Jesus Christ. You’ve outdone yourself here, dumb ass.
Lt. Col. Vindman opening remarks before Congress show quid pro quo.
- Thread starter fried-chicken
- Start date
Jesus Christ. You’ve outdone yourself here, dumb ass.
Yep. In general you can't trust the Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Chinese, Mexicans, immigrants or women. I'm sure that I'm forgetting somebody but you know what I'm saying.
![[cheers]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/5628.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
*
Last edited:
Goddamnit I can't wait until these useless fuking idiot racist boomers die off and stop ruining our country.
Yeah, you can't trust a Lt. Col. war veteran to be honest, especially a Jew.
Vindman was testifying about what actually went on behind the scenes. And the transcript of the call was a 'Memo' which claimed to capture the essence of the call. Funny that it didn't include some of the stuff Vindman reported (or I forgot, he's a Jew so he's an anti-Trumper.)
While there are plenty of people who sat in on the call who could testify, there is an actual, word-for-word transcript of the call that's locked away in a top secret file in the WH. Like the Nixon tapes back in the day, you'd think they'd subpoena for it
Yeah, everybody does it so quit picking on Trump, right goodknightfl?
Yeah, you can't trust a Lt. Col. war veteran to be honest, especially a Jew.
Vindman was testifying about what actually went on behind the scenes. And the transcript of the call was a 'Memo' which claimed to capture the essence of the call. Funny that it didn't include some of the stuff Vindman reported (or I forgot, he's a Jew so he's an anti-Trumper.)
While there are plenty of people who sat in on the call who could testify, there is an actual, word-for-word transcript of the call that's locked away in a top secret file in the WH. Like the Nixon tapes back in the day, you'd think they'd subpoena for it
Yeah, everybody does it so quit picking on Trump, right goodknightfl?
Didn't Vindman say that the transcript was exactly what happened in the phone call? I thought I read that yesterday.
I read just the opposite. His testimony included exchanges that were not included in 'the memo.'
Boomers literally spent their whole lives ruining America they are the woat generation.
I don't remember exactly, but I thought he said something to the effect of "everybody has seen it because it's all in the transcript", and then added information about his interactions with others to give his perspective on how it was interpreted. I could be totally wrong but that was the impression I got.
This part is still confusing. I'm not even sure if the call was purely in english or had translators involved. From reporting,I'm under the impression that:
- No audio recording exists (at least not on the US side)
- The transcript is a reconstruction based on real time voice recognition software edited based on note-takers.
- This confuses me a bit but maybe it's just diplomatic protocol not to record but real time transcribing via voice recognition is ok?
- With translation/accents - it's reasonable note-takers have slightly different notes. Hence some process occurs to edit the transcript.
- Several of his proposed edits were accepted into the final transcript and several weren't.
Their parents gave them everything and they passed down nothing but debt and outsourced jobs/opportunity.
This is just my opinion, but I don't think there's any smoking gun beyond what was released. They released a document that created enough of an impression of attempted quid-pro-quo that tells me they didn't really edit anything important out. They didn't have to release anything as well. Hard to believe, but this actually seems like an honest move by the White House.
Here's a copy/paste from the testimony. I included his entire section specifically on the call for context. The statement you're remembering is bolded. I took this as his way of avoiding rehashing the contents of the call as part of his written testimony, as he immediately moves on to his impressions and what he did after the call.
I think it's fair to say that whatever edits he proposed that didn't make it into the transcript don't seem material enough (from his perspective) to have made his written remarks. I don't personally see the edits thing as a big deal because I don't think any of this hinges on parsing words in the call anyway.
On July 21, 2019, President Zelenskyy’s party won Parliamentary elections in a landslide victory. The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelenskyy to congratulate him.
On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.
I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for 6 the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.
On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with colleagues from the NSC and the office of the Vice President. As the transcript is in the public record, we are all aware of what was said.
I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for 6 the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security. Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.
Boomers spent their whole lives trying to get all the money. They put wall street traders in idol status and greed became a core value. They poured the wealth they took into tax protected accounts and didn't reinvest it so that they could afford to be the first generation to retire into extravagance for 30 years. No previous generation got to do that and boomers only got to at the expense of the rest of us.
Screw Gen X too. Yall were cool to hold the bag that boomers were dumping money into as long as you got a 10% commission.
When the unofficial 'memo' transcript was released, it was reported that there is an actual recording of the phone call (we were told that all such calls are recorded). Immediately after the call, the WH took the unusual step of classifying it and placing it in an electronic file reserved for top secret information.
Yeah, that's what I read. It's interesting that in the follow-up that he interpreted it as "demanding" when the transcript doesn't read that way. "Asked" or "suggested" would be more consistent with the prior statement. Maybe it doesn't matter and his impression is an accurate interpretation but the Ukrainian president said he didn't feel pressured so I'm going to remain skeptical. Unless there's something else that comes out, I just don't see this as being as bad as it is being characterized.
My grandma is of the greatest generation and she's been retired since 1982. My grandpa lived off of way my SS than he put in.
The Boomer should have reinvested infrastructure and pushed retirement and Medicaid back to 72yo. However, they just elected a bunch of boomers to kick the can down the road. Trump is the poster boy for Boomers.
There may be parts of the call that were not released due to classification that had nothing to do with this. After all, we are providing them with military weaponry and the Russians would probably love to know more about it.
I think you also have to read his interpretation of the call in the context of the rest of his testimony though. He says he's been aware since spring of "outside influencers" (I read this is Rudy and crew) "promoting a false narrative of Ukraine". He then witnesses Sondland telling a Ukraine official that investigations are necessary in order to secure a White House visit. Sondland emphasizes to him again the importance of Ukraine delivering Biden/Burisma/2016 investigations, he tells Sondland this is inappropriate. So now on the call it all comes full circle and he hears POTUS himself echoing Sondland, even if not as explicitly. One thing is for sure, he's in a better position than either of us draw an informed conclusion.
I still don't buy that what Zalensky says in public about not feeling pressured is relevant. His goal is to appear 100% above any political fray in the US, while appearing strong and under control. I can't envision a scenario where it makes sense for Zalensky to publicly call out Trump regardless of what the truth is. Unless Trump gets removed almost immediately - then what? He has to assume Trump is President for the next 5.5 years and act accordingly because he needs to do what's in the best interest of his people, which is why he needs Trump on his side. This also points out how much leverage Trump had over him and why this is (potentially) an abuse of power.
You're determined to find any explanation except the obvious one. Basic chud.
Tell me again how 2 black guys tied a noose around another black guys neck and poured bleach on him while shouting racist and sexist slurs.
Seriously, your time is up for giving your opinion on any topic that actually matters. The best you have is to attack old people and throw juvenile slurs while the rest of us actually have a decent conversation. Do everyone a favor and just go away.
Excellent post! Seriously, it's nice to have someone who is a critical thinker on the board.
Honestly, I can't refute anything you said. I do question the value that people on the left are ascribing to a White House visit though. How is that considered something of value? And more to the point how is it considered valuable enough that it could possibly be used as leverage against another nation? That concept seems weird to me, but it's a big talking point in this quid pro quo thing.
Latest defense is that a face to face meeting with the president has no value to a nation looking to secure aid?
When you make an argument like this, things aren't looking good for the side that you shill for.
WaPo reporting:
"John Eisenberg, the White House’s legal adviser on national security issues, restricted access to the document after Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman expressed concerns about the president’s statements on the call with the Ukrainian president, according to people familiar with Vindman's testimony to lawmakers."
Oof. Vindman says hey that's a bad bad thing to do. WH lawyer says well, we better cover this up by storing it on a classified server and restricting access.
"John Eisenberg, the White House’s legal adviser on national security issues, restricted access to the document after Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman expressed concerns about the president’s statements on the call with the Ukrainian president, according to people familiar with Vindman's testimony to lawmakers."
Oof. Vindman says hey that's a bad bad thing to do. WH lawyer says well, we better cover this up by storing it on a classified server and restricting access.
Only this transcript has been classified no other calls with foreign leaders has ever been classified. Thanks Shook Chicken and WaPo.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
It was top secret level classified until people found out about it and then it was immediately made totally public when they realized the cover up failed. It was only stored on that server to hide it from being discovered.
Thanks! Likewise. I used to water cooler years and years ago. Wasn't sure if there was any actual discussion to be had when I jumped back in so I too appreciate a place to have reasonable debate.
To Trump, the meeting is insignificant. He's the leader of the free world - everybody wants a meeting. To Zalensky, it's a hugely symbolic event, validation to his people, and a message to Putin, etc. I agree it's hard for us to recognize that value from the outside.
Read the beginning of Bill Taylor's testimony if you haven't. I'm no expert on Russia/Ukraine and that provided a ton of context with regards to the situation Zelensky finds himself.
Without context it's like "ok so Trump didn't give this guy a visit and help up aid for a few months what's the big deal?" In context of what Ukraine is dealing with via Putin next door, Ukraine's people-driven movement to instill democratic values end fight corruption, and the massive power disparity between Trump and Zalensky, the scheme starts to become uglier and uglier. You realize the awful situation Trump was putting Zelensky in - he had to either (1) insert himself into a domestic us political situation he wanted no part of or (2) risk that Trump begins to drop US support of Ukraine.
I've been interacting with crazyhole since 2017. Save your energy.
He pretends to put thought into these issues but at the end of the day he'll accept any version of the truth that makes him feel like he was right all along. No matter how many facts are stacked against that version of the truth. He will latch on to the 1 out of 100 versions of the story that allow him to feel that conservatives good, liberals bad. He can't stomach acknowledging the fact that Donald Trump may actually be worthy of impeachment. His conservatism is likely engrained in his identity and he's not willing to risk that so he'll search for any crack that he can hide from the truth in. He's a basic MAGA chud pretending to be a thinker.
I guess I hadn't considered the optics it would create domestically for zalenski, that does change things. So was there a meeting already set up which trump would cancel, or was he offering a visit as a reward?
Which is why Trump's strong arm tactics were so egregious -- and clearly impeachable.
Vindman realized what he heard was bad during the call and following its conclusion immediately took his concerns to the White House lawyer....
....who responded by immediately engaging in a cover-up by having the audio of the call placed in a top-secret, classified file.
Bill Taylor testified that, according to Sondland, "everything" was dependent on Zelensky making a public announcement of investigations. Up to this point, I think Taylor believed that only the White House visit was conditional. This is the point he became convinced that the aid $ was also conditional. If anything, the White House visit was the initial carrot, then it became the aid $ on top of that.
Read Taylor's entire testimony. It's not conclusive on it's own, because his information is generally second hand. But he pretty identifies all the people you need to hear from.
Do you have a reputable source that part? I haven't seen anything definitive that an audio recording exists.
It was widely reported at the time the unofficial 'memo' transcript was released by the WH. The official, word-for-word, transcript is being held in a classified, top-secret, server.
Here is a link
https://www.cleveland.com/news/g66l...ssified-server-report-says-am-news-links.html
I don't see anything there about an audio recording.
I think there's been a lot of confusion on this. My understanding is that what the White House released is the official "transcript" though it's not necessarily word for word. Voice recognition gives it a shot, then aids listening in on the call edit the transcription based on their own notes. This is where Vindman's testimony apparently said that several of his proposed edits were accepted and several were not. I don't know who the makes the final call on the edits.
Logic dictates that you'd have an audio copy to use to edit against instead of relying on notes. Especially if audio transcription software was running in real time. But perhaps protocol is not to record. If an audio record exists I'm assuming it would be asked for via subpoena. And I'm sure congressional investigators are asking about that, but I haven't seen it reported.
The 'memo' transcript that was released stated clearly across the document (despite Trump's bluster) that it was an UNOFFICIAL transcript.
Good thing I’ve learned here is it’s ok to wish for a certain group to die just as long as they are a republican / conservative . Even boosted joined the train of stereotyping and insulting an entire generation of people . Hypocrites abound on the anti trump train
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. I'm guessing it's because I said that you aren't being intellectually honest if you don't support at least an investigation? Not sure that has anything to do with wishing people dead or insulting an entire generation. But do let me know what you're referring to because I expect more of myself than insulting people and I'll apologize if I did so.
My statement was probably a bit harsh, but I generally reserve harsh statements so they carry more weight when I make them. There's other reasons you might not support an investigation. You might just be uninformed (ignorant) of the what's known. Worse, you might be a victim of political spin and disinformation, so your view of the facts are not grounded in reality. Or you're just a partisan hack (intellectually dishonest).
Not supporting an impeachment inquiry is, in my OPINION, an intellectually dishonest position if you've read the witness testimony that's available. I don't see a how a reasonable, non-biased observer could arrive at a "nothing to see here"conclusion after reviewing that testimony.
Similar threads
