Trump whistleblower complaint

[_subgenius]

If true, Trump essentially asked a powerful foreign national and head of state to attack and undermine a political rival's family. And he did this while withholding foreign aid that was intended to counteract Russian expansion.

- Doc

Just curious as to where you came up with this ?
I mean do you have actual evidence that is not in the form of hearsay, innuendo, or gossip?
Or is the "whistleblower" label simply enough for you buy the product?

Do you consider the reality that there is real evidence for Biden actually doing some suspect stuff as just a footnote? At what point did you choose this path of TDS over actual reality?

[_EAllusion]

I mean do you have actual evidence that is not in the form of hearsay, innuendo, or gossip? Or is the "whistleblower" label simply enough for you buy the product?

We can read Republican talking points too. You don't have to just robotically repeat them here.

Interesting thing about this, though. It's not "hearsay" when we already have a summary of a call where this exact thing happens. If the police receive a tip from someone who says they heard from several people that you murdered a guy, and you respond by turning over a tape in which you murder a guy, it's pretty god damn dumb to complain that the tip is hearsay at that point.

[_Some Schmo]

Republicans' only strategy these days is to basically say, "You can't believe your own eyes. This is what's real." And then proceed to lie their asses off. Essentially, they're sticking with the only tool in Trump's toolbox.

It really all they have left, and they are going down with that ship.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Republicans' only strategy these days is to basically say, "You can't believe your own eyes. This is what's real." And then proceed to lie their asses off. Essentially, they're sticking with the only tool in Trump's toolbox.

It really all they have left, and they are going down with that ship.

There’s no way subgenius read the whistleblower’s complaint. That damned fool would go to a bakery and order sushi, and then believe the baker an idiot because he can’t get sashimi.

- Doc

[Guest]

Just curious as to where you came up with this ?
I mean do you have actual evidence that is not in the form of hearsay, innuendo, or gossip?
Or is the "whistleblower" label simply enough for you buy the product?

Lol. Wait, how many people do you claim the Clintons have had killed, again? And how about that pizza parlor sex ring thing?

You’ve repeatedly skewered yourself for too long and too many times with your willingness to ignore reality in favor of partisan tomfoolery. At least you’re consistent in that regard.

[_canpakes]

There’s no way subgenius read the whistleblower’s complaint. That damned fool would go to a bakery and order sushi, and then believe the baker an idiot because he can’t get sashimi.

Even if he ended up getting the sushi, he’d then claim that it wasn’t sushi.

[_Ceeboo]

Ceeboo, there's been lots of confusion over the "transcript." The document that was released says that it is a "memorandum" compiled from people who were on the call and their notes. It isn't a word for word reporting of the conversation. I don't think we know who was on the call. The whistleblower complaint indicates to me it may have been more than the usual number, due to the fact that Trump's obsession with Biden had been an ongoing problem. I suspect we will learn in the course of the investigation who was on the call.

The whistleblower complaint refers to a word for word transcript. I'm not clear on whether that "transcript" is the memorandum we now have, or whether there is also a transcript.

Thanks.

Did some looking around late last night (got trapped into a few rabbit holes) and at the end of my search - I am still unable to find an official source (non political - Non news article) that spells out the process on how a US President's phone call is recorded/transcribed in modern times.

So, as I suggested up thread, I am motivated to proceed with caution concerning what I had thought/presumed (That I was reading an actual transcript of the call). I guess I (we all?) will learn more as this unfolds.

[_DarkHelmet]

I mean do you have actual evidence that is not in the form of hearsay, innuendo, or gossip? Or is the "whistleblower" label simply enough for you buy the product?

We can read Republican talking points too. You don't have to just robotically repeat them here.

Interesting thing about this, though. It's not "hearsay" when we already have a summary of a call where this exact thing happens. If the police receive a tip from someone who says they heard from several people that you murdered a guy, and you respond by turning over a tape in which you murder a guy, it's pretty god damn dumb to complain that the tip is hearsay at that point.

These guys pretend like there's an actual threshold that can be reached that would break their loyalty to Trump. "But, but he didn't say the exact words 'quid pro quo', therefore there was no quid pro quo." We all know that if Trump literally said "this is a quid pro quo" on tape the Republican talking points would find some other way to defend his actions.

[_Some Schmo]

We all know that if Trump literally said "this is a quid pro quo" on tape the Republican talking points would find some other way to defend his actions.

We already know what it is. They think they can pull off the Jedi mind trick.

This isn't the quid pro quo you're looking for...

What they've forgotten is that the Jedi mind trick only works on the weak minded. Or maybe they haven't forgotten that at all.

[_Chap]

Did some looking around late last night (got trapped into a few rabbit holes) and at the end of my search - I am still unable to find an official source (non political - Non news article) that spells out the process on how a US President's phone call is recorded/transcribed in modern times.

So, as I suggested up thread, I am motivated to proceed with caution concerning what I had thought/presumed (That I was reading an actual transcript of the call). I guess I (we all?) will learn more as this unfolds.

What was issued by the White House was labelled as a 'memorandum' (not a transcript) of the call. As you can see if you follow the link, the heading read:

MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
SUBJECT:
PARTICIPANTS:
DATE, TIME AND PLACE:
(C) Telephone Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine
President Zelenskyy of Ukraine
Notetakers: The White House Situation·Room July 25, 2019, 9:03 - 9:33 a.m. EDT
Residence

A note at the foot of the first page said:

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. A numper of factors can affect 'the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation.
The word "inaudible" is used to indifate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

Did you not see all that when you read the document in question? If so, why your puzzlement?

But since this memorandum was issued by Trump's own White House staff, I don't think you need worry that it is in any way slanted to portray the President in an unfavourable light. And even then, you get this interesting exchange:

The President: ... There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.


President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won· the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look. into the situation, specifically to the company that you
mentioned in :this issue.

Add that to the whistleblower's carefully constructed seven pages (posted by me upthread), and I think that even the most sceptical person will agree that this is a matter that merits serious investigation. And pretty well by definition, you don't escape being investigated simply because you have not yet been proved guilty. You get investigated when it appears that there may be a case to answer.

Don't you now think that there is a case to answer on the basis of the documents in the public domain?