‘Coup has started’

John-F

macrumors regular
Oct 7, 2011
223
847
Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council explicitly said that crucial words and phrases were left out of the released transcript and replaced with ellipses.
Of the many involved, as I said above, there would need to be multiple accounts agreeing. Vindman is the only one saying that AFAIK, known to have strong policy disagreements, and is strongly suspected of being the leaker to the so-called whistleblower. If that turns out to be the case and he is successfully prosecuted, his rank and grade will be reduced, and he may find himself in the officer section of the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple OC and Solver

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,470
4,483
Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council explicitly said that crucial words and phrases were left out of the released transcript and replaced with ellipses.
Its not always an easy task to combine several transcripts into one. If one passage is not corroberated by the other transcripts, perhaps that is left out. ( Don't really care about your feeling on calling it a transcript, sorry )
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solver

John-F

macrumors regular
Oct 7, 2011
223
847
Its not always an easy task to combine several transcripts into one. If one passage is not corroberated by the other transcripts, perhaps that is left out. ( Don't really care about your feeling on calling it a transcript, sorry )
The process from the Washington Post article is pretty rigorous.
 

mudslag

macrumors regular
Oct 18, 2010
142
10,310
Surely some of the people testifying have seen the "real transcript" in hard copy form and they will be asked whether what was released to the public is accurate. Likewise, the people who were on the call can testify to its accuracy.
Why are you so sure they have? And if there is an actual transcript why hide it? Also why hide such a perfect call on such a secure server not meant for such things?

why is it so hard to get answers to these questions?
 

TonyC28

macrumors 68000
Aug 15, 2009
1,580
4,332
USA
Why are you so sure they have? And if there is an actual transcript why hide it? Also why hide such a perfect call on such a secure server not meant for such things?

why is it so hard to get answers to these questions?
The whistleblower told me they have. He even told me there is or was a hard copy.
 

beaker7

macrumors 6502a
Mar 16, 2009
895
2,356
Of the many involved, as I said above, there would need to be multiple accounts agreeing. Vindman is the only one saying that AFAIK, known to have strong policy disagreements, and is strongly suspected of being the leaker to the so-called whistleblower. If that turns out to be the case and he is successfully prosecuted, his rank and grade will be reduced, and he may find himself in the officer section of the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth.
Why do you so strongly hate highly respected, decorated war veterans that are not afraid to call out corrupt behavior?

Also "strong policy disagreements" is an interesting and illuminating way to phrase Vindman's anti-corruption stance.
 
Last edited:

supercoolmanchu

macrumors 6502
Mar 5, 2012
274
471
Hollywood
Then your understanding is wrong. The length of the call alone is proof that the summary is not complete.

Either way, its not the full call, nor a transcript, no matter how many times you state it. Its just not.
That transcript, along with the official process used to transcribe it, is considered official Federal record in any court. Your opinion, and Vindman’s is merely that, opinion.

As stated several people would have been on that call, along with the translators on both sides. Vindman would need extraordinary proof to change anyone’s mind beyond the hyper partisans, and there seem to be other credibility questions for him as well, so it just doesn’t seem likely there’re some secret corrupt shakedown happening on that call.

We’ll see. But I suspect picking the often hysterical and questionably coked out Hollywood Rep to head House Intel, then the subsequent ’commitee to think about planning a meeting to propose impeachment’ was massive error in judgement by Democrats. Those were both jobs for a blue collar state Dem, not a highly conflicted and embarrassing press clown.
 

GermanSuplex

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2009
971
10,505
The length of the call is far from proof and is mostly speculation.
The length of the call was reported to have been around 30 minutes, and nobody has disputed that. That is an awfully big thing if it were false or misleading. That alone would be a huge win for Trump, so the fact that nobody is disputing the call makes it abundantly obvious that it was, indeed, about a half-hour call. The "transcript" is nowhere near that length. If you want to go down a dead-end road, be my guest, but it would be a blatant lack of common sense to do so.

I'd like to see you present hard evidence that my understanding that they are not holding back anything is wrong. And that doesn't consist of some speculation by some reporter. HINT: Can you point to specific testimony under oath that states factually that there is another record based on first hand knowledge?
Yes, you seem to have ignored all of it in your pursuit to paint a reviewed and authorized release from the White House as the official and unedited "transcript". People with first-hand knowledge have disputed it being complete, but you seem to take your own imagination over their word. Which is fine, there's little I can do about that if you are going to willfully ignore certain things.
- - Post merged: - -

That transcript, along with the official process used to transcribe it, is considered official Federal record in any court. Your opinion, and Vindman’s is merely that, opinion.
Yes, and it is also not a complete transcript and is damning in and of itself. Nobody here debated the contents of what was in the transcript, rather that is an exact telling of the call or complete.

Any true transcript of anything, anywhere, does not start with this;

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.

This whole "opinion" argument is a laughable one, as its a cheap, blanket statement. Trump could have literally said the words "I want a quid pro quo" and you could argue "Well, he didn't mean it. If you think he wasn't joking, its just an opinion". It's an often-used tactic around here to disprove the obvious.
 
Last edited:

supercoolmanchu

macrumors 6502
Mar 5, 2012
274
471
Hollywood
Why do you so strongly hate highly respected, decorated war veterans that are not afraid to call out corrupt behavior?

Also "strong policy disagreements" is an interesting and illuminating way to phrase Vindman's anti-corruption stance.
Military officers are above criticism?

Nope. Try again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solver

supercoolmanchu

macrumors 6502
Mar 5, 2012
274
471
Hollywood
The length of the call was reported to have been around 30 minutes, and nobody has disputed that. That is an awfully big thing if it were false or misleading. That alone would be a huge win for Trump, so the fact that nobody is disputing the call makes it abundantly obvious that it was, indeed, about a half-hour call. The "transcript" is nowhere near that length. If you want to go down a dead-end road, be my guess, but it would be a blatant lack of common sense to do so.



Yes, you seem to have ignored all of it in your pursuit to paint a reviewed and authorized release from the White House as the official and unedited "transcript". People with first-hand knowledge have disputed it being complete, but you seem to take your own imagination over their word. Which is fine, there's little I can do about that if you are going to willfully ignore certain things.
- - Post merged: - -



Yes, and it is also not a complete transcript and is damning in and of itself. Nobody here debated the contents of what was in the transcript, rather that is an exact telling of the call or complete.

Any true transcript of anything, anywhere, does not start with this;

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.

This whole "opinion" argument is a laughable one, as its a cheap, blanket statement. Trump could have literally said the words "I want a quid pro quo" and you could argue "Well, he didn't mean it. If you think he wasn't joking, its just an opinion". It's an often-used tactic around here to disprove the obvious.
The length of the call is typical considering there was two way language translation happening. Do some research.

You are trying to argue or look for some kind of additional discussion that includes corruption present in the call. The transcript shows that did not occur. Whether or not it’s an exact word for word transcription, the content and substance was officially documented. Legally a dead end for you and this line of thinking, and unless Vindman has extraordinary proof, it’s his word against several others PLUS an official transcript (Aka the regular legal procedure for documenting calls to foreign leaders).

If you want to convince Trump committed some kind of corruption with Ukraine, you’ll need to find proof elsewhere.
 

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,470
4,483
The length of the call was reported to have been around 30 minutes, and nobody has disputed that.
Reportedly? Around 30 minutes? Around what exactly? Even your own description is telling that it's not fact, but speculation.

The length of the call is typical considering there was two way language translation happening. Do some research.
Great point. Translation on both ends take more time. The Democrats are trying to illegitimate the transcript from the length of time to parts removed for inconsistencies. Kind of tells me, even they don't think its damning.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Solver

TallRed

macrumors regular
Feb 10, 2018
107
753
The Left Coast
The length of the call is typical considering there was two way language translation happening. Do some research.
I did. I can’t find any mention of any translator, since Zelensky speaks English quite well, better than Trump in that Zelensky’s sentences actually make sense.

And since we were talking about Zelensky and his many talents, did you know he plays piano?

 
  • Like
Reactions: samcraig

supercoolmanchu

macrumors 6502
Mar 5, 2012
274
471
Hollywood
Why are you so sure they have? And if there is an actual transcript why hide it? Also why hide such a perfect call on such a secure server not meant for such things?

why is it so hard to get answers to these questions?
Sure, go for it, make the ’moved to a secure server’ arguement.

But you’ll quickly hit the wall, because it’s been established that due to prior concerns to several documented White House leaks, this other server was put into use For comms long before this Ukraine call.

But before you go down the ’other server was too keep it hidden’ the other server is still under the same security scrutiny and oversight, just limits amount of end users. Look it up.
- - Post merged: - -

I did. I can’t find any mention of any translator, since Zelensky speaks English quite well, better than Trump in that Zelensky’s sentences actually make sense.

And since we were talking about Zelensky and his many talents, did you know he plays piano?

Yes he does speak English, but he didn’t on that call.
 

TallRed

macrumors regular
Feb 10, 2018
107
753
The Left Coast
Sure, go for it, make the ’moved to a secure server’ arguement.

But you’ll quickly hit the wall, because it’s been established that due to prior concerns to several documented White House leaks, this other server was put into use For comms long before this Ukraine call.

But before you go down the ’other server was too keep it hidden’ the other server is still under the same security scrutiny and oversight, just limits amount of end users. Look it up.
- - Post merged: - -



Yes he does speak English, but he didn’t on that call.
And you know this how?
 

Apple OC

macrumors 68040
Oct 14, 2010
3,580
2,261
Hogtown
The difference in length on the transcript... could be... they left out the part where Trump was talking about the awesome round of golf he played that morning.
 

supercoolmanchu

macrumors 6502
Mar 5, 2012
274
471
Hollywood
And you know this how?
Because I actually read up on it.

It’s right in the original declassified “whistleblower” complaint. The “whistleblower” himself admits it was not the first time a message was moved to the other server over security concerns.

But don’t expect Democrats to point out a glaring hole in their political case. Their job is to give you reasons to like them. Your job should be to personally determine if any of those reasons are good.
 

TonyC28

macrumors 68000
Aug 15, 2009
1,580
4,332
USA
Deflection noted.
I received this information directly from the whistleblower. Well not directly, but his recollection of the information was made available to me. In fact, it was provided to anyone in the world with access to the Internet. You have access to it as well. It's just that it hasn't been discussed much and there hasn't been a catchy CNN headline to post here. As of now I think there are only two documents available online that were attributed to the whistleblower and you will find it in one of those. This is good information by the way, and something the "not a transcript" crowd should have noticed before as it helps their case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solver

supercoolmanchu

macrumors 6502
Mar 5, 2012
274
471
Hollywood
Thank you. And I will just add that you suck at being civil.
What?! I used proper grammar and everything.
- - Post merged: - -

Legitimate criticism, sure.

That's not what we are seeing, though.
Your opinion doesn’t determine ‘legitimacy’.

His military service is irrelevant, Vindman is making extraordinary claims. Without proof, he will be legitimately criticized.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Solver

TallRed

macrumors regular
Feb 10, 2018
107
753
The Left Coast
Because I actually read up on it.

It’s right in the original declassified “whistleblower” complaint. The “whistleblower” himself admits it was not the first time a message was moved to the other server over security concerns.

But don’t expect Democrats to point out a glaring hole in their political case. Their job is to give you reasons to like them. Your job should be to personally determine if any of those reasons are good.
Wow, that is some slathering of the mud. However, the White House summary I read made no mention of a translator. It lists the participants as being President Zelenskyy of Ukraine and Notetakers: White House Situation Room.
 

GermanSuplex

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2009
971
10,505
Reportedly? Around 30 minutes? Around what exactly? Even your own description is telling that it's not fact, but speculation.
If the number was off someone could have easily said "The call wasn't nearly that long (or was much longer)."

Others with more knowledge than you or I purported the call to be 'about' a half hour. Clearly, a five minute call or ten minute call would not be classified as 30 minutes. So you are free to use the word 'about' to dance around things all you want.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/03/odd-markings-ellipses-fuel-doubts-about-rough-transcript-trumps-ukraine-call/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead

beaker7

macrumors 6502a
Mar 16, 2009
895
2,356
Vindman is making extraordinary claims. Without proof, he will be legitimately criticized.
What is so extraordinary? He is mostly just corroborating (again) what is in the whistleblower complaint and the Trump's illegal withholding of military aid until Ukraine announced investigations into his political rivals. The White House has admitted to it. I suppose we can continue to gather even more proof but we're at the point of diminishing returns.

The only new thing Vindman has added is some detail around the established facts and that the call summary had some key phrases edited out by senior WH staff.