nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Veritas Libertas

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump over the whistleblower complaint on Trump's communication with Ukraine about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. /CNN

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Billy Mays

I like it when notobtuse slates the New York Times as fake news when it reports negative stories about Trump then cites it when it reports a negative story about Adam Schiff

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

The NY Times reports that Representative Adam Schiff had advance knowledge of the whistleblower complaint against President Trump. It is also alleged his department helped to pen the leaker’s complaint. Seems awfully unethical to start an impeachment inquiry and investigation based on your own work that has no first hand knowledge of matters? But ethics never seems to be a determent to democrats who have been calling for Trumps impeachment since before he even took office.

Ethics? We don't need no stinkin' ethics!

You didn't post a link; so far I haven't seen anyone besides Trump allege that Schiff wrote it.

But as well as that let's talk about the House Intelligence Committee having advance knowledge of the whistleblower complaint:

Making a Protected Disclosure may be as informal as a conversation with your direct supervisor to a formal submission to an IG Hotline, or even a disclosure to an intelligence committee of Congress. Regardless of who you make your disclosure to, they all share the common element of reporting wrongdoing to an authorized recipient while safeguarding sensitive national security information.

https://www.dni.gov/ICIG-Whistleblower/process-how.html

See also Page 4, bullet 6 on the following federal training document: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/Whistleblower.PDF

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

The NY Times reports that Representative Adam Schiff had advance knowledge of the whistleblower complaint against President Trump. It is also alleged his department helped to pen the leaker’s complaint. Seems awfully unethical to start an impeachment inquiry and investigation based on your own work that has no first hand knowledge of matters? But ethics never seems to be a determent to democrats who have been calling for Trumps impeachment since before he even took office.

Ethics? We don't need no stinkin' ethics!

This was covered yesterday and whoever told you those things has been lying to you. Check yesterday evening's posts.

Thepoet85

The only person who alleged him help pen the complaint was Trump, and he has yet to prove any evidence of this, not that it would be a deterrent to Republicans, who will do anything to save their ship from sinking.

notobtuse

The NY Times reports that Representative Adam Schiff had advance knowledge of the whistleblower complaint against President Trump. It is also alleged his department helped to pen the leaker’s complaint. Seems awfully unethical to start an impeachment inquiry and investigation based on your own work that has no first hand knowledge of matters? But ethics never seems to be a determent to democrats who have been calling for Trumps impeachment since before he even took office.

Ethics? We don't need no stinkin' ethics!

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Apparently you live by the broken clock.

I can’t be sure but I believe the special has something to do with the reporting of award-winning investigative reporter John Solomon, who has now become the target of a brutal smear campaign by Democrats and their scribes in the mainstream media over the uncovering of evidence of DNC corruption in Ukraine.

Solomon has worked for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, and the Associated Press, and has gone after corruption of both Republicans and Democrats. His recent investigations have show former Vice President Joe Biden used unethical practices to help his son. He also uncovered corruption during the Obama administration, involving key Democratic players like Hillary Clinton and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as the DNC used Ukraine to launch the Russia collusion probe in an effort to take down President Donald Trump.

I suggest you don’t watch it… wouldn’t want you to venture outside your comfort zone of MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post and CNN… you know... the Orange Man Bad crowd.

You’re still hyping up a report you haven’t seen

Truthers did that with the Leroy Hulsey 9/11 study recently. That backfired on them. Just thinking about u

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

My broken clock has been top-notch in terms of time-telling from time to time but if I needed to know the time, I wouldn't use the broken clock.

But, have fun with the youtube video and if you see anything juicy, post it here and we can check it out.

Apparently you live by the broken clock.

I can’t be sure but I believe the special has something to do with the reporting of award-winning investigative reporter John Solomon, who has now become the target of a brutal smear campaign by Democrats and their scribes in the mainstream media over the uncovering of evidence of DNC corruption in Ukraine.

Solomon has worked for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, and the Associated Press, and has gone after corruption of both Republicans and Democrats. His recent investigations have show former Vice President Joe Biden used unethical practices to help his son. He also uncovered corruption during the Obama administration, involving key Democratic players like Hillary Clinton and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as the DNC used Ukraine to launch the Russia collusion probe in an effort to take down President Donald Trump.

I suggest you don’t watch it… wouldn’t want you to venture outside your comfort zone of MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post and CNN… you know... the Orange Man Bad crowd.

1800_Ladladlad

mcmoustache wrote: »

My broken clock has been top-notch in terms of time-telling from time to time but if I needed to know the time, I wouldn't use the broken clock.

But, have fun with the youtube video and if you see anything juicy, post it here and we can check it out.

Of course, you wouldn't use a broken clock. Even a broken clock is right two times a day.

Overheal

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

My favourite part is how they don't see that the impeachment process/attempt will actually strengthen him.

The WH apparently doesn't see it either because they are figuring out a 'plea deal'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-officials-weigh-appeal-to-democrats-in-gop-districts-to-stop-impeachment-of-trump/2019/10/03/db21f9b4-e470-11e9-b7da-053c79b03db8_story.html

White House officials weigh appeal to Democrats in GOP districts to stop impeachment of Trump

By Rachael Bade and
Josh DawseyOctober 3 at 9:00 AM
White House officials intent on stopping the House from impeaching President Trump are considering appealing to moderate Democrats in Republican districts to stand with the president, a pursuit at odds with fresh political attacks from the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee.

The nascent outreach campaign would target some of the 31 Democrats from congressional districts Trump won in 2016, many of whom ran on rebuilding infrastructure, improving trade deals and lowering the cost of prescription drugs, according to multiple officials familiar with the strategy.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely, said the appeal would be based on these Democrats’ 2018 election promises to work with the president — accompanied with a warning that impeachment would hamper possible legislative victories.

White House aides have been closely monitoring statements from these lawmakers to see how many fully back impeachment, whether they have put conditions on any vote, and whether they have offered tepid comments and might be convinced ahead of tough reelection bids.

The discussions underscore the nervousness among some in the White House about an impeachment vote that could jeopardize Trump’s hold on the presidency. For nearly three years, the White House paid little attention to Capitol Hill Democrats’ policy priorities, but over the next six weeks they plan to focus on them in hopes of preventing impeachment.

Democrats face intense pressure on what could be the most consequential vote of their political careers, with tough questions from constituents and Trump’s criticism that they are the “Do Nothing Democrats.” The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee have launched $10 million in television and digital ads that bludgeon many of the same Democrats the White House is courting.

“Democrats are trying to undo the election regardless of facts. It’s nothing short of a coup and it must be stopped,” says one ad unveiled Wednesday. The ad comes days after another that called some Democrats “radicals.”

Democratic leaders dismissed the notion that the White House could win over moderates with policy promises. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said that her caucus is more than willing to work with the president while they continue investigating him. The inquiry is focused on a July 25 call in which Trump pressed the Ukrainian president for help in investigating a domestic political rival.

“Our democracy is not negotiable,” Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), chairwoman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Wednesday in a statement. “It is sacred and certainly not to be traded at any price.”

Freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), a Democrat from a Trump district who recently endorsed an impeachment inquiry, said Wednesday that she would “absolutely” be interested in working with the White House this fall on policy.

But when a reporter suggested the White House would want her to drop her support for proceedings to do that, she responded: “That’s not the way it works.”

“That’s not the way that our Constitution is written,” she said after a crowded session with constituents in East Lansing. “The president of the United States acknowledged openly that he went to a foreign leader and asked for dirt on an American. I cannot give up the rule of law in some trade. That is not something anyone should be trading away.”

[Seven freshman Democrats: These allegations are a threat to all we have sworn to protect]

The pressure was evident at town halls this week. In Upstate New York on Tuesday night, an attendee told freshman Democratic Rep. Antonio Delgado that he was disappointed in the congressman’s support for an impeachment inquiry.

He challenged the lawmaker to “identify tonight the exact crimes that you think have been committed.”

When Delgado started to explain, several people in the crowd shouted at his mention of the whistleblower’s report on Trump’s summertime call with the Ukraine president. “Secondhand!” and “Hearsay!” they yelled.

“The statute makes it pretty clear that it is a crime to solicit anything of value from a foreign national when seeking office or for an electoral purposes,” Delgado said. “That is the letter of the law.”

Pelosi has encouraged Democrats in competitive districts to focus on policy, rather than Trump and impeachment, an approach she tried at her Wednesday news conference.

“Does anyone in this room care about the cost of prescription drugs and what it means for America’s working families?” she asked reporters eager to talk about impeachment.

The GOP ad campaign is unnerving to some Democrats. During a caucus call with Democratic leaders this past weekend, Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.), who flipped a GOP seat near Miami last year, asked Pelosi if leaders intended to give vulnerable Democrats cover from the attacks.

Pelosi urged them to focus on their prescription drug plan — and said outside groups may be stepping in to help.

On Wednesday, during another caucus call, Pelosi referred members to a tweet by a liberal outside group, House Majority Forward, announcing plans to support those members who “took a principled stand for an impeachment inquiry” and are “fighting for the kitchen table issues,” according to two people on the call. An official with the group confirmed that they would be running TV ads to help Democrats.

Adding to the pressure for Democrats are expectations for a full-blown investigation despite the Trump administration’s lack of cooperation. While several Democrats support the inquiry, some are unsure about voting to impeach Trump without more evidence.

Of the 235 House Democrats, 225 back an impeachment inquiry, but just 28 have said publicly they favor impeaching the president, according to a Washington Post analysis. Pelosi would need a majority of the House — 218 votes.

[Where House Democrats stand on impeaching Trump]

At the very least, these moderate Democrats are asking the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to do more to give them cover, according to multiple Democratic officials — a request a Democratic aide said the DCCC is working on.

“With the Republicans running ads in our Trump districts, it’s critical that the Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee steps up and fights back in our districts,” said one moderate Democrat in a Trump district, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly. “You can’t bring a knife to a gunfight.”

The White House hopes to cast Democrats as the party of impeachment. In the coming weeks, White House legislative affairs staffers, led by Eric Ueland, a longtime Senate aide who had a front-row seat to Clinton’s impeachment, will try to reach out to these Trump-district Democrats to try to get them to work with the White House on legislation.

The pitch, according to those familiar with the strategy, is that these vulnerable Democrats could secure some legislative accomplishments this fall, possibly even passage of a prescription drug bill. Impeachment, however, could ruin that effort.

Part of the argument is that a “political impeachment exercise” would imperil significant bipartisan legislation and will not end successfully, as Republicans control the Senate and convicting Trump in a trial requires a two-thirds vote, said one White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly .

This past Tuesday, Ueland invited Democratic staff from Pelosi’s office, as well those working for the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees, to talk with the White House about prescription drugs. U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer met Friday with Democratic lawmakers about trade.

Talk of cajoling Trump-district Democrats comes as the White House has grappled with questions of whether to establish a war room to defend him , just as President Clinton had in 1998. Trump has told aides he does not want anyone hired just to handle impeachment strategy because it would look like an overreaction, current and former aides said.

The result has been scattershot, with Trump taking the lead on his own defense through his favorite medium: Twitter.

During Pelosi’s remarks Wednesday, Trump took to Twitter to taunt the speaker: “Nancy Pelosi just said that she is interested in lowering prescription drug prices & working on the desperately needed USMCA. She is incapable of working on either. It is just camouflage for trying to win an election through impeachment. The Do Nothing Democrats are stuck in mud!”

Underscoring the challenges of Trump World’s mixed strategies, Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.), a longtime impeachment skeptic, decided to back impeachment on Wednesday night. Over the weekend, the freshman who won in a Trump district was targeted in an RNC ad.

“Max Rose promised he’d tackle problems facing our country. Rose broke his promise,” said one ad, citing prescription drug costs among the issues. “Rose votes with the radicals for endless investigations of President Trump.”

On the screen is a photo of Rose with those of the more liberal members of the Democratic caucus, including Pelosi and Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Instead of scaring Rose from backing an impeachment inquiry, the ad had the reverse effect.

“While the president of the United States might be willing to violate the Constitution to get reelected, I will not. . . . It is for that reason that I intend to fully support this impeachment inquiry and follow the facts,” Rose , an Army veteran who served in Afghanistan, said at a town hall Wednesday night in Staten Island.

Mike DeBonis in East Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

There's going to be a special today on Youtube about the Ukraine situation regarding Joe Biden, done by the Blaze. I have been intrigued enough by the promos to watch it when I can. I’ll have discount the over-the-top rhetoric and opinion of host Beck, but I’ve found in the past some of their factual investigative reporting can be top notch.

Let the ad hominem attacks begin.

You know its going to be breaking news because they sit on it long enough to promote their take on it.

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

Why would he be angry about something that would strengthen him?

Not mutually exclusive concepts at all.

mcmoustache

My broken clock has been top-notch in terms of time-telling from time to time but if I needed to know the time, I wouldn't use the broken clock.

But, have fun with the youtube video and if you see anything juicy, post it here and we can check it out.

notobtuse

There's going to be a special today on Youtube about the Ukraine situation regarding Joe Biden, done by the Blaze. I have been intrigued enough by the promos to watch it when I can. I’ll have discount the over-the-top rhetoric and opinion of host Beck, but I’ve found in the past some of their factual investigative reporting can be top notch.

Let the ad hominem attacks begin.

mcmoustache

Why would he be angry about something that would strengthen him?

SJW Lover

mcmoustache wrote: »

If it would strengthen him, why doesn't he welcome it instead of raging about it?

He's entitled to be angry about this, the latest attempt to cut his presidency short. More inferences being drawn i see.

SJW Lover

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

My favourite part is how they don't see that the impeachment process/attempt will actually strengthen him.

They might not but i doubt the same with the likes of Pelosi. It would not surprise me if this entire issue is an attempt by the Dems to get Biden out of the picture.

mcmoustache

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

My favourite part is how they don't see that the impeachment process/attempt will actually strengthen him.

If it would strengthen him, why doesn't he welcome it instead of raging about it?

If I was in his shoes, with the worst approval of all time and getting worse, and if someone told me that I could strengthen my position by being impeached, I'd have the Republicans draft the articles of impeachment myself.

This idea that impeachment strengthens Trump has clearly not been thought through.

begsbyOnaTrain

SJW Lover wrote: »

Including the boys posting prose on this thread. Spent two years bleating about Russia. Now it's Ukraine. By next summer it will be something else.

My favourite part is how they don't see that the impeachment process/attempt will actually strengthen him.

Overheal

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump’s call with Ukraine president manifests criminal and impeachable behavior [Video]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-trump-attacks-presidency?fbclid=IwAR0zPl21DfHeJb1xu-CtrpxKr99O8M47FMdtjsSzSh0PYAIhix3k24Boj3M

The House of Representatives has begun to gather evidence in an effort to determine if President Trump has committed impeachable offenses. The Constitution defines an impeachable offense as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The president need not have committed a crime in order to be impeached, but he needs to have engaged in behavior that threatens the constitutional stability of the United States or the rule of law as we have come to know it.

Has Trump committed any impeachable offenses?

A CIA agent formerly assigned to the White House – and presently referred to as the "whistleblower" – reported a July 25, 2019 telephone conversation that Trump had with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. That conversation manifested both criminal and impeachable behavior.

The criminal behavior to which Trump has admitted is much more grave than anything alleged or unearthed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and much of what Mueller revealed was impeachable.

What has Trump admitted?

The whistleblower’s revelation caused the White House to release a near-verbatim summary of the conversation between the two presidents. By releasing it, Trump has admitted to its accuracy. In it, Trump asked Zelensky for dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, who at this writing is Trump's likely Democratic opponent in the 2020 presidential election.

Trump also admits to holding up $391 million in aid to Ukraine – $250 million in the purchase of already approved and built military hardware and $141 million in a congressionally authorized grant. This is aid that Trump's own secretaries of state and defense, his own director of national intelligence and director of the CIA, and his own National Security Council unanimously asked him to release.

Trump has also admitted to accusing the as-yet publicly unnamed whistleblower of treason, and suggesting that the whistleblower and those who have helped him are spies and ought to be treated as spies were in "the old days" (Trump’s phrase) – that is, by hanging.

The president’s allusions to violence are palpably dangerous. They will give cover to crazies who crave violence, as other intemperate words of his have done. His words have already produced offers of "bounties" in return for outing and finding the whistleblower.

Trump also suggested that his impeachment would produce a second American Civil War. This language is a dog whistle to the deranged.

All of Trump's admissions need to be taken in context. In 2014 and 2015, Russian troops invaded Crimea, then a province of Ukraine. They took over government buildings and held a sham referendum, which had been declared unconstitutional under Ukrainian law by Ukrainian courts.

The troops dispersed the courts, and the Russian government annexed Crimea. What was a part of Ukraine five years ago today houses Russian troops and Russian tanks eyeing Kiev, Ukraine's capital.

Trump rejected that advice. Instead, in the Zelensky phone call, he told the Ukrainian president that he needed a personal "favor." The clear unmistakable inference is that the $391 million in aid would be held up until the favor was delivered. The favor he sought was dirt on Biden.

Now, back to impeachment.

Federal law defines as criminal the solicitation of aid – anything of value – for a political campaign from a foreign national or foreign government, whether the thing of value arrives or not.

Federal law also prohibits bribery and attempted bribery, which is defined as withholding the performance of an official duty conditioned upon the personal receipt of a thing of value, whether the thing of value arrives or not.

The law further prohibits intimidating witnesses, which is defined as the use of language designed to deter witnesses from giving testimony, whether the intimidation is successful or not.

The whistleblower has also alleged that senior administration officials attempted to dissuade Trump from asking for the favor from Zelensky. The whistleblower’s sources relate – and reporting now reveals – that a debate took place in the White House before the telephone call was made.

Should the aid be held up? Should the president ask for dirt about Biden from his Ukrainian counterpart? If Biden did anything criminal, shouldn't the Justice Department get involved? Should the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call be hidden? Was the president warned in advance that asking Zelensky for a personal campaign benefit could be criminal or impeachable? Does anyone in the White House tell the president what he doesn't want to hear?

Can the president put his own needs and wants above the nation's? In a word: No.

The president has taken an oath to enforce federal law, not break it. He cannot lawfully impose conditions – conditions that benefit him alone – as a prerequisite to compliance with the law.

Is violating campaign finance law by involving a foreign government in an American presidential campaign an impeachable offense? Yes, it is.

The expressed intention of those who wrote the Constitution and those who wrote the campaign finance laws 200 years later – and the lesson of the post-2016 election and Mueller-investigated angst in America – was to keep foreign governments out of the American political system.

For heaven's sake, Trump was just investigated by Mueller for two-and-a-half tumultuous years for allegedly bringing the Russian government into the 2016 election and now he has attempted in one phone call to bring the Ukrainian government into the 2020 election! Does he understand the laws he has sworn to uphold?

It was to remedy just such reckless, constitutionally destructive behavior that impeachment was intended.

SJW Lover wrote: »

The Mueller investigation led nowhere, no matter what spin is put on it by the likes of you. What Schiff said he had seen, if true, would have meant a far different outcome. He lied. Plain and simple.

Evidence?

SJW Lover

Overheal wrote: »

the inference being

The important part of your prose. Lots of inferences you lads love drawing.

SJW Lover

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

It really is amazing how quickly they all moved on. You couldn't move for Russians this, Russians that but now well I suppose Ukrainians are just as good :pac:

Including the boys posting prose on this thread. Spent two years bleating about Russia. Now it's Ukraine. By next summer it will be something else. If you take anything CNN or MSNBC says seriously after the Russia debacle then you are, to coin a phrase used on this thread, an NPC. A useful fool.

begsbyOnaTrain

SJW Lover wrote: »

The Mueller investigation led nowhere, no matter what spin is put on it by the likes of you.

It really is amazing how quickly they all moved on. You couldn't move for Russians this, Russians that but now well I suppose Ukrainians are just as good :pac:

Overheal

The telcon is coming into closer scrutiny now that it is being compared and contrasted to other calls Trump made to Australia and Mexico; the inference being that there may be more incriminating language on the actual transcript than the telcon shows

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/03/odd-markings-ellipses-fuel-doubts-about-rough-transcript-trumps-ukraine-call/

President Trump said Wednesday that his controversial July call with his Ukrainian counterpart was transcribed “word-for-word, comma-for-comma,” an assertion that fueled growing questions about the nature and completeness of an official memorandum about the call released by the White House last week.

“This is an exact word-for-word transcript of the conversation, taken by very talented stenographers,” Trump said.

White House officials previously had portrayed the document as not a verbatim transcription but rather a summary that closely tracked the words the president used in his July 25 call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. They said it was being released in a bid to bring transparency and clarity to a call at the heart of a consuming political scandal that has sparked a House impeachment investigation.

But the whistleblower complaint that spurred the investigation described an “official word-for-word transcript” of the call — words closely matching the ones used by Trump on Wednesday — creating uncertainty about what was included in the document the White House released last week and what may have been left out.

Current and former U.S. officials studying the document pointed to several elements that, they say, indicate that the document may have been handled in an unusual way.

Those include the use of ellipses — punctuation indicating that information has been deleted for clarity or other reasons — that traditionally have not appeared in summaries of presidential calls with foreign leaders, according to the current and former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the elaborate, non-public process.

In two of the cases when ellipses were used, they accompanied Trump’s reference to cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which is at the center of a conservative conspiracy theory about a computer server central to the company’s investigation of the Russian hack of Democratic Party computers that, according to those pushing the theory, is hidden away in Ukraine.

The use of ellipses in this passage fueled questions about what may have been removed and why.

The five-page document reports Trump said, “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

In the third use of ellipses, Trump was asking Zelensky about a different theory — also sometimes aired in the extreme corners of the Internet and on some conservative news networks — that Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden had, while vice president, demanded the removal of a prosecutor looking to investigate Biden’s son Hunter.

“Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me,” according to the call document.

The White House declined to comment Wednesday about the unusual markings or other apparent discrepancies. Shortly after the document’s release last week, a White House official had said that the ellipses did not indicate missing words but referred to “a trailing off of a voice or pause,” and called it standard practice for records of presidential phone calls.

Current and former officials said that would be slightly different from previous practice. They said when presidents simply trail off in a way that note-takers can’t hear, that point traditionally has been marked “[inaudible]." When fragments of sentences aren’t readily understood by note-takers, or when comments repeat a previous thought, they said, the transcripts had often been marked with dashes.

Others have noted the brevity of a document purporting to represent a call that lasted 30 minutes. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) had two of his office’s interns read the call summary aloud, measuring its length with a stopwatch app. The time: 10 minutes 40 seconds, or roughly 20 minutes shorter than the White House’s assertion about the call’s length.

“Our motivating question was: How much don't we know?” King said. “There has to be an inquiry to get to the facts."

The memorandum of Trump’s call with Zelensky appears remarkably different in speed and content from the full transcripts of calls between President Trump and foreign leaders The Washington Post obtained in 2017.

The transcript of a 24-minute call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in which both the participants spoke English, included roughly 3,200 words, or about 133 words per minute. A 53-minute call with then-Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, in which both Trump and the Mexican president spoke through interpreters, included roughly 5,500 words, or about 102 words per minute.

The White House summary of Trump’s 30-minute call with Zelensky — which included interpreters because Zelensky spoke Ukrainian while Trump spoke English — includes fewer than 2,000 words, or roughly 65 words per minute. That suggests that the rough transcript of the Zelensky call includes about half the number of words that would be expected if the call had proceeded at the same or similar pace as the previous calls.

It was unclear whether the interpretation of the Zelensky call occurred simultaneously as the presidents were speaking or took place after a participant had finished speaking. The latter would have affected the speed of the conversation.

(Neither the Turnbull nor the Peña Nieto transcript included ellipses.)

The record of the presidential call with Zelensky, which is labeled “MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION,” was marked as having been produced by note-takers in the White House Situation Room, as is standard for calls with foreign leaders. The record, however, is unusual for lacking a tracking number that would normally indicate it had been circulated to senior subject experts and the national security adviser’s office for review and edits. Instead of a “package” number, the memo released by the White House carries a stamp saying: “PkgNumberShort.”

The document additionally carries classification markings that Situation Room staffers do not normally add when they create a word-for-word transcript, current and former officials said.

“I thought to myself, ‘This didn’t go through the normal process,’ ” said one former government official who was among several who handled these records and found the document released by the White House curious.

The whistleblower said in his complaint that multiple U.S. officials had alerted him 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. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.“

Such phone calls also typically create at least two types of documents: a verbatim transcript made by note-takers in the White House Situation Room and an edited summary that is more widely circulated.

“The one that was released is not the one the Situation Room created,” said one person familiar with the creation of records of calls with foreign leaders who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the secretive process. “That’s just not possible.”

SJW Lover

Overheal wrote: »

More Congressman than that on the right yelled “no obstruction” when there is evidence of obstruction - must they resign too?

Is there any proof Schiff has in fact not seen some evidence in relation to collusion? If not, then how do we know that evidence isn’t actually in the redacted parts of the report, containing something Schiff had seen as part of the years long process that was shrouded for legal reasons?

See also the speech/debate clause - something both parties have used to their advantage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

The Mueller investigation led nowhere, no matter what spin is put on it by the likes of you. What Schiff said he had seen, if true, would have meant a far different outcome. He lied. Plain and simple. There will need to be a statue built of Schiff after the 2020 election as he will be one of the biggest reasons Trump has been re-elected.

Overheal

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

It appears she downed her own plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8bsYoIMy2M

That’s from the day/time that the Telcon was disclosed. Few people had the opportunity to read it at that point.

Grab your next longest straw?

Overheal

MadYaker wrote: »

I was surprised when I read the transcript. After everything that happened with the Russia stuff I really didn’t think he’d be that dumb. How could he have thought that was an ok thing to do? Did he think it wasn’t being recorded? Anyway they aren’t going to get 20 senate republicans to vote for impeachment and even if they did McConnell would just refuse to allow a vote.

He can’t refuse. Senate rules mean he must take up the trial. They will unlikely have the majority to dismiss/throw out the articles of impeachment at the outset, and they lack the 67 votes to change Senate Rules.

mcmoustache

Nobody outside the administration has seen the transcript if it even exists. The notes that were released had "NOT A TRANSCRIPT" written on it. What we have seen is the whistleblower complaint and a portion of the notes of the phone call.

1800_Ladladlad

TheRepentent wrote: »

I can't wait to see the scumbag crash and burn.

It appears she downed her own plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8bsYoIMy2M

Overheal

SJW Lover wrote: »

I'll be specific. In advance of Mueller releasing his report, Schiff said he had seen primary evidence of Russia colluding in the 2016 election. That was a lie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fpowerpost%2fundoubtedly-there-is-collusion-trump-antagonist-adam-schiff-doubles-down-after-mueller-finds-no-conspiracy%2f2019%2f03%2f26%2fe972d9e8-4fdd-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html%3f

He should have been forced to resign a long time ago.

More Congressman than that on the right yelled “no obstruction” when there is evidence of obstruction - must they resign too?

Is there any proof Schiff has in fact not seen some evidence in relation to collusion? If not, then how do we know that evidence isn’t actually in the redacted parts of the report, containing something Schiff had seen as part of the years long process that was shrouded for legal reasons?

See also the speech/debate clause - something both parties have used to their advantage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

Call me Al

MadYaker wrote: »

I was surprised when I read the transcript. After everything that happened with the Russia stuff I really didn’t think he’d be that dumb. How could he have thought that was an ok thing to do? Did he think it wasn’t being recorded? Anyway they aren’t going to get 20 senate republicans to vote for impeachment and even if they did McConnell would just refuse to allow a vote.

Its only a partial rough transcript so when trump says he has released it in full he isn't telling the truth. Yet again! The White House released 10 minutes of a 30 minute phonecall.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/03/odd-markings-ellipses-fuel-doubts-about-rough-transcript-trumps-ukraine-call/%3foutputType=amp