It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Transcript of Zelensky phone call and evidence of cover-up

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   
It seems it's not just a violation of election laws and quid pro quo. There seems to be evidence from Vindman's testimony there may have been some obstruction of justice issues:

Vindman was on the call and heard the conversation real-time. From Vindman's opening statement, ""I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine,"

"Vindman also said that he would have edited the transcript to specifically show that Zelensky mentioned Burisma -- the company that hired Hunter Biden -- rather than just "the company," according to sources."

"He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue," the rough transcript cites Zelensky as saying.

Vindman's testimony that some specific details were left out of the rough transcript adds further insight about how the White House handled the call and Democrats' concerns that the Trump administration engaged in a coverup."

Vindman says White House omitted Trump's reference to Biden tapes in transcript of Zelensky call

Republicans need to stop blaming Democrats for what Trump did to himself or continues to do to himself.


edit on 30-10-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



+16 more 
posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Give me the full transcript of the hearing, not just the selective leaks. This is just hearsay and speculation.
I don’t think it is fair to say he is guilty (or not) based on these leaks and half truths.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015



"He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue," the rough transcript cites Zelensky as saying.
Vindman's testimony that some specific details were left out of the rough transcript adds further insight about how the White House handled the call and Democrats' concerns that the Trump administration engaged in a coverup."


You mean to tell me 5 pages of double spaced text isn't 30 minutes of conversation?

Shenanigans.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Goedhardt

I never said he was guilty. It just looks like it from the evidence. The Senate will decide if the impeachment goes that far. They are the judges in the case.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Treaty 106-16 is alive and well 😃



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: dfnj2015



"He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue," the rough transcript cites Zelensky as saying.
Vindman's testimony that some specific details were left out of the rough transcript adds further insight about how the White House handled the call and Democrats' concerns that the Trump administration engaged in a coverup."


You mean to tell me 5 pages of double spaced text isn't 30 minutes of conversation?

Shenanigans.


Your comment has nothing to do with anything of the thread topic. Vindman said the transcript changed the words of what was said.


+22 more 
posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

if Trump altered the call transcript, it's a crime and one worthy of impeachment.

But since he didn't actually write it, the several intel officers who's job it is to transcribe those calls, did it. And to date, none of them or anyone else has claimed otherwise. If this guy makes that claim, then his testimony is all that's needed, oh, and the proof also, I almost forgot about the proof.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: dfnj2015



"He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue," the rough transcript cites Zelensky as saying.
Vindman's testimony that some specific details were left out of the rough transcript adds further insight about how the White House handled the call and Democrats' concerns that the Trump administration engaged in a coverup."


You mean to tell me 5 pages of double spaced text isn't 30 minutes of conversation?

Shenanigans.


Your comment has nothing to do with anything of the thread topic. Vindman said the transcript changed the words of what was said.


It has everything to do with it. Obviously there was a lot left out, which includes what Vindman was talking about.

Or do you believe that nothing was left out of it, even though that's what your OP is about?
edit on 30-10-2019 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I want to know how a Russian becomes a colonel in the army, and gets assigned to the Whitehouse.




posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Treaty 106-16 is alive and well 😃


This has nothing to do with Trump withholding aid required by law from Congress in order for his own personal benefit of having the Biden's investigated.

Yes, Treaty 106-16 is alive and well but has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of impeachment.


edit on 30-10-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Goedhardt

I never said he was guilty. It just looks like it from the evidence. The Senate will decide if the impeachment goes that far. They are the judges in the case.


There is only one-sided ‘evidence’, leaked by a partisan politician, who has some trouble with the truth in his statements in the past: Adam Shiff. He is in no way credible to me.
So get the full transcripts out, or even better, make the hearings public.

Please try the ‘shoe on the other foot’ test end tell me you think this is fair.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: MachineMan
a reply to: dfnj2015

I want to know how a Russian becomes a colonel in the army, and gets assigned to the Whitehouse.



This has nothing to do with Trump's quid pro quo and cover-up.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Goedhardt

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Goedhardt

I never said he was guilty. It just looks like it from the evidence. The Senate will decide if the impeachment goes that far. They are the judges in the case.


There is only one-sided ‘evidence’, leaked by a partisan politician, who has some trouble with the truth in his statements in the past: Adam Shiff. He is in no way credible to me.
So get the full transcripts out, or even better, make the hearings public.

Please try the ‘shoe on the other foot’ test end tell me you think this is fair.


The quotes from Vindman are not being disputed as far as I know. This thread has NOTHING to do with Adam Shiff.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

A spy in the Whitehouse is ok with you?



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Goedhardt


There is only one-sided ‘evidence’, leaked by a partisan politician, who has some trouble with the truth in his statements in the past:



Please try the ‘shoe on the other foot’ test end tell me you think this is fair.


Maybe you should try that "shoe on the other foot thing" when it comes to another partisan politician who's had trouble with the truth in the past..




posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: dfnj2015

if Trump altered the call transcript, it's a crime and one worthy of impeachment.

But since he didn't actually write it, the several intel officers who's job it is to transcribe those calls, did it. And to date, none of them or anyone else has claimed otherwise. If this guy makes that claim, then his testimony is all that's needed, oh, and the proof also, I almost forgot about the proof.


I agree. Whoever change the text of the transcript in order to cover it up has probably committed a crime. This will be up to the members of the Senate to judge.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
It seems it's not just a violation of election laws and quid pro quo. There seems to be evidence from Vindman's testimony there may have been some obstruction of justice issues:

Vindman was on the call and heard the conversation real-time. From Vindman's opening statement, ""I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine,"

"Vindman also said that he would have edited the transcript to specifically show that Zelensky mentioned Burisma -- the company that hired Hunter Biden -- rather than just "the company," according to sources."

"He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue," the rough transcript cites Zelensky as saying.

Vindman's testimony that some specific details were left out of the rough transcript adds further insight about how the White House handled the call and Democrats' concerns that the Trump administration engaged in a coverup."

Vindman says White House omitted Trump's reference to Biden tapes in transcript of Zelensky call

Republicans need to stop blaming Democrats for what Trump did to himself or continues to do to himself.


this guy is bs
he was not "concerned" enough to blow the whistle
he can take his differing opinion and stow it in his locker



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Goedhardt


There is only one-sided ‘evidence’, leaked by a partisan politician, who has some trouble with the truth in his statements in the past:



Please try the ‘shoe on the other foot’ test end tell me you think this is fair.


Maybe you should try that "shoe on the other foot thing" when it comes to another partisan politician who's had trouble with the truth in the past..



The argument over whether or not Democrats have the authority to make judgments on Trump has NOTHING to do with the direct quotes made by Vindman.


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Goedhardt

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Goedhardt

I never said he was guilty. It just looks like it from the evidence. The Senate will decide if the impeachment goes that far. They are the judges in the case.


There is only one-sided ‘evidence’, leaked by a partisan politician, who has some trouble with the truth in his statements in the past: Adam Shiff. He is in no way credible to me.
So get the full transcripts out, or even better, make the hearings public.

Please try the ‘shoe on the other foot’ test end tell me you think this is fair.


The quotes from Vindman are not being disputed as far as I know. This thread has NOTHING to do with Adam Shiff.


He is the one who controls the info that gets out (or not). He is the one who calls witnesses. He is the one who disides what questions can be asked or not. He is the one that controls the narrative. All the info you know, is because he decided to leak/let it out. It has ALL to do with him.


Also: the statements of Vindman are not all he said. Where is the rest? Indeed: hidden
Just this part was leaked... By Shiff...
edit on 30-10-2019 by Goedhardt because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Oh. When was the "aid" withheld ? 😃

(No unconfirmed sources either from you)




top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join