Posted on 11/16/2019 5:22:16 AM PST by maggief
President Trump has released a new Ukraine transcript, but some things don't add up.
While the White House in April said Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky discussed fighting corruption in their first phone call after Zelensky's election, a memo of the call released Friday didn't mention corruption once. White House spokesperson Hogan Gidley still defended the second release in a later statement, and then blamed any discrepancies on Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who is testifying publicly next week in the impeachment probe.
In the April readout, the White House said Trump "expressed his commitment" to work with then just-elected Zelensky to "strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption." And after receiving criticism for the mismatch, Gidley pushed its authorship onto Vindman, saying it was "prepared by the National Security Council's Ukraine expert." In this case, that would be Vindman.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
Related:
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/transcript-alexandervindman-testimony-omitted/2019/10/29/id/939302/
NY Times: Lt. Col. Vindman Tried to Edit Call Transcript
By Eric Mack | Tuesday, 29 October 2019
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman attempted to edit the White House transcript of the July 25 call to include omitted words, he testified Tuesday, three sources told The New York Times.
The words omitted, per Vindman’s testimony, came in the rough transcript where there were ellipses, per the report.
The details included President Donald Trump referencing “tapes” of former Vice President Joe Biden on tape talking about corruption and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy mentioning “Burisma,” the energy company with ties to Hunter Biden.
Those details about the president’s potential political opponents were included in the whistleblower complaint, but Vindman, who was on the July 25 call, tried and failed to update those details on the rough transcript, he testified, sources told the Times.
Other edits were made in the rough transcript, though, according to the report.
(snip)
More to this story, I am betting!
Rep.Jordan is gonna rip Vindman a new one. I can’t believe Vindman has agreed to face the very prepared Republican committee.
White House blames Alexander Vindman for discrepancies between April readout of Zelensky call and the transcript
Shortly after the White House released the transcript of the April 21 call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, it was quickly pointed out that there were major discrepancies between what was released this morning and the readout given to the press at the time:
Kaitlan Collins
@kaitlancollins
This seems notable. There's no mention of combatting corruption in the first transcript of Trump's call with Zelensky, despite the White House telling reporters in an April readout that rooting out corruption was discussed. I've asked the White House to explain the discrepancy.
8:33 AM - Nov 15, 2019
You can read it for yourself here. At issue is that back in April, the readout said the two discussed corruption. That’s missing from the transcript released this morning:
Jeryl Bier
@JerylBier
Here's the April readout from the White House press office on @realDonaldTrump's call with Zelensky and the actual transcript. Hard to see how they represent the same call.https://publicpool.kinja.com/subject-in-town-pool-report-4-1834208078 …
10:08 AM - Nov 15, 2019
We do know that both ellipses and the word(s) cut out that he refers to were redundant.
I also believe that he was a Poroshenko ka.
Yawn, this sounds like another nothing burger. The president says that he discussed corruption, and the transcript summary omits that detail. So what? A summary only contains what the summarizer deems interesting, not what the originator of the communication thinks is important.
I believe what Trump says about the call, not some 2nd or 3rd hand version of it.
I think you have that backwards. The summary or readout released in April mentions corruption being discussed. The rough transcript released yesterday does not.
Vidman prepared the rough transcript.
Isn't it convenient that Vindeman now claims he attempted to update the original transcript to match his "whistle blower report" and failed" Since Vindeman is in charge of these things it stinks to high heaven he is using this excuse to explain the discrepancies in his wb report with what is in the transcript. My guess is when Trump decided to release the transcripts it blew up the entire pre planned operation of the Liberals who never imagined there would be any discrepancy to muddy the waters.
Mark
Yep, Vidman added what he wanted the call to have included it would appear. So Vidman will either have to fess up that he put out a false readout, or claim that the transcript was altered which would prompt the authors of the transcript to have to affirm that the transcript is as they wrote it.
“”””””’a lot of military people are angry that he wore his uniform....since his job as “0” to do with his military history.”””””””””””””
I never considered it as a military uniform. I consider it to be a costume he wore to the clown show.
I watched the hearings Friday. The "very prepared" Republicans were anything but that. They failed to catch Yavanovich lying more than once.
If there is an audio recording of the calls, it would certainly prove if the earlier 1st call was tampered with by someone, that being Vindman or it would show Trump didn’t mention corruption. Transcripts can be edited but the actual recording might not be so easy to edit.
They were handling Yoko with kid gloves, because her testimony had nothing to do with the issue at hand. They used it to do other things, such as make that very point (that she had no relevant info to offer), bash Schiff and read certain things into the record.
Oh, I had interpreted the “White House said” as being what the President said. Ugh, the way articles are written sometimes makes it very hard to interpret who said what, or even what happened.
Still a nothing burger, although with your interpretation, it appears that Vindman was trying to insert things that never were said.
In any case, what is the problem with ferreting out the corruption of a US official? Don’t the American people have a right to know if one of their politicians, especially one who is running for president, has used his high level position in government to facilitate conducting shady activities? Wouldn’t our current President be fulfilling his duties to the American people by ordering that corruption to be rooted out?
“I watched the hearings Friday. The “very prepared” Republicans were anything but that. They failed to catch Yavanovich lying more than once.”
They were “prepared” and they knew when she lied. If you’d have done more than a bit of rudimentary reading on the subject you would know this.
They CHOSE to let most of her testimony slide primarily because of the “optics”. They really saw little to gain in bludgeoning the women who offered really nothing of substance and could do Trump 0 harm. The downside of tearing her apart publicly was not offset by any potential upside.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.