For all the talk about the WB and first or second hand witnesses, why isn’t there more of a push to have the actual full verbatim version of the call transcript released?
This seems like a no brainier for both sides: everyone defending Trump says he did nothing wrong, so the actual transcript would be exonerating. Right?
Why aren’t the Dems demanding the real transcript?
Rep. John Ratcliffe appears more than willing to. You don’t really think he’s utterly alone in that regard, or that he doesn’t have Senate counterparts that feel similarly, do you?
Not at all. To the contrary, I suspect the public airing of Bidens’ dirty laundry will peel off some of his current supporters, probably enough to cost him Minnesota at least. That it’ll be happening at the very moment that his chief rivals for the nomination are tied up and prevented from campaigning is … what was the word tampora used … serendipity.
Any House Rep or Senator supposedly focused on nepotism who is ignoring or defending the Trump family is not actually interested in nepotism.
Well, that’s one, count 'em, one. And we are supposed to supply the rest? Maybe there are more, maybe there are not. So?
I’ve wondered the same thing, but I don’t know that there is an “actual full verbatim version of the call transcript”. The transcipt-like memo might be the most complete version in existence.
As I’m sure you know, rank hypocrisy is a far more highly prized characteristic of Trump Republicans than intellectual honesty.
Solomon was talking about testimony from others, not Yovanovitch. Can you provide us link(s) to that? You should note: I don’t consider arguments of the form “So-and-so is not a reliable source” to carry much weight. What in specific about what they said in the video do you disagree with? Too often I find people use the “not a reliable source” smear to influence people not to look at valid sources that are simply reporting facts they want hidden.
Based on the testimony from Vindman, there is no real transcript and the one we have is more or less the one that he saw back when it was put together plus or minus a word or two.
The description of Vindman’s testimony that described it as though there was a purposeful gathering to corrupt the document was a falsehood, probably created by Schiff - though it’s not impossible that Team Trump did it to try and frame the Democrats.
There is a more complete transcript. It is what Trump hid in the super sekrit squirrel server that is supposed to be reserved solely for utmost classified information.
There is an entire process used to prepare a complete transcript. It involves a transcriber, similar to a court reporter, making a verbatim transcript of what he/she heard on the call. The transcript is then reviewed by others who were on the actual call for accuracy and corrections, if any. Vindman offered two corrections about information he had heard that was missing from the verbatim transcript, and those were not adopted. But a more complete transcript does exist, and even though it is not classified, Trump has not released it.
Your dislike of Adam Schiff is apparent in many of your posts. Schiff did not lie when he said there was an effort to corrupt the document. That’s what Vindman actually testified to in his deposition, that his, Vindman’s, corrections were left out of the final version of the official transcript. Your overreach to air your Schiff grievance is tedious and incorrect.
One might also note that a biased source can give truthful information.
Ultimately, you have to do legwork to verify things, sometimes.
Solomon is trash, though. I mean, granted, I don’t have the feet on the ground to evaluate Ukrainian sources so if someone has been arrested or fired for corruption, I have no way of knowing if that person was actually corrupt or simply got on the wrong side of a political argument.
But Solomon’s sources were all pretty damn questionable looking and his articles smelled heavily of “Look, I found the one guy who says that his grandad knew a guy who thought he
saw the man in the grassy knoll. What if JFK was assassinated by someone else?” :rolleyes:
They were very heavy on tone and light on direct or even tertiary evidence. And, as said, the people giving that evidence didn’t look too believable.
The best way for journalists to lie, and not get hammered for libel, is to factually quote a person who is telling them a lie.
lol
lol
Did the Republicans ever come up with a reason why Yovanovitch was fired, other than because Individual 1 wanted her fired?
I’m starting to think maybe the Republicans obsession with email security was insincere too.
Why would they need to? Ambassadors serve “at the pleasure of the president”.
Is that one of those “absolute rights”?
… except if she was fired for a corrupt purpose. Then it’s an abuse of power.
Hush! The whims of Trump are not to be questioned! Stephen Miller said so! Ditka agrees! QED!
Not really. On a scale from Devin Nunes (1) to James Madison (10), I’d peg Schiff down as a 5. If he was merely in Congress, I wouldn’t be terribly bothered.
As one of the nine central people leading our national security and the leader of a Congressional Committee, all I can do is look at Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes and worry that Schiff may really be the best option at hand - which is a horrible thought. Except that we also had people like Elijah Cummings and we still have Steve Cohen, so there must be at least a few other people in the House who aren’t complete crap who Pelosi could have chosen.
A 5 on the scale from Devin Nunes to James Madison isn’t “average” it’s the “bottom rung of viability to even be in Congress”.
I don’t dislike him, he’s just not up to the task that he’s been called to and his smallness of mind and character make him uniquely poor at taking on Trump. Those same qualities probably make him a decent politician - for the criteria that allow one to professionally work as a politician in today’s age - but that’s all a negative for what we actually need from him in this particular instance.