The Impeachment ‘Partial Transcript’ Lie Just Got Blown Out Of The Water

[NightHawkeye]

From "The transcript is the transcript", files: The Impeachment ‘Partial Transcript’ Lie Just Got Blown Out Of The Water

Jennifer Williams, an adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman stated that the transcript of the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zolodymyr Zelensky was substantively accurate.
...
This testimony blows up a month-long lie pushed by Democrats and their media allies that the transcript was partial, or redacted
...
Tuesday’s confirmation that the transcript of the July 25 phone call was substantively accurate takes away a major talking point for those seeking the impeachment of President Trump. The whole reason this duplicitous talking point existed was that the president’s critics found the call wasn’t as damning as they hoped it would be. Perfect or not, nothing impeachable occurred on the call, so it was necessary to pretend that maybe we were missing some key information.

That is over now. The transcript is the transcript.​

 

[Arcangl86]

The "transcript" literally says on it that it's not a transcript.

 

[FreeinChrist]

But it was partial, and is not the full transcript.

Can We Finally Stop Calling the Ukraine Call Summary a Transcript Now?

“Read the transcript!” has been a mantra of President Donald Trump ever since he released a summary of his call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky over allegations he withheld aid to the nation unless its president agreed to manufacture dirt on the son of his political rival, Joe Biden.

But, in fact, the summary of the call with Zelensky is not a transcript at all; it’s a summary with important facts withheld. This was verified by Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, who listened in on the president’s call with Zelensky and testified before the impeachment inquiry on November 7. Her deposition testimony along with former National Security Council staffer Tim Morrison’s was released by the House Intelligence Committee on Saturday.

“I recall that one of the issues he had noted was that the transcript released did not include the word Burisma. But on looking back at my notes, I do see that Burisma was mentioned by name in the call,” Williams told the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during her deposition.

​

She echoed that today - things in her notes of the call that she listened to were not in the transcript that Trump had released. Notably, she had "Burisma" in her notes and it does not show in what Trump supplied.

 

[NightHawkeye]

But it was partial, and is not the full transcript.

Can We Finally Stop Calling the Ukraine Call Summary a Transcript Now?

“Read the transcript!” has been a mantra of President Donald Trump ever since he released a summary of his call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky over allegations he withheld aid to the nation unless its president agreed to manufacture dirt on the son of his political rival, Joe Biden.

But, in fact, the summary of the call with Zelensky is not a transcript at all; it’s a summary with important facts withheld. This was verified by Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, who listened in on the president’s call with Zelensky and testified before the impeachment inquiry on November 7. Her deposition testimony along with former National Security Council staffer Tim Morrison’s was released by the House Intelligence Committee on Saturday.

“I recall that one of the issues he had noted was that the transcript released did not include the word Burisma. But on looking back at my notes, I do see that Burisma was mentioned by name in the call,” Williams told the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during her deposition.

​

She echoed that today - things in her notes of the call that she listened to were not in the transcript that Trump had released. Notably, she had "Burisma" in her notes and it does not show in what Trump supplied.

So, the big omission is that Burisma was not mentioned in the call ... although Williams had scribbled it in her notes?

Even if her recollection is accurate ... and it may not be, as there are other explanations such as Williams anticipating the mention of Burisma ... that is an impeachable offense how, exactly?

 

[civilwarbuff]

But it was partial, and is not the full transcript.

Can We Finally Stop Calling the Ukraine Call Summary a Transcript Now?

“Read the transcript!” has been a mantra of President Donald Trump ever since he released a summary of his call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky over allegations he withheld aid to the nation unless its president agreed to manufacture dirt on the son of his political rival, Joe Biden.

But, in fact, the summary of the call with Zelensky is not a transcript at all; it’s a summary with important facts withheld. This was verified by Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, who listened in on the president’s call with Zelensky and testified before the impeachment inquiry on November 7. Her deposition testimony along with former National Security Council staffer Tim Morrison’s was released by the House Intelligence Committee on Saturday.

“I recall that one of the issues he had noted was that the transcript released did not include the word Burisma. But on looking back at my notes, I do see that Burisma was mentioned by name in the call,” Williams told the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during her deposition.

​

She echoed that today - things in her notes of the call that she listened to were not in the transcript that Trump had released. Notably, she had "Burisma" in her notes and it does not show in what Trump supplied.

Follow-up letter from Ms. Williams attorney after the deposition (located at end of deposition):

The Honorable Adam Schiff
Chairman
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Correction to the transcript of Jennifer Williams’s deposition testimony
Dear Chairman Schiff:
We write on behalf of Jennifer Williams under Rule 8 of the 116th Congress’s
Regulations for Use of Deposition Authority. Ms. Williams has reviewed the transcript of her
deposition testimony from November 7, 2019, and wishes to amend it as described below.
At her deposition, Ms. Williams was asked whether the Ukrainian company Burisma was
mentioned by name during the call between President Trump and President Zelensky on July 25, 2019. She testified that it was. Tr. at 66-67, 129. She was then asked who had mentioned it and whether she had taken notes. Ms. Williams testified that she had taken notes, and that she believed her notes reflected that President Trump had referenced Burisma. Id. At the time of her testimony, that was Ms. Williams’s recollection.
Following the deposition, Ms. Williams reviewed her notes again and discovered that her
recollection had been incorrect. Her notes reflect that President Zelensky mentioned Burisma during the July 25 call. They do not indicate that President Trump did so. Accordingly, Ms.
Williams wishes to amend her response to the question discussed above so that it accurately
reflects what she recorded during the call.
We thank the Committee for considering this letter.
Sincerely,
Justin V. Shur
Emily K. Damrau
Caleb Hayes-Deats
Counsel to Jennifer Williams
Jennifer

Looks like another swing and a miss by Mr. Schiff & Co.

 

[wing2000]

So, the big omission is that Burisma was not mentioned in the call ... although Williams had scribbled it in her notes?

Even if her recollection is accurate ... and it may not be, as there are other explanations such as Williams anticipating the mention of Burisma ... that is an impeachable offense how, exactly?

Both witnesses today testified that "Burisma" was mentioned in the call.

 

[FreeinChrist]

So, the big omission is that Burisma was not mentioned in the call ... although Williams had scribbled it in her notes?

Even if her recollection is accurate ... and it may not be, as there are other explanations such as Williams anticipating the mention of Burisma ... that is an impeachable offense how, exactly?

Vindman remembers Burisma being mentioned, too. And the "....." mean something.

I already pointed out the impeachable offense. Holding back military aid voted for by Congress in return for an investigation into a political rival, and a TV announcement about it is bribery.
Report: State Department found White House had no legal ground to block Ukraine aid

State Department lawyers found President Trump and the White House Office of Management and Budget had no legal ground to block the department sending military aid to Ukraine, Bloomberg reports.

What's happening: The State Department "quietly authorized releasing $141 million" of the approximately $400 million withheld by the White House several days before Sept. 11 — the date Trump says he released the funds, per Bloomberg.​

Asking a foreign country to investigate a US citizen is not okay.

That is what Trump asked in the transcript.

 

[hislegacy]

Both witnesses today testified that "Burisma" was mentioned in the call.

by whom was it mentioned according to both witnesses.

 

[hislegacy]

Question: Was Vindman the sources for the Whistle blower?

sounded like a real possibility when he was questioned who he spoke with and was summarily cut off by Schiff because he did not want the whistle blower outed.

which begs the question

if Schiff does not know who the whistle blower is, how does he know that the whistle blower would be ‘outed’ if his/her name is mentioned.

 

[wing2000]

by whom was it mentioned according to both witnesses.

...as I recall, it was the Ukrainian President as Col Vindman commented that he thought he had been prepped to mention Burisma specifically... (would need to check the transcript to confirm)

 

[wing2000]

if Schiff does not know who the whistle blower is, how does he know that the whistle blower would be ‘outed’ if his/her name is mentioned.

Did you mean Vindman?

 

[Hank77]

Question: Was Vindman the sources for the Whistle blower?

sounded like a real possibility when he was questioned who he spoke with and was summarily cut off by Schiff because he did not want the whistle blower outed.

which begs the question

if Schiff does not know who the whistle blower is, how does he know that the whistle blower would be ‘outed’ if his/her name is mentioned.

Because that same question was asked to another witness when they were trying to figure out all the people present at a certain place and time. They couldn't hide their motive for asking.

 

[whatbogsends]

It's only "blown out of the water" if you discount the fact that the original summary varied greatly from the newly released transcript.

"President Donald Trump released the rough transcript Friday of a congratulatory phone call he had with the incoming president of Ukraine, holding it out as evidence he did nothing wrong. Instead, the memorandum shows how White House descriptions of Trump’s communications with foreign leaders at times better reflect wishful thinking than the reality of the interactions.
...
The original readout also said Trump “underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” But there’s no indication of that in the rough transcript.

Likewise, the readout said the president expressed his commitment to help Ukraine “to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption.” The word “corruption” is not mentioned in the rough transcript of the actual call.
...
“But it’s certainly not normal for the readout to be nearly entirely divorced from the reality of the call,” he said. “The discrepancies between the transcript and the readout in this case are profound.”"

Conflicting White House accounts of 1st Trump-Zelenskiy call

 

[Aldebaran]

Both witnesses today testified that "Burisma" was mentioned in the call.

So? Bill Clinton testified under oath during his trial that he did not have sex with that woman. Not all testimony is going to be accurate in this case either.

 

[wing2000]

So? Bill Clinton testified under oath during his trial that he did not have sex with that woman. Not all testimony is going to be accurate in this case either.

Are you suggesting both witnesses lied today? If so, what is the basis of your accusation?

 

[Aldebaran]

Are you suggesting both witnesses lied today? If so, what is the basis of your accusation?

I used the word "accurate". When people are talking about how they felt when they heard a comment or phrase, it's only accurate to themselves, but not substantive. Certainly nothing that fuels impeaching a president.

 

[wing2000]

I used the word "accurate". When people are talking about how they felt when they heard a comment or phrase, it's only accurate to themselves, but not substantive. Certainly nothing that fuels impeaching a president.

...then next time, I suggest using a better example. Bill Clinton's -I did not have sex with that woman- is, IMO, not a matter of accuracy recall.

 

[Aldebaran]

...then next time, I suggest using a better example. Bill Clinton's -I did not have sex with that woman- is, IMO, not a matter of accuracy recall.

Ah, but he said it under oath, just like the witnesses who testify for the current hearings. I'm just trying to point out that even when something is said under oath, it may still be inaccurate, or even untruthful. In the current cases, we're talking about things such as how someone felt about a particular comment. No way to prove one way or another about things like that, and yet that's what the whole thing is being based on.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Asking a foreign country to investigate a US citizen is not okay.

If a US citizen is suspected of having committed a crime in a foreign country why is it 'not okay' to ask that country to investigate it? What should we do?....just tell them we are going to send over the FBI whether they like it or not?

 

[charsan]

Question: Was Vindman the sources for the Whistle blower?

sounded like a real possibility when he was questioned who he spoke with and was summarily cut off by Schiff because he did not want the whistle blower outed.

which begs the question

if Schiff does not know who the whistle blower is, how does he know that the whistle blower would be ‘outed’ if his/her name is mentioned.

Exactly. Schiff knows the whistle blower and the whistle blower was sitting in front of Schiff