moot point as to whether the transcript released is verbatim or not. There was enough of an indication in it to warrant further investigation, and that investigation has led to people involved admitting there was a quid pro quo in it, Trump sent his personal lawyer (ie. not a government official and therefore not acting on behalf of the government) to oversee it, and Trump wanted the Ukrainian President to say they were going to investigate the Bidens (in exchange for military aid which Trump withheld for no good reason and a meeting at the White House which the Ukrainian President wanted), with Joe Biden being one of the most likely Dem candidates to face Trump in 2020.

None of that hinges on what the ellipses in the transcript may or may not mean.

Overheal

Apparently the Framers were psychics because who knew there was such a gaping hole in the ability of impeachment to hold a president accountable otherwise?

https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1194242102705692672?s=21

Outlaw Pete

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No, we got a partial memorandum which is a totally different thing.

Vindman testified otherwise. I have posted the only edits which Vindman felt were left out and which were in his eyes significant. If he is not calling what was released to the public 'a partial memorandum' then why are you?

Overheal wrote: »

No. It. Has. Not.

Yes. It. Has.

We have a memorandum of telephone conversation - not a transcript. Dig up.

You're the one 'in the hole' as you're saying that Trump / The White House have not released the July 25th phone call transcript when they have. Again: Vindman said "the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said".

Just because two of the edits put forth by Vindman (which he felt were significant) were not incorporated into the final transcript, does not therefore mean that what was released was not the most complete call transcript available.

Overheal wrote: »

There is still the case of notes and other documentation that listeners will have produced.

And Vindman missed them did he?

Outlaw Pete

osarusan wrote: »

To ask another question - does there exist somewhere right now a verbatim transcript of the call, and why was that not released instead of the memorandum that was released?

Well, only if the Ukraine side recorded the call, which Vindman said in his testimony. Here's a chunk where the call is discussed:

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Vindman testified otherwise. I have posted the only edits which Vindman felt were left out and which were in his eyes significant. If he is not calling what was released to the public 'a partial memorandum' then why are you?



Yes. It. Has.



You're the one 'in the hole' as you're saying that Trump / The White House have not released the July 25th phone call transcript when they have. Again: Vindman said "the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said".

Just because two of the edits put forth by Vindman (which he felt were significant) were not incorporated into the final transcript, does not therefore mean that what was released was not the most complete call transcript available.



And Vindman missed them did he?

Vindman’s use of colloquial vernacular doesn’t alter the document to read “this is a ****ing transcript because LTC Vindman called it that in a deposition”

Dig. Up.

Overheal

In his own words not a transcript



In his own words such a thing doesn’t exist

osarusan

duploelabs wrote: »

Strangely enough, that exact recording of that call was secured on a codeword-only secure server reserved for top secret negotiations and won't be released, for something so innocent it's strange that they're trying to conceal it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/29/i-helped-classify-calls-two-presidents-white-house-abuse-system-is-alarming/

Having read the link, and a couple of the other articles it linked to, it doesn't say a 'recording' of the call, just the 'records' of the call. From the excerpt of testimony Outlaw Pete linked to, those records, whatever they may be, don't seem to include either a verbatim transcript, or an actual recording of the call.

I just googled it and it seems that the US president's calls with other leaders are not recorded, and instead are recreated afterwards as a formal draft by those listening, in the way Vindman has described. It seems to me a strange way to do it at first glance, but I suppose they have their reasons.

Anyway, it would seem that there is no other transcript or recording somewhere, and if Vindman is to be believed, the version released is something he considers a substantively accurate recreation of the call.

I said earlier in the thread that I don't think anybody is still denying there was a quid pro quo going on. It will all depend on exactly what was being asked for. Democrats will argue it was a smear, Trump will argue it was a legitimate request for an investigation into corruption (in similar vein to Biden before him).

And the memorandum that has already been released doesn't have anything in it that, to my mind at least, the Democrats can use to conclusively nail him on a smear.

Outlaw Pete

First of all, Overheal, bloody lol @ you quoting the screencaps I just made of the transcript back at me as If hadn't just created them and then posted them.

Overheal wrote: »

In his own words such a thing doesn’t exist

He said that a word-for word transcript does not exist, NOT that a transcript does not exist, what are you playing at here?

Overheal wrote: »

Vindman’s use of colloquial vernacular doesn’t alter the document to read “this is a ****ing transcript because LTC Vindman called it that in a deposition”

Dig. Up.

Merely saying 'Dig Up' does not an argument make.

Vindman is clear in his testimony that (other than the two edits he suggested which were not incorporated) there was nothing substantively different from the transcript that was released and what said on the call.

hetuzozaho

Yes originally I thought there was a recording of the call on a "secure server" (can't remember the exact term I read) . But what osarusan is saying seems to be correct? So there is no recording or word for word transcript in existence? Is there a transcript with more than we were shown on this "secure server" though?

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

First of all, Overheal, bloody lol @ you quoting the screencaps I just made of the transcript back at me as If hadn't just created them and then posted them.



He said that a word-for word transcript does not exist, NOT that a transcript does not exist, what are you playing at here?



Merely saying 'Dig Up' does not an argument make.

Vindman is clear in his testimony that (other than the two edits he suggested which were not incorporated) there was nothing substantively different from the transcript that was released and what said on the call.

is_that_so

Nikki Haley on this! Odd comment!

https://www.newsweek.com/nikki-haley-trump-ukraine-call-not-good-practice-slams-impeachment-1471176

Overheal

is_that_so wrote: »

Nikki Haley on this! Odd comment!

https://www.newsweek.com/nikki-haley-trump-ukraine-call-not-good-practice-slams-impeachment-1471176

She also took the loyalty pledge this morning saying Trump has always been truthful to her. She wants to be the next GOP President.

Outlaw Pete

osarusan wrote: »

It will all depend on exactly what was being asked for. Democrats will argue it was a smear, Trump will argue it was a legitimate request for an investigation into corruption (in similar vein to Biden before him).

Exactly and that's what it will ultimately boil down to: one side saying it was 'looking for dirt to help in 2020' and the other side saying that it was a 'request for an investigation into corruption' and from what I can see there is much more to support the latter than the former.

There are other aspects of Vindman's testimony which I feel should have led to his immediate dismissal. He openly admits that after the July 25th call, whenever Ukrainian officials would ask him for advice re the investigations which Trump had spoken about, he would tell them to stay out of US Politics otherwise Ukraine's bipartisan support would be affected. Wtf like. If an official in the Obama administration admitted to doing that, the media would have ripped them asunder, but from what I can see that aspect of his testimony was barely covered.

Here's what he said (with lots of humming and hawing):

"I would continue to get the same types of questions about what -- you know, what do we do with regard to these calls for an investigation and things of that nature. My answer would be consistent. I am not a -- you know, a political individual. I'm not a political operative. I'm a professional military officer, a -- you know -- as designated by the National Security Council, a kind of foreign policy expert, though that might be extreme. I would counsel them that this is outside of my wheelhouse and, frankly, you know, I don't fully understand all the implications; but I would consistently atso counsel them that it's important to stay out of U.S. politics."

He even admitted to saying it to Zelensky direct:

Rep. Ratcliffe tried to ask him question on this point but sounds like something of a row broke out:

I think it's clear why the democrats withheld the transcripts for so long and that was so they could cherry pick the portions of testimony to leak to the media in order to further their own narrative.

Well, from Wednesday at least we shall see some open hearings and that will be refreshing to say they the least. Sick of reading PDFs.