Transcript Fraud Odds

[Fentoine Lum]

I'd say the odds are about 100%. There's three places in the transcript where ellipsis were substituted for text. Things were left out.

Are we, generally speaking, actually still expecting anything but corruption and dishonesty from either Don or our political/economic system? It rather appears that we merely quibble over acceptable levels of corruption like we've accepted choosing between the lessor of evils. Ya still wind up with corruption and evil.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'd say the odds are about 100%. There's three places in the transcript where ellipsis were substituted for text. Things were left out.

I wonder if that is going to constitute tampering with evidence or giving false testimony. All these clowns have sworn an oath, haven't they?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'd say the odds are about 100%. There's three places in the transcript where ellipsis were substituted for text. Things were left out.

I wonder if that is going to constitute tampering with evidence or giving false testimony. All these clowns have sworn an oath, haven't they?

It's clearly labeled as a summary of the transcript. For all that Trump said 'the full transcript' he wasn't under oath. Or wearing the Promise Hat. Or standing on the Full Disclosure rug.

So it doesn't count.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

I'd say the odds are about 100%. There's three places in the transcript where ellipsis were substituted for text. Things were left out.

I wonder if that is going to constitute tampering with evidence or giving false testimony. All these clowns have sworn an oath, haven't they?

It's clearly labeled as a summary of the transcript. For all that Trump said 'the full transcript' he wasn't under oath. Or wearing the Promise Hat. Or standing on the Full Disclosure rug.

So it doesn't count.

Neither does all the empty oathing.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sorry. That was supposed to 100% in my post.

ETA: One of the perks of being an administrator, no time limit on editing posts.

 

[ZiprHead]

SENATOR KING SUGGESTS AT LEAST 20 MINUTES ARE MISSING FROM TRUMP UKRAINE CALL TRANSCRIPT

Independent Senator Angus King has claimed that some 20 minutes of the phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are missing from the White House memo detailing the conversation.

King told CNN host Anderson Cooper Tuesday that he and his staff had reconstructed the call using the memo, determining that more than two thirds of the call time was unaccounted for.

The full transcript of the now-infamous call between the two leaders has not been released. Though the document makes clear that the read out has been edited, it is not clear exactly how much has been cut, and what those sections may contain.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd say the odds are about 100%. There's three places in the transcript where ellipsis were substituted for text. Things were left out.

I wonder if that is going to constitute tampering with evidence or giving false testimony. All these clowns have sworn an oath, haven't they?

It's clearly labeled as a summary of the transcript. For all that Trump said 'the full transcript' he wasn't under oath. Or wearing the Promise Hat. Or standing on the Full Disclosure rug.

So it doesn't count.

Yup, this isn't legally an issue, however, if there is a significant amount of text that was removed, it would certainly look very bad. Of course, if they kept that stuff in... what did they have to remove?!

I'm willing to bet there can't be that much removed, at least relative to the 'favor' asking.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/se...ne-conversation-we-dont-know-what-is-missing/
...
Speaking to CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Tuesday, King asserted that according to an analysis by his staff, roughly two-thirds of the call time remain unaccounted for.

The 75-year-old King (who was a Democrat before 1993) told Cooper, “I had two staff members from my office the other day read it aloud, and we timed it. They read it in normal speaking pace. It took them ten minutes and 40 seconds; the phone call was 30 minutes. Now, we don’t know what is missing.”
...

I am sure we shall see the full, unredacted transcript subpoenaed any time now. And remember, the GOP told us during the Clinton impeachment attempt, lying was an impeachable misdemeanor. Adan Schiff has already warned cover ups are impeachable, as is obstruction of justice. Keep digging Donald!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it is quite possible there were long paused on the Ukrainian end with the President asking his staff, "Did Trump just say that?" or "What they fuck is Crowdstrike?!"

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think it is quite possible there were long paused on the Ukrainian end with the President asking his staff, "Did Trump just say that?" or "What they fuck is Crowdstrike?!"

Well, then instead of ellipses, wouldn't the transcript say something like 'silent shock intensifies...' or 'disbelief pause'?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

King, during his CNN appearance, was highly critical of Trump’s claim that the intel whistleblower who reported the July 25 conversation committed an act of treason.

“The problem is the president feels that he is the state — you know, like Louis XIV,” King told Cooper. Trump, King added, wrongly believes that “criticism of him is treason against the United States.”

Isn't that the truth. Trumpo acts like he IS the country.

 

[southernhybrid]

Here's more details about how the transcribe was altered.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/03/odd-markings-ellipses-fuel-doubts-about-rough-transcript-trumps-ukraine-call/

Current and former U.S. officials studying the document pointed to several elements that, they say, indicate that the document may have been handled in an unusual way.

Those include the use of ellipses — punctuation indicating that information has been deleted for clarity or other reasons — that traditionally have not appeared in summaries of presidential calls with foreign leaders, according to the current and former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the elaborate, non-public process.

In two of the cases when ellipses were used, they accompanied Trump’s reference to cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which is at the center of a conservative conspiracy theory about a computer server central to the company’s investigation of the Russian hack of Democratic Party computers that, according to those pushing the theory, is hidden away in Ukraine.

The use of ellipses in this passage fueled questions about what may have been removed and why.

The five-page document reports Trump said, “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.”

In the third use of ellipses, Trump was asking Zelensky about a different theory — also sometimes aired in the extreme corners of the Internet and on some conservative news networks — that Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden had, while vice president, demanded the removal of a prosecutor looking to investigate Biden’s son Hunter.

The document additionally carries classification markings that Situation Room staffers do not normally add when they create a word-for-word transcript, current and former officials said.

“I thought to myself, ‘This didn’t go through the normal process,’ ” said one former government official who was among several who handled these records and found the document released by the White House curious.

The whistleblower said in his complaint that multiple U.S. officials had alerted him that “senior White House officials had intervened to ‘lock down’ all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced — as is customary — by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”

I get that most of you don't want Biden to be the nominees. That's fine, but why the fuck are you pretending that he did something illegal, when there is no evidence of that? It's as if you are falling for Trump's lies or you are doing what Trump does. Trying to hurt an innocent person for your own political reasons.

Even Michele Goldberg, who doesn't support Biden, wrote an excellent editorial the other day explaining why it's wrong to investigate Biden when he's not the one who did something corrupt or illegal. She's much further left than Biden but at least she's honest. Trump is doing the same thing to Biden that he did to Clinton and some of you seem to be falling for it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I get that most of you don't want Biden to be the nominees. That's fine, but why the fuck are you pretending that he did something illegal, when there is no evidence of that? It's as if you are falling for Trump's lies or you are doing what Trump does. Trying to hurt an innocent person for your own political reasons.

Even Michele Goldberg, who doesn't support Biden, wrote an excellent editorial the other day explaining why it's wrong to investigate Biden when he's not the one who did something corrupt or illegal. She's much further left than Biden but at least she's honest. Trump is doing the same thing to Biden that he did to Clinton and some of you seem to be falling for it.

There is no reason to investigate. Hunter Biden being on the board created a conflict of interest because Biden was involved with Ukrainian policy. Doesn't mean anything criminal happened, but it isn't passing the smell test.

Regardless, waiting for the actual transcript, not the fan fiction account.

 

[PyramidHead]

I get that most of you don't want Biden to be the nominees. That's fine, but why the fuck are you pretending that he did something illegal, when there is no evidence of that? It's as if you are falling for Trump's lies or you are doing what Trump does. Trying to hurt an innocent person for your own political reasons.

Even Michele Goldberg, who doesn't support Biden, wrote an excellent editorial the other day explaining why it's wrong to investigate Biden when he's not the one who did something corrupt or illegal. She's much further left than Biden but at least she's honest. Trump is doing the same thing to Biden that he did to Clinton and some of you seem to be falling for it.

There's a precedent that's always set by these types of things, and some of us are tired of it always being "rich people can make their friends and relatives richer by giving them access to money the rest of us will never see in our entire lives and get away with it". The fact that neither Clinton nor Biden nor Trump nor McCain nor anybody will ever feel the slightest bit uncomfortable about their failsons and faildaughters landing ridiculously lucrative jobs for which they have no competency whatsoever is a problem that needs to be dealt with if politics are ever going to serve ordinary people.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I get that most of you don't want Biden to be the nominees. That's fine, but why the fuck are you pretending that he did something illegal, when there is no evidence of that? It's as if you are falling for Trump's lies or you are doing what Trump does. Trying to hurt an innocent person for your own political reasons.

Even Michele Goldberg, who doesn't support Biden, wrote an excellent editorial the other day explaining why it's wrong to investigate Biden when he's not the one who did something corrupt or illegal. She's much further left than Biden but at least she's honest. Trump is doing the same thing to Biden that he did to Clinton and some of you seem to be falling for it.

There is no reason to investigate. Hunter Biden being on the board created a conflict of interest because Biden was involved with Ukrainian policy. Doesn't mean anything criminal happened, but it isn't passing the smell test.

Regardless, waiting for the actual transcript, not the fan fiction account.

This is like waiting for the Watergate tapes. Many of us remember that GOP circus.