BREAKING! President Trump Releses Transcript of His First Call with Ukrainain President Zelensk

Update!

The New York Post has this article out on the call with this line: [ That call prompted a whistleblower complaint that led Democrats to launch an impeachment inquiry.]

My take is bullshit! The call prompted a SPY to Illegally Conspire with Adam Schiff and his Staff in Direct Violation of Federal Law before taking the newly hatched conspiracy to Overthrow the United States Government to the ICIG to file a bogus complaint that the Demonrats used to launch an impeachment inquisition.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/15/white...-first-call-with-ukraines-volodymyr-zelensky/
 
Trump releasing that summary is like a rapist saying "Just look at all the times I didn't rape anybody."
 
Is this a revised version of the coercion call ? Doesnt seem much wrong in it.

Its not a different call altogether is it ?
 
Is this a revised version of the coercion call ? Doesnt seem much wrong in it.

Its not a different call altogether is it ?

Yes, it's Trump's first call with Zelensky. As I understand it, there have been goalpost-moving contentions that the "quid pro quo" in the second call is based on statements in the first call. In other words, that the two calls collectively establish a quid pro quo. Thus, the release of this transcript in response to that.
 
Is this a revised version of the coercion call ? Doesnt seem much wrong in it.

Its not a different call altogether is it ?

Yes, it's Trump's first call with Zelensky. As I understand it, there have been goalpost-moving contentions that the "quid pro quo" in the second call is based on statements in the first call. In other words, that the two calls collectively establish a quid pro quo. Thus, the release of this transcript in response to that.

The BBC are telling me that this transcript is at variance with the original White House account of the call
Which is accurate?


Posted at 15:2315:23
One call, two versions
7a58b508-01f2-4e7e-8f5d-ab4969118e22.jpg

Anthony Zurcher

BBC North America reporter

On Thursday morning, the White House released a rough transcript of Donald Trump’s first phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on 21 April.

In it, the two exchanged pleasantries. Trump congratulated Zelensky on his election and suggested the possibility of a White House visit. Zelensky invited the US president to his inauguration in Kyiv, and plugged his country’s delicious food and hospitality. Trump agreed, citing his experience with Ukrainians in his days as a beauty pageant impresario.

The White House summary of the conversation released at the time, however, paints a different picture. It said Trump “noted” that the Ukrainian election had been conducted in a fair and open process. It said he “underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

And it said Trump had told Zelensky that the two would work together “to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption”.

None of those things happened.

It raises questions about why Trump didn’t talk about corruption or endorse Ukraine’s territorial integrity in the call, particularly given Ukraine’s history of prosecutorial misconduct and Russian support for insurgents fighting Ukrainians in the nation’s eastern border region. The summary may have been what the US foreign policy team wanted the president to emphasise, but he did not.

The White House regularly produces summaries of the president’s conversations with foreign leaders. The disparities between the April Ukrainian summary and the actual conversation may leave many Americans – and foreign leaders – wondering how much credence to place in those documents.
 
Is this a revised version of the coercion call ? Doesnt seem much wrong in it.

Its not a different call altogether is it ?

Yes, it's Trump's first call with Zelensky. As I understand it, there have been goalpost-moving contentions that the "quid pro quo" in the second call is based on statements in the first call. In other words, that the two calls collectively establish a quid pro quo. Thus, the release of this transcript in response to that.

The BBC are telling me that this transcript is at variance with the original White House account of the call
Which is accurate?


Posted at 15:2315:23
One call, two versions
7a58b508-01f2-4e7e-8f5d-ab4969118e22.jpg

Anthony Zurcher

BBC North America reporter

On Thursday morning, the White House released a rough transcript of Donald Trump’s first phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on 21 April.

In it, the two exchanged pleasantries. Trump congratulated Zelensky on his election and suggested the possibility of a White House visit. Zelensky invited the US president to his inauguration in Kyiv, and plugged his country’s delicious food and hospitality. Trump agreed, citing his experience with Ukrainians in his days as a beauty pageant impresario.

The White House summary of the conversation released at the time, however, paints a different picture. It said Trump “noted” that the Ukrainian election had been conducted in a fair and open process. It said he “underscored the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

And it said Trump had told Zelensky that the two would work together “to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption”.

None of those things happened.

It raises questions about why Trump didn’t talk about corruption or endorse Ukraine’s territorial integrity in the call, particularly given Ukraine’s history of prosecutorial misconduct and Russian support for insurgents fighting Ukrainians in the nation’s eastern border region. The summary may have been what the US foreign policy team wanted the president to emphasise, but he did not.

The White House regularly produces summaries of the president’s conversations with foreign leaders. The disparities between the April Ukrainian summary and the actual conversation may leave many Americans – and foreign leaders – wondering how much credence to place in those documents.

Two calls. One on April 21, 2019 (this new transcript) and one that took place on July 25, 2019 (the transcript released on September 25th). I have no idea what that BBC report is talking about, but if you look at the two transcripts (use Google and search by the dates I posted) you will clearly see that the transcripts are for different calls.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top