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: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks



Deliberately mischaracterize it all you want. The issue is what the parts Trump left out are about, not that parts were left out. Everyone except Trump cultists have said that isn't the full conversation since it was released.

sorry you were confused by the big red stamp of memorandum at the top of the document
not everyone else was
your lack of education is no reason to lash out at everyone else

also you should look into who makes the transcript
I doubt their work is influenced by potus or anyone else for that matter




posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Middleoftheroad


The full transcript is already released and the transcript was done like all other phone call transcripts.


Do you have a link to the full transcript? All I can find is a memo released by the white house that says "this is not a transcript".


Whitehouse.gov


It says right there on the first page it isn't a verbatim transcript of the discussion.



Oh, you're playing word games...got ya. I'll spend my time more wisely next time.


Not a word game at all. If it's a full transcript, why does it say it isn't on the first page?

I'm really looking for an explanation of that. Unless it isn't really a full transcript like all of you constantly claim..


Because it is not verbatim, but as close to verbatim as the transcribers could get. Every person has said that this "transcription" was an accurate account of the phone call.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

" Vindman's testimony that some specific details were left out of the rough transcript "


He gets No Benefit of the Doubt here from me . Where's his Proof ? This is just Politically Motivated " Hearsay " .,...

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



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Goedhardt

It is obvious what happened and it is crazy the way people will continue to jump through hoops trying to find a way it wasn’t criminal, when the easy answer is he did it..


There is literally no fact that doesn’t fit perfectly if you assume he did it...

If you are trying to assume he did not. It requires some hella mental gymnastics.


What is it??

The simple answer is usually the correct one?


And not just for this scandal..

Assume trump was dealing with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary.. all his actions make perfect sense...

If you assume he is innocent... damn.. he accidentally fell into a meeting with Russian spy’s... he accidentally asked for Russia’s help on TV..

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



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

So you think it is more likely that the analysts independently edited the transcript to cover Trump's ass than it is that they were ordered to do so by the President?

nope
I don't think anyone covered anything.
otherwise this would not have been an issue to begin with

I also don't think you understand the process you are accusing of being dishonest.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Middleoftheroad


The full transcript is already released and the transcript was done like all other phone call transcripts.


Do you have a link to the full transcript? All I can find is a memo released by the white house that says "this is not a transcript".


Whitehouse.gov


It says right there on the first page it isn't a verbatim transcript of the discussion.



Oh, you're playing word games...got ya. I'll spend my time more wisely next time.


Not a word game at all. If it's a full transcript, why does it say it isn't on the first page?

I'm really looking for an explanation of that. Unless it isn't really a full transcript like all of you constantly claim..


Because it is not verbatim, but as close to verbatim as the transcribers could get. Every person has said that this "transcription" was an accurate account of the phone call.


Except for, you know, all the people testifying under oath it wasn't..



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Goedhardt

It is obvious what happened and it is crazy the way people will continue to jump through hoops trying to find a way it wasn’t criminal, when the easy answer is he did it..


There is literally no fact that doesn’t fit perfectly if you assume he did it...

If you are trying to assume he did not. It requires some hella mental gymnastics.


What is it??

The simple answer is usually the correct one?



OK Johnny , why don't you Educate US All here on your Expertise in Criminal Investigations . By the way , Rule Number One , NOTHING is Obvious without FACTS to back them Up ..Continue .........



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I wouldn’t doubt it..

The trump White House has been in full blown “ignore the idiot, and cover up for him “ mode for years now..

I think there are a dozen Big wig trump officials who edit it to protect trump without having to be told to.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   
ROFL so now the deep state is after itself? It isn't Trump that releases those Transcripts its the very people trying to get him. Who do you think edited this magical transcript. Admit it, with what you have now, you have nothing. You are just hoping there is something else.

Also, the double standards are insane, it has been published in Politico that the democrats and the DNC worked with the Ukraine during the 2016 election to dig up dirt on Donald Trump. But thats a nothing burger no one cares, its old news. Trump isn't going to be impeached brother, he also is going to be re-elected. I know you think you are in the majority but you are not. Trying to claim winning the popular vote proves anything, well it doesnt.

When it became clear that Donald Trump had one the election, California came out and voted like crazy. Now do you think if the election was a popular vote election all those people in places like Idaho, Wyoming, Texas you name it wouldn't go vote. Voter turn out in red states is really low, because we know our guy is going to win. I think if it was a popular vote election Trump would of utterly trounced Clinton.

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.




posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:35 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.



Just stop.
Trump is not going to be removed from office until his 2nd term is up in 2024.
You can hope in one hand and sh!t in the other, it’s not going to happen.
When this fails your deranged cult Dems will try to pull something else out of their asses.
I would think at some point you clowns will wake up and get a reality check and stop supporting these anti-American, obstructionist Dem politicians.
WTF have they ever done for you? Nothing.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks



Deliberately mischaracterize it all you want. The issue is what the parts Trump left out are about, not that parts were left out. Everyone except Trump cultists have said that isn't the full conversation since it was released.

sorry you were confused by the big red stamp of memorandum at the top of the document
not everyone else was
your lack of education is no reason to lash out at everyone else

also you should look into who makes the transcript
I doubt their work is influenced by potus or anyone else for that matter





What was I confused about? If I'm uneducated, educate me. I don't think I'm hallucinating everyone here trying to say it's a full transcript since it was released.

Disagreement with you isn't "lashing out" It's just disagreement. Sorry if you can't talk about all this without getting emotional.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: MachineMan




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


He has a beautiful rags to riches story that describes how his father worked multiple jobs AND managed to learn English at night, and his children learned to work hard, AND they got in Harvard...Harvard, AND both Alex and Yev, his identical twin brother both rose all the way to the White House. They have offices across from each other there. It's almost like the stars were perfectly aligned and their story straight out of a book of fairytales.

What's the chances of your kid getting into Harvard, much less you AND your sibling? It's called STRINGS.






100 % correct. Pulling strings and high-powered favors.

Exactly why the dems are trying so hard to oust the President.

He isn't part of "their" club.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

So if the transcript was edited to protect Trump you think these analysts would risk their careers, not to mention their freedom, because they like Trump so much?


So you agree that the committees should interrogate all of the Situation room officers and NSC Policy staff who created the transcript of this phone conversation, right? Obviously, they would be able to say whether it is accurate or something has been definitely edited out.

They are the actual creators after all. It states right on the memorandum that if there was something in audible, it would so state that. It may be possible Vindmann heard Burisma...but it was in audible to all the others listening in.

Though, since the favor request begins on page 3 and Biden doesn't even get a mention until page 4 and only as an afterthought in the conversation at that! I am curious where Burisma may have been inserted.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Middleoftheroad


The full transcript is already released and the transcript was done like all other phone call transcripts.


Do you have a link to the full transcript? All I can find is a memo released by the white house that says "this is not a transcript".


Whitehouse.gov


It says right there on the first page it isn't a verbatim transcript of the discussion.



Oh, you're playing word games...got ya. I'll spend my time more wisely next time.


Not a word game at all. If it's a full transcript, why does it say it isn't on the first page?

I'm really looking for an explanation of that. Unless it isn't really a full transcript like all of you constantly claim..


Because it is not verbatim, but as close to verbatim as the transcribers could get. Every person has said that this "transcription" was an accurate account of the phone call.


Except for, you know, all the people testifying under oath it wasn't..


www.newser.com...

"Vindman's more than 10 hours of testimony Tuesday on Capitol Hill in the Trump impeachment inquiry was "extremely disturbing," and key among the details was his description of the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, as well as its accompanying transcript—which, per CNN, Vindman said was "mostly accurate."



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Gotta love the Democrat tactic of inserting words in peoples mouths. We see that a lot lately.

Guys YOU DONT GET TO GO FISHING FOR A CRIME. THIS IS INSANE



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks



I don't think I'm hallucinating everyone here trying to say it's a full transcript since it was released.

no one said you were "hallucinating"
also if everyone here told you to eat 2 bananas and drink a bottle of sprite would you?

nope
nice try tho



Disagreement with you isn't "lashing out" It's just disagreement.

and telling people they misscharacterized things is a little more than simple disagreement.

how you get emotions from letters on a screen I will never understand......unless you have magical super powers.....do you?



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Ukrainian officials have stated they weren't even aware of any aid withholding at the time of the phone call so it's all BS now

😃 🥥 😃



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Middleoftheroad


The full transcript is already released and the transcript was done like all other phone call transcripts.


Do you have a link to the full transcript? All I can find is a memo released by the white house that says "this is not a transcript".


Whitehouse.gov


It says right there on the first page it isn't a verbatim transcript of the discussion.



Oh, you're playing word games...got ya. I'll spend my time more wisely next time.


Not a word game at all. If it's a full transcript, why does it say it isn't on the first page?

I'm really looking for an explanation of that. Unless it isn't really a full transcript like all of you constantly claim..


Because it is not verbatim, but as close to verbatim as the transcribers could get. Every person has said that this "transcription" was an accurate account of the phone call.


Except for, you know, all the people testifying under oath it wasn't..


www.newser.com...

"Vindman's more than 10 hours of testimony Tuesday on Capitol Hill in the Trump impeachment inquiry was "extremely disturbing," and key among the details was his description of the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, as well as its accompanying transcript—which, per CNN, Vindman said was "mostly accurate."


Exactly. Meaning it was disturbing and not all the way accurate.

Or are you taking "mostly" to mean something else in that context?



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:41 AM
link   
You have to love how dull the left is.

Listen to this guy:

I have not found what I thought was there so lets go FISHING to IMPEACH A PRESIDENT a year before an election.

If you are on the left and you are cheering this on you might want to think twice, this is what is going to lose you the government not for a cycle, for a generation.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   
If my memory serves me right, since this guy is active military, he should have run these claims up his command and not to the House of Reps. He may be in deep doo doo as the top of his chain of command is DJT.

I knew a guy who was taken before the captain of the base for playing a song that said, "I shot Reagan, and I'd do it again and again and again..." (Was Suicidal Tendencies if any of you remember them).

I think if someone can get in hot water for playing a song there is no telling what this persons actions can get.

Any UCMJ experts here?




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join