MetoliusAg said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

You mean the Ukraine aid giving? Hard to talk about a withholding when there was nothing withheld.

---

It wasn't held back by Mulvaney on Trump's order while Trump, Giuliani, Sondland, and Volker pushed Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and Trump's DNC server conspiracy theory? That's what you're going with?

---

Don't lie. The money was released before either investigation was opened. What a stupid argument.

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

---

Try and follow here.
1. Trump says no quid pro quo
2. Ukraine pres says no quid pro quo
3. Transcript says no quid pro quo
4. Malibu says quid pro quo

Wait what?

---

The evidence and multiple witnesses say it was quid pro quo.

agsalaska said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

---

Try and follow here.
1. Trump says no quid pro quo
2. Ukraine pres says no quid pro quo
3. Transcript says no quid pro quo
4. Malibu says quid pro quo

Wait what?

---

Yes, its just me. No other person who was involved with the Ukraine aid withholding thought anything was untoward. Just me.

---

No. Its not just you. You are going to believe whatever you want.

Just know that the actual people involved and the transcript of their call say otherwise.

---

Malibu believes those 4 were involved in a conspiracy to hide Trump's actual comments

Don't need it.
Already have 6e exceptions that have been ruled to apply to impeachment proceedings, like those that are currently going on.

Sharia Blue is strong in this thread.

agsfan said:

---

Don't need it.
Already have 6e exceptions that have been ruled to apply to impeachment proceedings, like those that are currently going on.

---

There's impeachment proceedings going on?

MetoliusAg said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

---

Try and follow here.
1. Trump says no quid pro quo
2. Ukraine pres says no quid pro quo
3. Transcript says no quid pro quo
4. Malibu says quid pro quo

Wait what?

---

The evidence and multiple witnesses say it was quid pro quo.

---

So the transcript is faked?

There's an inquiry, so preliminary to impeachment proceedings. But that's still covered under the grand jury exception.

No judicial proceeding has been started by congress. So they don't need a 6(f) they just need a vote formalizing their inquiry.

So the judge in the Clinton case was wrong and a coward.

We'll see how the appeal goes

Just wanted post some conflicting authority:

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/15-2972/15-2972-2016-09-15.pdf?ts=1473971448

agsfan said:

---

There's an inquiry, so preliminary to impeachment proceedings. But that's still covered under the grand jury exception.

---

Right over your head!

agsfan said:

---

There's an inquiry, so preliminary to impeachment proceedings. But that's still covered under the grand jury exception.

---

There is no inquiry. No vote has been taken. Congress is always in judicial proceedings.

captkirk said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

---

Try and follow here.
1. Trump says no quid pro quo
2. Ukraine pres says no quid pro quo
3. Transcript says no quid pro quo
4. Malibu says quid pro quo

Wait what?

---

Yes, its just me. No other person who was involved with the Ukraine aid withholding thought anything was untoward. Just me.

---

No. Its not just you. You are going to believe whatever you want.

Just know that the actual people involved and the transcript of their call say otherwise.

---

Malibu believes those 4 were involved in a conspiracy to hide Trump's actual comments

---

Well, Bill Ayers did write Dreams of My Father, so theres that.

MetoliusAg said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

---

Try and follow here.
1. Trump says no quid pro quo
2. Ukraine pres says no quid pro quo
3. Transcript says no quid pro quo
4. Malibu says quid pro quo

Wait what?

---

The evidence and multiple witnesses say it was quid pro quo.

---

The first hand evidence, i.e., the transcript, shows no quid pro quo. Hearsay witnesses are irrelevant except to Schiff and you. If there were anything then Schiff would not be trying to hide the truth.

Why would you want a judge to wait on a vote when there is no law or rule requiring a vote? What would they be basing their ruling off of?

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

---

Try and follow here.
1. Trump says no quid pro quo
2. Ukraine pres says no quid pro quo
3. Transcript says no quid pro quo
4. Malibu says quid pro quo

Wait what?

---

Yes, its just me. No other person who was involved with the Ukraine aid withholding thought anything was untoward. Just me.

---

No. Its not just you. You are going to believe whatever you want.

Just know that the actual people involved and the transcript of their call say otherwise.

---

Malibu believes those 4 were involved in a conspiracy to hide Trump's actual comments

---

Well, Bill Ayers did write Dreams of My Father, so theres that.

---

HAHA. That Trump Derangement Syndrome requires some 3d chess sometimes.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

So the military aid was withheld or not as part of a quid pro quo?

---

If Bribery is an impeachable offense, so is Attempted Bribery.

---

Who tried to bribe who? And even if there was a quid pro quo, wasn't, that's not a crime. Aid has been withheld before and aid had been given before in return for something in return. And it will be in the future. That's responsible governing. According to the transcript, the favor was looking into the dnc server and Russian collusion. Biden and his son were not discussed until much later in the conversation.

agsfan said:

---

Why would you want a judge to wait on a vote when there is no law or rule requiring a vote? What would they be basing their ruling off of?

---

Why would you want congress to be considered in a perpetual state of impeachment? Should the legislature be able to adopt judicial powers without a vote? Should the legislature be able to adopt executive powers without a vote? Should congress be able to violate the rights of Americans?

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

captkirk said:

---

No. Aid was provided, Biden was not investigated

---

So Trump did not ever even attemptsuch a thing Completely made up and fabricated fake news? Your argument is that the ends nullify any means.

---

I am curious how all hard evidence (both parties involved and transcript) points to no quid pro quo yet you are still claiming it did. How do you let your feels override all common sense?

---

Wait whar? Trump tried to withhold something Ukraine wanted, aid, for something Trump wanted, investigation of a political rival. Thats quid pro quo. Your argument is that attempted murder is not murder and is therefore not wrong.

---

Try and follow here.
1. Trump says no quid pro quo
2. Ukraine pres says no quid pro quo
3. Transcript says no quid pro quo
4. Malibu says quid pro quo

Wait what?

---

Yes, its just me. No other person who was involved with the Ukraine aid withholding thought anything was untoward. Just me.

---

No. Its not just you. You are going to believe whatever you want.

Just know that the actual people involved and the transcript of their call say otherwise.

---

Malibu believes those 4 were involved in a conspiracy to hide Trump's actual comments

---

Well, Bill Ayers did write Dreams of My Father, so theres that.

---

I know who didn't write it - Obama

RGLAG85 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

So the military aid was withheld or not as part of a quid pro quo?

---

If Bribery is an impeachable offense, so is Attempted Bribery.

---

Who tried to bribe who? And even if there was a quid pro quo, wasn't, that's not a crime. Aid has been withheld before and aid had been given before in return for something in return. And it will be in the future. That's responsible governing. According to the transcript, the favor was looking into the dnc server and Russian collusion. Biden and his son were not discussed until much later in the conversation.

---

This is just not true. Re read the transcript and define "much later". The President mentions all the support the US gives and that is it not reciprocal. Zelensky speaks. The President asks for a favor and mentioned the server. Zelensky speaks. The President mentions investigating corruption and the Bidens.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

agsfan said:

---

Why would you want a judge to wait on a vote when there is no law or rule requiring a vote? What would they be basing their ruling off of?

---

Sad thing is, you're advocating, and ignorantly cheering on, opening a can of worms you don't want opened. It won't be worms but venomous snakes that will poison and kill our government.

Unless that's your desired outcome.

hbtheduce said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

You mean the Ukraine aid giving? Hard to talk about a withholding when there was nothing withheld.

---

It wasn't held back by Mulvaney on Trump's order while Trump, Giuliani, Sondland, and Volker pushed Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and Trump's DNC server conspiracy theory? That's what you're going with?

---

Don't lie. The money was released before either investigation was opened. What a stupid argument.

---

No, you "don't lie". I know you haven't been paying attention, or are willfully hiding your head in the sand but the truth is out there despite what you want to believe:

• August 12: A whistleblower files a complaint with the intelligence inspector general.
• August 26: Intelligence IG forwards complaint to the acting DNI.
• September 2: Deadline for DNI to send whistleblower complaint to Congress -- he does not send it.

• September 9: Intel IG notifies House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of an "urgent concern" that DNI has overruled.
• September 9: Three House committees launch investigation of efforts by Trump, Giuliani and others to pressure the Ukrainian government to assist the President's reelection efforts. The committees request information about Trump's July phone call with Zelensky.
• September 10: Schiff demands acting DNI turn over the complaint.
• September 12: The administration hold on Ukraine aid is lifted.
• September 13: Schiff subpoenas the acting DNI.

I'm just saying what the constitution says.

I think it'd be best to have a house vote, and if the house would like to create that law, I'd be for it, but it currently isn't in any law anywhere. So to expect a judge to wait on a formal impeachment inquiry vote to release grand jury information, when no law, house rule or the constitution could back up that ruling, would be silly. They'd be stepping on the House's constitutional authority to operate impeachment however they want.

captkirk said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

You mean the Ukraine aid giving? Hard to talk about a withholding when there was nothing withheld.

---

This keeps getting glossed over as irrelevant. Seems relevant

---

Something that "keeps getting glossed over" is that the aid was not
released until AFTER the texts saying they were withholding money to support a political campaign and AFTER the ICIG informed Congress of the existence of whistleblower report. In fact, these occurred on Sept 9. The aid was released 2 days later. They got caught.

agsfan said:

---

Why would you want a judge to wait on a vote when there is no law or rule requiring a vote? What would they be basing their ruling off of?

---

What about history and how much the founding fathers fought over impeachment? How about since the other times a President has been impeached, the full House took part in the vote and gave the President and his legal team the right to present its case as well as question those brought into the proceedings?

What the Dems are doing is pissing on history and precedent and the seriousness of the actions that they are taking towards Trump. Precedent is what got us the nuclear option. Unintended consequences can be a ***** though so prepare to sleep in this bed y'all are making.

captkirk said:

---

So the transcript is faked?

---

Jesus people, IT'S NOT A TRANSCRIPT! It's a summary memo. Here, allow me to quote the first paragraph from the actual ****ing document you guys insist on calling a transcript:

Quote:

---

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 number 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 indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

---

It's my understanding that Vindman stated today that portions of the conversation were replaced in memo by the "..."s. I'm sure that's just because they "recollected" things differently though.

BWD06 said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Quote:

---

So the military aid was withheld or not as part of a quid pro quo?

---

If Bribery is an impeachable offense, so is Attempted Bribery.

---

Who tried to bribe who? And even if there was a quid pro quo, wasn't, that's not a crime. Aid has been withheld before and aid had been given before in return for something in return. And it will be in the future. That's responsible governing. According to the transcript, the favor was looking into the dnc server and Russian collusion. Biden and his son were not discussed until much later in the conversation.

---

This is just not true. Re read the transcript and define "much later". The President mentions all the support the US gives and that is it not reciprocal. Zelensky speaks. The President asks for a favor and mentioned the server. Zelensky speaks. The President mentions investigating corruption and the Bidens.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

---

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though
because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a
lot about it. (Favor asked no mention of aid being withheld or quid pro quo) would like you to find out what happened with
this whole siuation with Ukraine, they s_ay Crowdstrike ... I guess
you have one of your weal thy people... The server, they say
Ukraine has.it There- are a lot. of things that went on, the
:whole situation .. I think you 1 re _surrounding yourself with some
of the same people. I .
would like to have the Attorney General
call you or your people and I would like you t get to the
bottom of it. As you sa yestrday, that whole nonsetise ended
with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Muele_r, an
incompetent performance-, _but they. say a lot of it started with
Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you. do it
if that's possible. (End of favor. Still no quid pro quo)
(l!l-,'HP) President Zelenskyy: Yes it is. very important for me and
everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a
President,- it is very important and we are open for any future
cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on ooperation in
. relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that
purpose, I just recalled our.ambassador from United States and
he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced
ambassador who wtll work hard on making sure that our two
nations are getting clciser. I would also like and hope to see
him having your trust and y9ur .confidence and _ have persona1
relationswith you so we cn cooperate even ore so. I
wili.
personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr.
Giuliani just.recently and we are hoping very much that Mr.
G1uliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and. we will meet once
he coes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again_that
you _have nobody but friends around-us. I w.ill make sure -that-I
surrond myself with the best and most experienced people._ I
also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great
friends and you Mr. President have. friends -in our country so we
can continue our strategicartnrship. I also plan to surround
myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, (Singular)
I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the
investigations.(Zelenskyy mentions other investigations)will be done_openly and candidly .. That I can
assure you ..
(:9/MF The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor
who was verygood and he was shut down and that's really unfair.
_A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your
ery good prosecutor down and you had some ery bad people
involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the_
mayor bf New York Ci:ty, a great mayor, and I would like him to
call you. I will ask him to call yoti along with the Attorney_
General. :Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very
capable guy. If you could _speak to him that would be great. The
former ambassador from the United $tates, the woman., was bad
news nd th people she was dealing with in .the Ukraine .were bad
news so I jtist wan to_let you know that The oter thing,
There's a lot 6f. talk about Biden's son,.(First mention of Biden and its referring to his son)
that Biden (now Joe. Still no quid pro quo)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.
(S;'ti!F) President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the
prosecutor First df 11 I understand arid I'm kn6wledgeable
.abotit the situation. Sine we hae on the abolute majority in
our Parliament; the next prosecutor .general will be 100%_ my
person, my c'andidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and
will start. a_s a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look.
into the situation, specifically to the company that you
-mentioned in :this issue. The issue of the investigation of the
case is ctually the issui of aking sure to resoe the honesty
so we will take care of.that and wi11wo:tk on the investigation
of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have
any additional information that you can provide to s, it would_
be very helpful for the investigation to make su.re that we
administer justice i':r1 our country with regc:ird: to the Ambassador
to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name
was Ivanovicli. It was great that you were the first one. who told
me that she was a bad ambassador because I agreewith you 100%.
Her attitude to.wards me was far from the best as she admired the
previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept
e as a new President well enough.
. . . .
(3/MF) The President: Well,
she' s going tO go through some
things. I will. have Mr. Giuliani.give you a call and I _ am. also
going to have.Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the
bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it ot. I heard the
prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very far
prosecuto_r so good luck with everything. Your. economy is going-
to get better and bett.er I pre.diet. You have a lot of a,ssets.
It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their
incredible people.

A lot of discussion there between the crowd strike, dnc server (the favor) and Biden. Zelenskyy brings up the other investigations, not Trump. And anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see there's no spoken connection between the favor and the mention of Biden. And there's never a mention of aid being withheld on condition.

Mordred said:

---

captkirk said:

---

So the transcript is faked?

---

Jesus people, IT'S NOT A TRANSCRIPT! It's a summary memo. Here, allow me to quote the first paragraph from the actual ****ing document you guys insist on calling a transcript:

Quote:

---

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 number 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 indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

---

It's my understanding that Vindman stated today that portions of the conversation were replaced in memo by the "..."s. I'm sure that's just because they "recollected" things differently though.

---

There is no place in the document that states poor connections, accents, etc. Nowhere is the word "inaudible" used. So you have several persons simultaneously typing the conversation, then they compare notes to decide the content of the final transcript.

So you agree that the notes from court stenographer is not a transcript? The process for calls between heads of state appears to be much more thorough than the typical transcription during a trial.

Mordred said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

You mean the Ukraine aid giving? Hard to talk about a withholding when there was nothing withheld.

---

It wasn't held back by Mulvaney on Trump's order while Trump, Giuliani, Sondland, and Volker pushed Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and Trump's DNC server conspiracy theory? That's what you're going with?

---

Don't lie. The money was released before either investigation was opened. What a stupid argument.

---

No, you "don't lie". I know you haven't been paying attention, or are willfully hiding your head in the sand but the truth is out there despite what you want to believe:

• August 12: A whistleblower files a complaint with the intelligence inspector general.
• August 26: Intelligence IG forwards complaint to the acting DNI.
• September 2: Deadline for DNI to send whistleblower complaint to Congress -- he does not send it.

• September 9: Intel IG notifies House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff of an "urgent concern" that DNI has overruled.
• September 9: Three House committees launch investigation of efforts by Trump, Giuliani and others to pressure the Ukrainian government to assist the President's reelection efforts. The committees request information about Trump's July phone call with Zelensky.
• September 10: Schiff demands acting DNI turn over the complaint.
• September 12: The administration hold on Ukraine aid is lifted.
• September 13: Schiff subpoenas the acting DNI.

---

You forgot the dates where ****ts staff met with the non whistle blower before the complaint was filed and ****ts trip to Ukraine.

Mordred said:

---

captkirk said:

---

So the transcript is faked?

---

Jesus people, IT'S NOT A TRANSCRIPT! It's a summary memo. Here, allow me to quote the first paragraph from the actual ****ing document you guys insist on calling a transcript:

Quote:

---

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 number 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 indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

---

It's my understanding that Vindman stated today that portions of the conversation were replaced in memo by the "..."s. I'm sure that's just because they "recollected" things differently though.

---

You are insinuating that according to Vindman, the Situation Room Duty Officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation lied about the content and tone of the call?

You realize that the president is not the one who types the transcripts?

So you do admit that the money was only released after the investigations were opened? I suppose you're free to think that's a coincidence instead of a realization they'd been caught.

Mordred said:

---

So you do admit that the money was only released after the investigations were opened? I suppose you're free to think that's a coincidence instead of a realization they'd been caught.

---

Keep trying sweetie. Great lessons can be learned from failure and you're only getting smarter. Insinuation doesn't equal causation no matter how hard you try.

BuddysBud said:

---

You are insinuating that according to Vindman, the Situation Room Duty Officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation lied about the content and tone of the call?

You realize that the president is not the one who types the transcripts?

---

Your characterization that there were multiple people typing down everything that was said and then comparing notes to come up with a master which was helpfully released by the President, does not jibe with what Vindman stated today:

Quote:

---

Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine's president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.

The omissions, Colonel Vindman said, included Mr. Trump's assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption, and an explicit mention by Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden's son Hunter.

[He] told House impeachment investigators that he tried to change the reconstructed transcript made by the White House staff to reflect the omissions. But while some of his edits appeared to have been successful, he said, those two corrections were not made.

---

So assuming he's not lying, then he was able to get corrections made, but was overruled on others. If he was able to get corrections made, then there weren't multiple "court stenographers" sitting around typing everything that was said and then comparing notes.