impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[wildcat09 29420]

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddammit.

Being ill-informed and wrong is not lying.

You people aren't helping anything.  You're as bad as conservatards going for librul tears.

Sheeit has a very long history of lying.

[Biff Tannen 45750]

The president lies multiple times a day and people are dying and TwiceHorn is concerned that we are calling people liars on the internet.

[Dahobbs 17692]

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The president lies multiple times a day and people are dying and TwiceHorn is concerned that we are calling people liars on the internet.

Eh, he has a valid point. He just chose the wrong guy to defend. 

[HenryJames 66188]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The president lies multiple times a day and people are dying and TwiceHorn is concerned that we are calling people liars on the internet.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Some of you need to pull your shit together. Sheeeeeit is a known commodity on this board with an extensive history of the exact same schtick. 

Stop feeding the troll. He wins by you even quoting him. Neg him and move on. 

[sheeeit 129]

28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It is a 5 minute summary of a 30 minute call. Admit it isn't a word for word transcript. Admit it cannot contain the complete conversation. Admit it is possible that it doesnt accurately portray the full conversation. All of those things are obviously true. I'd love to see you acknowledge any of them. 

As to executive privilege, see everything we said before. It isnt a limitless well of protection. There is even a Supreme Court case on it involving another president. 

Wow.  Lets be clear, is the thing I am being accused of lying about the "document" (id hate to call it a transcript eve though that is exactly what CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS etc all called it) that the WH released?  I am lying because i referred to it as a transcript?  I used the term stenographer?

Here is the 'document"  https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

Call it whatever you want.  I really does not matter.  It certainly does not read like something paraphrased.  It is my understanding that the document is made by people listening to the call in real time.  They are taking notes/transcribing what is being said.  Obviously, the words they used are very specific and certainly read like a direct dialogue of the call.  It is obviously an attempt to get down precisely the words used in the call.  For the lawyers, I apologize for using the term stenographer.  I was not using that in a legal way but just as a catch all for people taking notes and writing down what was said.  

As to your questions above..I do not think that this is a 5 minute summary of a 30 minute call.  I think this is the entire call.  I have no idea why the call says 30 minutes.  In reading it, it certainly doesn't appear to have some huge gap.  I am sure that translators slowed things down.

But it would be very, very easy to ask the people who took the notes about it.  This is so typical.  People see some apparent inconsistency and assume it is some conspiracy.  Why don't the dems just ask the note takers how long the call lasted and if there was any part of the conversation that was excluded?  Seems pretty easy to me.  Why do you suppose they haven't done that?  

And my recollection is that the whistle blower did not hear the call first hand but spoke with people that did hear the call first hand.  Seems pretty easy then to get in touch with the people who actually heard the call and ask them if there is a bunch of missing dialogue.  I mean we have people accusing the POTUS of saying things in this call.  Does it make any sense to you that those people would let an incomplete transcript be released by the WH without calling bullshit on it?  It is absurd to think that the WH would claim this is the complete call and that the dems have people that actually listened to the call and dont refute it.  

As to privilege, not once, ever did I claim that privilege was absolute.  Never.  All I said was that executive privilege is a legal right for any POTUS to claim.  It is not absolute just like congressional subpoenas are not absolute.  I am pointing out the absolute idiocy of people claiming obstruction of justice and that this time it means the end of our democracy.  It is foolish.  I am fully aware that no one has actually asserted an official position of executive privilege yet.  At this point, the executive is attempting to reach an understanding on the proceedings.  If they can not, then I and everyone else, expects them to claim executive privilege and let the courts handle it.  

 

 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Trump/Guliani effort to discredit Biden now shown to involve Ukrainian organized crime leader/oligarch tied to Manafort and Putin. 

Giuliani was getting "incriminating" information on Biden from Dmitry Firtash.  

https://time.com/5699201/exclusive-how-a-ukrainian-oligarch-wanted-by-u-s-authorities-helped-giuliani-attack-biden/

In their effort to discredit President Donald Trump’s perceived enemies, close allies of the President have received key documents and information from a Ukrainian oligarch wanted in the U.S. on corruption charges, according to five people directly involved in this effort and two other people familiar with it.

The information came from the legal team of Dmitry Firtash, a wealthy industrialist with assets across Europe, who has spent the last five years in Vienna fighting extradition to the U.S. on bribery and racketeering charges. The U.S. Department of Justice said in 2017 he was among the “upper echelon associates of Russian organized crime”—something Firtash vigorously denies, along with all charges against him.

As part of his legal defense, Firtash’s lawyers have gathered documents that make controversial allegations against former special counsel Robert Mueller and former Vice President Joe Biden. Firtash’s lawyers have passed these documents and other information to associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

In his frequent appearances on cable news, Giuliani has presented some of these documents to the American public as evidence for his claims of wrongdoing by Mueller and Biden. The key document is an affidavit from a former Ukrainian prosecutor who accuses Biden of corruption. “The witness I’m relying on,” Giuliani told Fox News on Oct. 6, was the prosecutor Viktor Shokin. “That’s the affidavit I put out,” Giuliani added. He did not mention that the affidavit was obtained by the Firtash legal team. At the beginning of the document, Shokin writes that he is making the statement “at the request of lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash.”

[jimmyjazz 46225]

Alright, my first "ignore".  This should improve things.

[Dahobbs 17692]

7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Wow.  Lets be clear, is the thing I am being accused of lying about the "document" (id hate to call it a transcript eve though that is exactly what CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, CBS etc all called it) that the WH released?  I am lying because i referred to it as a transcript?  I used the term stenographer?

Here is the 'document"  https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

Call it whatever you want.  I really does not matter.  It certainly does not read like something paraphrased.  It is my understanding that the document is made by people listening to the call in real time.  They are taking notes/transcribing what is being said.  Obviously, the words they used are very specific and certainly read like a direct dialogue of the call.  It is obviously an attempt to get down precisely the words used in the call.  For the lawyers, I apologize for using the term stenographer.  I was not using that in a legal way but just as a catch all for people taking notes and writing down what was said.  

As to your questions above..I do not think that this is a 5 minute summary of a 30 minute call.  I think this is the entire call.  I have no idea why the call says 30 minutes.  In reading it, it certainly doesn't appear to have some huge gap.  I am sure that translators slowed things down.

But it would be very, very easy to ask the people who took the notes about it.  This is so typical.  People see some apparent inconsistency and assume it is some conspiracy.  Why don't the dems just ask the note takers how long the call lasted and if there was any part of the conversation that was excluded?  Seems pretty easy to me.  Why do you suppose they haven't done that?  

And my recollection is that the whistle blower did not hear the call first hand but spoke with people that did hear the call first hand.  Seems pretty easy then to get in touch with the people who actually heard the call and ask them if there is a bunch of missing dialogue.  I mean we have people accusing the POTUS of saying things in this call.  Does it make any sense to you that those people would let an incomplete transcript be released by the WH without calling bullshit on it?  It is absurd to think that the WH would claim this is the complete call and that the dems have people that actually listened to the call and dont refute it.  

As to privilege, not once, ever did I claim that privilege was absolute.  Never.  All I said was that executive privilege is a legal right for any POTUS to claim.  It is not absolute just like congressional subpoenas are not absolute.  I am pointing out the absolute idiocy of people claiming obstruction of justice and that this time it means the end of our democracy.  It is foolish.  I am fully aware that no one has actually asserted an official position of executive privilege yet.  At this point, the executive is attempting to reach an understanding on the proceedings.  If they can not, then I and everyone else, expects them to claim executive privilege and let the courts handle it.  

 

 

Hahahaha I knew it. The summary says it isnt a word for word transcript, yet you cant believe it. The summary says it is a 30 minute call. But you cant believe. Amazingly, you believe everything else in the summary is complete and true. Hell, the damn thing even has ellipses throughout, which are used to indicate things are omitted. Not to mention, we have a whistleblower report clearly stating that a verbatim transcript exists and was moved to a classified server. 

Twicehorn: see what I mean?

[lemonlime 5503]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Hahahaha I knew it. The summary says it isnt a word for word transcript, yet you cant believe it. The summary says it is a 30 minute call. But you cant believe. Amazingly, you believe everything else in the summary is complete and true. Hell, the damn thing even has ellipses throughout, which are used to indicate things are omitted. Not to mention, we have a whistleblower report clearly stating that a verbatim transcript exists and was moved to a classified server. 

Twicehorn: see what I mean?

I love the argument that executive privilege somehow applies over the "transcript," but also that Congress should call all the people who heard the call in to talk about (testify about?) the call.  Sheeit's "arguments" are theater of the absurd.

[TwiceHorn 31554]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

The president lies multiple times a day and people are dying and TwiceHorn is concerned that we are calling people liars on the internet.

Accuracy remains a thing. Truth even.

It matters or it doesn't. I think it does.

Edited October 16, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31554]

40 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I love the argument that executive privilege somehow applies over the "transcript," but also that Congress should call all the people who heard the call in to talk about (testify about?) the call.  Sheeit's "arguments" are theater of the absurd.

Trump and this situation aside, I think there's a fairly compelling argument that non-public conversations between the President and a foreign leader should be initially confidential.  But I don't think that should fall under executive privilege.  National security or "state secrets" might cover it, but I'm not sure that's the right rubric either.

I'm not quite sure what the conditions should be when the confidentiality is breached.  Certainly here, I think there's an argument that it's been waived by disclosure of the summary.  Also a "wrongdoing" or crime/fraud exception.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Congress should subpoena Putin, Kim, MBS, and Erdogan for the transcripts.  They’re more likely to comply for the lulz. 

[sheeeit 129]

23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Hahahaha I knew it. The summary says it isnt a word for word transcript, yet you cant believe it. The summary says it is a 30 minute call. But you cant believe. Amazingly, you believe everything else in the summary is complete and true. Hell, the damn thing even has ellipses throughout, which are used to indicate things are omitted. Not to mention, we have a whistleblower report clearly stating that a verbatim transcript exists and was moved to a classified server. 

Twicehorn: see what I mean?

A lot to unpack here.  You really do not understand what you are talking about.

The whistle blower referred to the " official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced-as is customary-by the White House Situation Room. "  

The document that was released by the WH was that exact document.  Not a summary of the transcript, the same transcript.  There is no other document.  The one released is the official situation room document.  The exact document that was classified and placed on the secure server.  The exact one the whistle blower was referring to.

You are clearly trying to imply that there exists another transcript.  There is zero evidence anywhere that another document exists.  Listen carefully- dozens of people listened to the call, including the very same people that told the whistle blower about the call.  You want us to believe that the WH released a doctored or abbreviated or something similar transcript to the public, and told the public it was the official situation room transcript, and that not one of the dozen people who heard the call- again including the ones that informed the whistle blower about how bad it was- have claimed that it was not the whole transcript.  No one who heard the call has questioned this.  No one.  You are just wrong.  (note- you need to tell the other lawyers hammering me on my word choice that the whistle blower is a "lying, fucking liar" for saying that the situation room transcript is word for word)

As for the ellipses, once again you are just clinging to speculative nonsense.  The former director of the same situation room for Obama said that the ellipses represented times where the person speaking paused in the course of the conversation.  Nothing was omitted.  

If you could just think, you wouldnt have these problems.  Just ask yourself if you truly believe that the dozen or so people that listened to the call and decided to take it to the IG and file an official report and communicate with the intelligence committee would just stand by and not hammer the WH if the transcript that was released was not the whole thing.  

[Dahobbs 17692]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Accuracy remains a thing. Truth even.

It matters or it doesn't. I think it does.

And sometimes the truth is someone else is lying. See above. 

[TwiceHorn 31554]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

And sometimes the truth is someone else is lying. See above. 

Fair enough.  Da fuq.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

11 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

A lot to unpack here.  You really do not understand what you are talking about.

The whistle blower referred to the " official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced-as is customary-by the White House Situation Room. "  

The document that was released by the WH was that exact document.  Not a summary of the transcript, the same transcript.  There is no other document.  The one released is the official situation room document.  The exact document that was classified and placed on the secure server.  The exact one the whistle blower was referring to.

You are clearly trying to imply that there exists another transcript.  There is zero evidence anywhere that another document exists.  Listen carefully- dozens of people listened to the call, including the very same people that told the whistle blower about the call.  You want us to believe that the WH released a doctored or abbreviated or something similar transcript to the public, and told the public it was the official situation room transcript, and that not one of the dozen people who heard the call- again including the ones that informed the whistle blower about how bad it was- have claimed that it was not the whole transcript.  No one who heard the call has questioned this.  No one.  You are just wrong.  (note- you need to tell the other lawyers hammering me on my word choice that the whistle blower is a "lying, fucking liar" for saying that the situation room transcript is word for word)

As for the ellipses, once again you are just clinging to speculative nonsense.  The former director of the same situation room for Obama said that the ellipses represented times where the person speaking paused in the course of the conversation.  Nothing was omitted.  

If you could just think, you wouldnt have these problems.  Just ask yourself if you truly believe that the dozen or so people that listened to the call and decided to take it to the IG and file an official report and communicate with the intelligence committee would just stand by and not hammer the WH if the transcript that was released was not the whole thing.  

You are avoiding the fact that said server is ONLY to be used for purposes of national security. Besides that, someone with direct knowledge of said phone call did come forward and file a complaint as a whistleblower.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

Just now, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

You are avoiding the fact that said server is ONLY to be used for purposes of national security. Besides that, someone with direct knowledge of said phone call did come forward and file a complaint as a whistleblower.

Yes and there are some concerns about the content of the “memcon”.  Here’s something from that liberal rag Washington Post.

Quote

The “Memorandum of Telephone Conversation” — or “memcon” — released Wednesday is not a transcript, by definition. It resembles a verbatim account of the presidential conversation, yet memcons are not always word-for-word. Former White House and U.S. security officials tell The Washington Post the documents are meant to be as close to verbatim as possible. But they end up passing through several revisions by nonpartisan career staff and political appointees, which, in the case of Trump’s July 25 conversation with Zelensky, has triggered fears of misconduct.

 

But former White House staffers said that the Trump administration, in a departure from prior presidencies, has been more willing to edit the telephone conversation memos to remove errors or insensitive remarks Trump has made, apparently in an effort to avoid political heat or embarrassment.

“Don’t rely on whatever transcript is released,” said a former staffer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment candidly. “Even if it’s unredacted; those transcripts are heavily edited by political leadership at NSC. I’ve seen substance deleted from these call ‘transcripts’ to delete either superfluous details or more substance.”

 

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

[henrygandorf 29195]

12 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

The whistle blower referred to the " official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced-as is customary-by the White House Situation Room. "  

The document that was released by the WH was that exact document.  Not a summary of the transcript, the same transcript.  There is no other document.  The one released is the official situation room document.  The exact document that was classified and placed on the secure server.  The exact one the whistle blower was referring to. 

i haven't been following this the past week or so, but my understanding is that this is incorrect. 

there is a voice-recognition system in the sit-room that does its best (with trump, who knows) to produce an actual transcript of every phone call.  then there are people who are assigned to take these calls and make summaries, quote portions, whatever they need to do, and then send those versions around to people who need to know what was said in each call, because not everyone's schedules permit them to always be live, and there are people in the administration, state dept, whatever, that need to stay current.

it is my understanding that instead of going to the common server, which is accessible to people who are tasked with this, that this particular transcript was almost immediately flagged by white house counsel and moved to a secure server, code-word clearance, that was thought to contain "only matters of national security", and not "anything political or potentially embarrassing".  once the secure server was mentioned, stories started to surface that there were other transcripts moved there illegally, including calls with russia and saudi arabia.

after some time, there was a "summary" or "memo" version released of this call, which many called a "transcript" but it never actually was.  the version that was released sounds an awful lot like the summary memos that are sent around after a call with a foreign leader, and i believe that's what this was.  i haven't heard from anywhere that this is the version that was once housed in the code-word server, but again, i may not be completely current on this topic.  i don't know who has access to that server, but i seriously doubt they would just pop something out and distribute it the way this one was.

i also highly doubt the white house is depending solely on note-takers for calls like this.  i can't remember where i heard about the voice-recognition, but i think it was in an interview, not sure if it's written anywhere, but i'm not imagining it.  i would think worst case, there are recordings of calls and stenographers go in afterwards to catch every word.  if you've ever seen actual transcripts of trump talking anywhere to anyone, you could tell that this is not a word-for-word account.  it's not like this call happened, and then poof, there was the summary "transcript" released.  it all happened quickly once the news broke, but the call itself was the day after mueller testified back in july.

i'd be happy to be proven wrong, however.  is there some article somewhere confirming this is the one and only piece of recollection from that phone call?  that the one we all read was the one once housed in the codeword server?

  

[4th&Five 41599]

Sounds like the meeting today was an hour long demonstration of why we need to 25th this bastard. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5568]

Hey guys. Didn't know if you knew this, but sheeeeit is back. 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

5 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Hey guys. Didn't know if you knew this, but sheeeeit is back. 

"Looks like sheeeeit, takes like sheeeeit, good thing we didn't step in it"

[Biff Tannen 45750]

16 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Sounds like the meeting today was an hour long demonstration of why we need to 25th this bastard. 

Fucking this.  Jesus god, the man is mentally ill.  And it's fucking October of 2019.  We have more than a year til the election.  I said it somewhere else, but there's a good to fair chance he's going to completely snap and kill us all by starting and/or ending a nuclear holocaust.

[Hornmatic 251]

16 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i haven't been following this the past week or so, but my understanding is that this is incorrect. 

there is a voice-recognition system in the sit-room that does its best (with trump, who knows) to produce an actual transcript of every phone call.  then there are people who are assigned to take these calls and make summaries, quote portions, whatever they need to do, and then send those versions around to people who need to know what was said in each call, because not everyone's schedules permit them to always be live, and there are people in the administration, state dept, whatever, that need to stay current.

it is my understanding that instead of going to the common server, which is accessible to people who are tasked with this, that this particular transcript was almost immediately flagged by white house counsel and moved to a secure server, code-word clearance, that was thought to contain "only matters of national security", and not "anything political or potentially embarrassing".  once the secure server was mentioned, stories started to surface that there were other transcripts moved there illegally, including calls with russia and saudi arabia.

after some time, there was a "summary" or "memo" version released of this call, which many called a "transcript" but it never actually was.  the version that was released sounds an awful lot like the summary memos that are sent around after a call with a foreign leader, and i believe that's what this was.  i haven't heard from anywhere that this is the version that was once housed in the code-word server, but again, i may not be completely current on this topic.  i don't know who has access to that server, but i seriously doubt they would just pop something out and distribute it the way this one was.

i also highly doubt the white house is depending solely on note-takers for calls like this.  i can't remember where i heard about the voice-recognition, but i think it was in an interview, not sure if it's written anywhere, but i'm not imagining it.  i would think worst case, there are recordings of calls and stenographers go in afterwards to catch every word.  if you've ever seen actual transcripts of trump talking anywhere to anyone, you could tell that this is not a word-for-word account.  it's not like this call happened, and then poof, there was the summary "transcript" released.  it all happened quickly once the news broke, but the call itself was the day after mueller testified back in july.

i'd be happy to be proven wrong, however.  is there some article somewhere confirming this is the one and only piece of recollection from that phone call?  that the one we all read was the one once housed in the codeword server?

  

 

Initially, I thought this was the case. The way it was reported and the online comments here and elsewhere made it seem like there was another transcript that was more accurate and kept in the secure server.

 

However, over time I believe this account...

45 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

A lot to unpack here.  You really do not understand what you are talking about.

The whistle blower referred to the " official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced-as is customary-by the White House Situation Room. "  

The document that was released by the WH was that exact document.  Not a summary of the transcript, the same transcript.  There is no other document.  The one released is the official situation room document.  The exact document that was classified and placed on the secure server.  The exact one the whistle blower was referring to.

You are clearly trying to imply that there exists another transcript.  There is zero evidence anywhere that another document exists.  Listen carefully- dozens of people listened to the call, including the very same people that told the whistle blower about the call.  You want us to believe that the WH released a doctored or abbreviated or something similar transcript to the public, and told the public it was the official situation room transcript, and that not one of the dozen people who heard the call- again including the ones that informed the whistle blower about how bad it was- have claimed that it was not the whole transcript.  No one who heard the call has questioned this.  No one.  You are just wrong.  (note- you need to tell the other lawyers hammering me on my word choice that the whistle blower is a "lying, fucking liar" for saying that the situation room transcript is word for word)

As for the ellipses, once again you are just clinging to speculative nonsense.  The former director of the same situation room for Obama said that the ellipses represented times where the person speaking paused in the course of the conversation.  Nothing was omitted.  

If you could just think, you wouldnt have these problems.  Just ask yourself if you truly believe that the dozen or so people that listened to the call and decided to take it to the IG and file an official report and communicate with the intelligence committee would just stand by and not hammer the WH if the transcript that was released was not the whole thing.  

... to be more or less accurate. Is there not any reputable news report that can clarify or reconcile these two versions?

[jimmyjazz 46225]

33 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

there is a voice-recognition system in the sit-room that does its best (with trump, who knows) to produce an actual transcript of every phone call.

Nope, not as I understand it.  Recording devices are not used.  Multiple transcribers are used.  

This doesn't change the fact that (a) those transcriptions were locked in a code-word server and (b) those are not the same things that Trump produced for public release, regardless of what sheeeet wants us to believe, because he's a lying piece of shit troll who should be ignored by any and all around here (hint hint).

Oh, by the way:  "ignore" doesn't work.  I'm still seeing his/her/it's original posts.

[jimmyjazz 46225]

25 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

"Looks like sheeeeit, takes like sheeeeit, good thing we didn't step in it"

[lemonlime 5503]

29 minutes ago, Hornmatic said:

 

... to be more or less accurate. Is there not any reputable news report that can clarify or reconcile these two versions?

I'm not sure how they would given that the WH, which has also repeatedly placed transcripts of these calls on a code word only server to hide them,  has repeatedly lied about everything, including the weather, and what we have is a purported "transcript" released by the WH.  I'm not sure why anyone with two functioning brain cells would trust the WH's word on anything.

[henrygandorf 29195]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Nope, not as I understand it.  Recording devices are not used.  Multiple transcribers are used.  

This doesn't change the fact that (a) those transcriptions were locked in a code-word server and (b) those are not the same things that Trump produced for public release, regardless of what sheeeet wants us to believe, because he's a lying piece of shit troll who should be ignored by any and all around here (hint hint).

Oh, by the way:  "ignore" doesn't work.  I'm still seeing his/her/it's original posts.

someone on cable news mentioned a voice-recognition situation.  maybe it was a backup, but it was definitely the part that i didn't have full details on.  the picture that was painted was that at any given time there would've been 10-12 people in the sitroom, as if it was just another phone call (not counting any note-takers).

i think the rest of it is fairly obvious.  the codeword server is highly suspect, and it's widely known these things go through a "process" before they're released to anyone.  to pretend what we saw was the whole conversation is laughable.

maybe i missed the earlier part of the conversation, but we're quibbling over unimportant details here.  the summary itself is damning without even considering the recent (and upcoming) testimony, the whistleblower(s), rudy, his idiots, etc.

i'm wondering when they go after the other conversations.

[lemonlime 5503]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

someone on cable news mentioned a voice-recognition situation.  maybe it was a backup, but it was definitely the part that i didn't have full details on.  the picture that was painted was that at any given time there would've been 10-12 people in the sitroom, as if it was just another phone call (not counting any note-takers).

i think the rest of it is fairly obvious.  the codeword server is highly suspect, and it's widely known these things go through a "process" before they're released to anyone.  to pretend what we saw was the whole conversation is laughable.

maybe i missed the earlier part of the conversation, but we're quibbling over unimportant details here.  the summary itself is damning without even considering the recent (and upcoming) testimony, the whistleblower(s), rudy, his idiots, etc.

i'm wondering when they go after the other conversations.

Agreed the codeword server is highly suspect. And this isn't a transcript.  My best guess, although who the fuck knows at this point, is that the "transcript" is fairly accurate as it's very close to what was in the whistle blower's report.  To the extent it's short, that could well be do to a combination of translators and the people taking down the information streamlining trump's rambling word salad inane ramblings.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

12 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

someone on cable news mentioned a voice-recognition situation.  maybe it was a backup, but it was definitely the part that i didn't have full details on.  the picture that was painted was that at any given time there would've been 10-12 people in the sitroom, as if it was just another phone call (not counting any note-takers).

i think the rest of it is fairly obvious.  the codeword server is highly suspect, and it's widely known these things go through a "process" before they're released to anyone.  to pretend what we saw was the whole conversation is laughable.

maybe i missed the earlier part of the conversation, but we're quibbling over unimportant details here.  the summary itself is damning without even considering the recent (and upcoming) testimony, the whistleblower(s), rudy, his idiots, etc.

i'm wondering when they go after the other conversations.

I suppose it is quibbling, but FWIW, I used to scroll through Pete Souza's Instagram (before Facebook bought it and make you have an account, grr). For those that haven't heard of him, Souza is a former WH photographer who frequently comments and "throws shade" in his Insta comments but also uses the comments to explain and inform. When the news of the "call" first broke, he had this to say :

Quote

I’ll be the first to admit that pictures of a President on the telephone are not always that visually exciting. But hear me out.

The job of the Chief Official White House Photographer is to visually document the Presidency for the historical record. When the President of the United States makes a phone call to another head of state, that is something that should be visually recorded.Photographs can provide information, mood, emotion and context. The first photograph here was made in 2010 in the Oval Office as President Obama talked on the phone with President Myung-bak Lee of South Korea.

You can see who is in the photo: the deputy National Security Advisor (Denis McDonough), the U.S. Trade Representative (Ron Kirk), a representative from the Situation Room (whose job is to place the call), the deputy assistant to the president (Michael Froman), the Secretary of the Treasury (Tim Geithner) and NSC Director for Asian Affairs (Danny Russel).

You can tell that the mood is serious. It is late at night, almost 11PM. Although the aides are still wearing suits, President Obama is wearing jeans (which means he had likely gone “home” to the residence, had dinner with his family and come back to the Oval for the call).

The second photo shows another phone call to President Lee. It is also late at night. Except this time, the President is in his Treaty Room office in the private residence. He is alone (except for me). As I recall, it was just a check-in call, so he didn’t feel the need to make his aides stay late knowing that someone in the Situation Room would be taking notes.

Although Comrade Minus loves to host the reality show for the White House press pool, essentially staging Cabinet Meetings and Oval Office encounters just for the TV cameras, there is little visual evidence of him actually doing real work. Congress should demand to see photographs of his phone call with Ukraine President Zelensky. It could provide information, context and mood: who else is in the room; where in the residence did the call take place; what was he wearing; is he joking or not.

That sort of lays out the scene for what would normally take place during a call.

Here is the link to the photos:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B28CZNxFrhl/

Edited October 17, 2019 by Mrs Whiggins
Mistake

[henrygandorf 29195]

4 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Agreed the codeword server is highly suspect. And this isn't a transcript.  My best guess, although who the fuck knows at this point, is that the "transcript" is fairly accurate as it's very close to what was in the whistle blower's report.  To the extent it's short, that could well be do to a combination of translators and the people taking down the information streamlining trump's rambling word salad inane ramblings.

eh...

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

HG I think what you are remembering is that someone reads the “memcon “ into voice recognition software so it is digitally preserved.  

[henrygandorf 29195]

4 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

HG I think what you are remembering is that someone reads the “memcon “ into voice recognition software so it is digitally preserved.  

could definitely be it.

as scattered and full of shit as i can be in my regular day-to-day life, my hearing and memory is halfway decent most of the time.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5797]

34 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

could definitely be it.

as scattered and full of shit as i can be in my regular day-to-day life, my hearing and memory is halfway decent most of the time.

Sounds like you have that Swiss cheese brain problem that some of us have. 

[jimmyjazz 46225]

31 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

could definitely be it.

as scattered and full of shit as i can be in my regular day-to-day life, my hearing and memory is halfway decent most of the time.

As I heard it, the lack of audio recording devices is deliberate, and came about after the Nixon tapes brought down his Presidency.

I agree, we're focusing on small details, but I think the truth is the best defense to the continuous cloud of chaff that is thrown out by the Republicans.  Will it matter?  Probably not.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Nope, you're right HG. They use voice recognition software.

At one point, there was a full transcript. Trump's enablers hid the full transcript in the high level classified server to keep it hidden. It has probably been deleted now, but the upgraded security of the high level classified security will show who accessed and deleted it. 

This is the version that looked the best for them and there are two sections with ellipses indicating missing material. The Trump administration has lost any benefit of the doubt. Those ellipses probably contain additional relevant material that they cut out before release. 

[Hornmatic 251]

4 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Nope, you're right HG. They use voice recognition software.

At one point, there was a full transcript. Trump's enablers hid the full transcript in the high level classified server to keep it hidden. It has probably been deleted now, but the upgraded security of the high level classified security will show who accessed and deleted it. 

This is the version that looked the best for them and there are two sections with ellipses indicating missing material. The Trump administration has lost any benefit of the doubt. Those ellipses probably contain additional relevant material that they cut out before release. 

 

Has this been reported anywhere?

[suddenly shaggy 929]

4 minutes ago, Hornmatic said:

 

Has this been reported anywhere?

Voice recognition, there's a bunch of other contemporaneous articles saying similar 

https://fortune.com/2019/09/28/trump-zelensky-call-transcription-voice-recognition-software-secure/

They also locked transcripts of the calls with Putin and Mohammed bin Salman in the same classified server. 

https://www.ft.com/content/af2be6c6-e132-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/trump-mbs-putin-calls-also-hidden-incriminating.html

[Dbeasy 15095]

Sheeeit is looking like sheeeit in front of surly legal community.

[jimmyjazz 46225]

1 hour ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Voice recognition, there's a bunch of other contemporaneous articles saying similar 

https://fortune.com/2019/09/28/trump-zelensky-call-transcription-voice-recognition-software-secure/

That article is fuzzy as hell.  I really don't care all that much about the details of how calls are transcribed, but nothing seems to definitively indicate they are recorded or even actively transcribed without human intervention.

That said, it would be not at all surprising if Trump's administration ran roughshod over prior practice.

Edited October 17, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[suddenly shaggy 929]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

That article is fuzzy as hell.  I really don't care all that much about the details of how calls are transcribed, but nothing seems to definitively indicate they are recorded or even actively transcribed without human intervention.

That said, it would be not at all surprising if Trump's administration ran roughshod over prior practice.

There are other sources saying the same thing. The lack of detail is probably intentional. 

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-09-25-2019/h_059432c46e89de36d5896e31ea08fda3

A senior White House official says the transcript of the call comes from Voice Recognition Software. There is a disclaimer at the bottom of the document that it is “not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.”

 

The whistleblower's complaint also says there was a "word-for-word transcript" that was locked away. The whistleblower draws a distinction between the word-for-word transcript and contemporaneous hand-written notes of the conversation. 

In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to “lock down” all records of the phone call,especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced-as is customary-by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.

• White House officials told me that they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.

• Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.

I do not know whether similar measures were taken to restrict access to other records of the call, such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by those who listened in.

Edited October 17, 2019 by suddenly shaggy

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

The Senate Republicans and their Major are pushing the "this is a witch-hunt" narrative quite strongly. Perhaps the numbers they have via Parscale are showing this is working for them. Their base is strong and immovable, even though the numbers are climbing for public support of impeachment, once the Senate votes and wins on the President's behalf, they (the Senate and Trump's base) will carry on business as usual. I don't know that an avalanche of criminal evidence could do anything at this point. I'm wavering between the HIC wrapping up the inquiry and voting or waiting until the Mazar's documents are released.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Bolton testifying will be interesting...he’s going to read the tea leaves on which way the Republican Party is leaning. What he craves more than anything is a seat at the table. If he determines going against Trump removes his seat, he won’t do it. If he unloads, it’s not out of any sense of duty or honor. It’s because he thinks in doing so he’ll keep his seat at the table.

[atomheartbevo 89824]

49 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Bolton testifying will be interesting...he’s going to read the tea leaves on which way the Republican Party is leaning. What he craves more than anything is a seat at the table. If he determines going against Trump removes his seat, he won’t do it. If he unloads, it’s not out of any sense of duty or honor. It’s because he thinks in doing so he’ll keep his seat at the table.

What seat does he have at the table, now the Trump has booted him out, and most likely talked a lot of shit about him to every Republican who will listen?

Bolton is 70 - he might not see another Republican President until he's pushing 80, if that.

Bolton clearly saw the shit-show that was going on, and the "drug deal" comment about Rudy made that very clear, and Trump fucked him over - the last thing Bolton wants to do is to go down with the S.S. Trumptanic.

[atomheartbevo 89824]

11 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Sounds like you have that Swiss cheese brain problem that some of us have. 

[atomheartbevo 89824]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

The Senate Republicans and their Major are pushing the "this is a witch-hunt" narrative quite strongly. Perhaps the numbers they have via Parscale are showing this is working for them. Their base is strong and immovable, even though the numbers are climbing for public support of impeachment, once the Senate votes and wins on the President's behalf, they (the Senate and Trump's base) will carry on business as usual. I don't know that an avalanche of criminal evidence could do anything at this point. I'm wavering between the HIC wrapping up the inquiry and voting or waiting until the Mazar's documents are released.

I think what's being pushed by the Senate Republicans is an attempt to avoid them having to vote on it - the best scenario for Senate Republicans is to never have to go on the record supporting Trump/Rudy by way of having to vote on the impeachment.

[Asithappens 974]

16 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Come on, that's really a stupid pic. Maybe it makes sense to Kurtz, but really?

[ConferenceRoom 6147]

1 hour ago, Asithappens said:

Come on, that's really a stupid pic. Maybe it makes sense to Kurtz, but really?

Have you ever considered any real freedoms? Freedoms from the opinion of others... even the opinions of yourself?

[TwiceHorn 31554]

18 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Someone has been watching Apocalypse Now Redux on Showtime.

[HenryJames 66188]

2 hours ago, Asithappens said:

Come on, that's really a stupid pic. Maybe it makes sense to Kurtz, but really?