Kevin McCarthy: House Vote Made Adam Schiff ‘Judge, Jury And Prosecutor’ In Trump Impeachment

[NightHawkeye]

That runs counter to what is printed on the memorandum (emphasis mine):

Thank you for providing the full caution statement ... which indicates that anomalies might cause minor inaccuracies in the transcript.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Thank you for providing the full caution statement ... which indicates that anomalies might cause minor inaccuracies in the transcript.

It's pretty open-ended as to what might cause inaccuracies, as well as their potential severity. While it does provide two examples of things that could lead to inaccuracy, it also makes it clear that there are more possibilities (two is not "several"), and even of the two possibilities provided, translation errors can drastically alter the meaning of a statement.

The point is that is not, and was never intended to be, a verbatim transcript, as you claimed. And even as a non-verbatim transcript, it still supports the whistleblower's claims.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The point is that is not, and was never intended to be, a verbatim transcript, as you claimed.

Noting that I've never seen a verbatim transcription.

Almost every transcript I've ever read has some nonsensical transcription errors in it ... yet even with such inaccuracies they are still referred to as transcripts.

The term transcript is an apt term for Trump's Ukraine call.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Noting that I've never seen a verbatim transcription.

Almost every transcript I've ever read has some nonsensical transcription errors in it ... yet even with such inaccuracies they are still referred to as transcripts.

The term transcript is an apt term for Trump's Ukraine call.

Unless you were on the call yourself, you have no way of knowing that certain words and phrases were not left out or altered (as at least one individual who was on the call has claimed).

And again, even as it is, the memo backs up the whistleblower's complaint. There are some things that may be down to differing interpretations of certain phrases, but everything that the complaint mentioned is absolutely in the provided document.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Unless you were on the call yourself, you have no way of knowing if certain words and phrases were left out or altered (as at least one individual who was on the call has claimed).

The only claim for "altering" I've heard verbalized involved the whistleblower or his cohorts who attempted to alter the transcript to include some incriminating verbiage ... but were apparently unable to do so.

Noting that the whistleblower himself was not a party to the call ... so any changes introduced by him would have been a corruption of the transcript.

 

[SimplyMe]

But the whistleblower's claim was found to be meritless when my wife was found alive and well.

So, tell me again why the investigation by the prosecution continues?

At this point it's only harassment, and I intend to sue for damages.

Nope, there has been no investigation there should be no investigation -- just straight to trial, so your wife hasn't been "found." It is only you who claim that she is alive, with an alleged sister that lives outside the country -- but no evidence of how she left, why her passport was on a counter, and that some claim she was an only child -- and that the blood is from a Thanksgiving dinner (was it Canadian Thanksgiving, since ours isn't for a couple of weeks yet?).

 

[NightHawkeye]

Nope, there has been no investigation there should be no investigation -- just straight to trial, so your wife hasn't been "found." It is only you who claim that she is alive, with an alleged sister that lives outside the country -- but no evidence of how she left, why her passport was on a counter, and that some claim she was an only child -- and that the blood is from a Thanksgiving dinner (was it Canadian Thanksgiving, since ours isn't for a couple of weeks yet?).

LOL ... now, now, now. You can't change the story line after being proven wrong.

Thanks much though for so effectively illustrating how crimes can be made up and modified at will to suit a narrative.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The only claim for "altering" I've heard verbalized involved the whistleblower or his cohorts who attempted to alter the transcript to include some incriminating verbiage ... but were apparently unable to do so.

The claim of altering comes from Colonel Vindman, who says that certain things in the memo were not translated correctly/completely and that phrases were left out. He was on the call and speaks Russian, so in theory, he would know. He claims that he tried to correct the memo by adding those phrases, which were pretty incriminating, but that his edits were rejected. Vindman is not the whistleblower, and as far as I'm aware, has no association with the whistleblower either.

Now, you can believe Vindman or not - that's your prerogative. But he was on the call and you weren't, so you have to place your trust in someone else if you want to claim that he's lying. And so far - at least to my knowledge - the only people who have disputed his claims about what might have been left out of the memo are those who have something to lose if he's telling the truth. That lends conflict of interest to their denials.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The claim of altering comes from Colonel Vindman, who says that certain things in the memo were not translated correctly/completely and that phrases were left out. He was on the call and speaks Russian, so in theory, he would know. He claims that he tried to correct the memo by adding those phrases, which were pretty incriminating, but that his edits were rejected. Vindman is not the whistleblower.

Vindman's edits were rejected by others who listened in on the call.

Perhaps Vindman heard things which weren't so. It happens. Personal recollections are often flawed.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Vindman's edits were rejected by others who listened in on the call.

Perhaps Vindman heard things which weren't so. It happens. Personal recollections are often flawed.

We don't know who they were rejected by or for what reason.

Yes, he could have misheard or misremembered. It's possible. But it's also possible that those in charge of editing the memo elected to keep certain potentially embarrassing/incriminating information out of the final product.

 

[SimplyMe]

LOL ... now, now, now. You can't change the story line after being proven wrong.

Thanks much though for so effectively illustrating how crimes can be made up and modified at will to suit a narrative.

Nope, sorry. I started with, "So if a lot of blood is in your home and your wife can't be found, you think we should just arrest and indict your for murder because it appears you killed your wife? Or do you think the police should investigate first, to see if your wife is actually dead and, if she is, you are the one that committed the murder? Particularly when you deny any crime took place, that your wife is just visiting her sister that lives in another country?"

So, fine, go back to the original. Your wife can't be found and there is a lot of blood in the house. There was a tip to the police -- which is why we know she can't be found and that there is blood in your home. Should you just be arrested and tried, or should we actually have an investigation first? You seem not to want to answer that question.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Nope, sorry. I started with, "So if a lot of blood is in your home and your wife can't be found, you think we should just arrest and indict your for murder because it appears you killed your wife? Or do you think the police should investigate first, to see if your wife is actually dead and, if she is, you are the one that committed the murder? Particularly when you deny any crime took place, that your wife is just visiting her sister that lives in another country?"

I provided you with a copy of the Skype recording today with my wife and her sister. Obviously, she's alive today.

Why do you insist on investigating? If you were concerned, you could travel to see her. Why must you persist in harassing me about accusation that some foul play occurred?

So, fine, go back to the original. Your wife can't be found and there is a lot of blood in the house. There was a tip to the police -- which is why we know she can't be found and that there is blood in your home. Should you just be arrested and tried, or should we actually have an investigation first? You seem not to want to answer that question.

But, I provided an accurately dated Skype video. Again, why the harassment?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ooo ... is that the latest conspiracy theory?

Are you secretly Senator Graham? It's as though you have not read any of the transcripts that have emerged from the committee meetings.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You know and I know that it wasn't a summary.

It was labeled a "Memorandum" because it was TRANSCRIBED by stenographers …

Have you ever considered the similarity between the words TRANSCRIBED and TRANSCRIPT?

Transcripts are transcribed. If your assertion were correct, it would be labeled transcript. But it isn't.

A memorandum, on the other hand, is something to be remembered later. A useful summary one might say.

 

[SimplyMe]

I provided you with a copy of the Skype recording today with my wife and her sister. Obviously, she's alive today.

Why do you insist on investigating? If you were concerned, you could travel to see her. Why must you persist in harassing me about accusation that some foul play occurred?

But, I provided an accurately dated Skype video. Again, why the harassment?

You mean your wife is supposed to be the one with the bag over her head? How am I supposed to tell from a video, where she has a bag over her head, that she is your wife? And that is assuming the video is not doctored, as well.

 

[DaisyDay]

Who are you, the Red Queen? "‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’"

Investigation first. Impeachment second.

That was the Queen of Hearts (cards) from Alice in Wonderland. The Red Queen (chess) is from Alice Through the Looking Glass. But apart from the wrong queen, yeah.