The extraordinary maneuver to conceal Trump's attempt to extract a political "favor" from Ukraine's president while vital military funding was being withheld is also under scrutiny. Who tried to hide Trump's telephone call with Zelensky and why?
How exactly was releasing a transcript -- something that any president virtually never does for good reason -- "hiding" anything? Or do you just come up with whatever strikes your fantasy at any given moment?
Obviously, you don't know why the extraordinary step was taken of removing it from T-Net and placing the material onto the highly confidential N.I.C.E. system or who was behind it. That is what Eisenberg and Ellis might be able to share, unless gagged by Trump. Clearly, there are those who do not want the truth revealed.
There was never a cover up to begin with, because there was never anything to cover up to begin. Now what this is really all about is Burisma calling in all all it markers in an attempt to forestall an investigation. That's where the cover up is.
Once the WB complaint was made public, under what scenario do you think a (incomplete) transcript of the call would not be released? The WH was essentially put in a position where they had to release it. And behold, even though it is incriminating..........even in its incomplete form.........the Liar-in-Chief had every reason to believe the minions would deny the blatantly obvious quid pro quo........and darned if they have.
How is releasing a transcript now a cover up??? hahahhahahahhah you guys are getting some desperate....so funny to watch...2020 is gonna be a breeze
In response to the whistleblower's complaint, a memorandum containing a transcript summary of Trump’s July 2019 telephone call with Zelensky was released. Lt. Col. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, has testified that the White House transcript of the call between Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases. Did Trump actually believe that what was released would be exculpatory? If so, he was clearly wrong.
Evidence of a crime exculpatory? Of course it is............with the minions. You forget, they exist in a parallel universe where allowing Repubs to attend depositions and have the same amount of time to ask questions as Dems is called "Stalinist." They live in a world where the prez can attempt to extort the prez of another country, release a transcript proving it, then deny it happened................and the minions just nod and repeat what they're told like.......................
Do you want that in ₴ (hryvnias) and before or after withholding? On second thought, I'll leave that one for the paranoidal crackpot accountants of trumpery.
I keep waiting for the Trump bum kissers to realize that their hysterics do not constitute a credible defense. At some point, before the factual findings cause some in Turtle's kangaroo court senate to feel embarrassed at their complicity, they might wish to contrive the semblance of a fact or two. House Republicans incessantly smearing patriots and bellywhinging throughout the process and, then, uniting in a group primal scream finale is not a coherent strategy.
I keep waiting for leftist to realize that government hacks having a low opinion of what the president says or does, does not in and of itself create an impeachable offense.
Ya know, when obozo held up military aid to Egypt for a quid pro quo, and to Ukraine, and right now the senate criminal party members are holding up defense appropriations that include foreign aid it's ok. Any honest leftist (that's an oxymoron) that looked behind the curtain to get the whole story about Kolomoisky, Burisma, PrivatBank, the billions of $ that "disappeared," and Zelensky, they'd be thanking PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP for investigating before releasing the $$$.
So why would a transcript from a call congratulating an allied head of state on their election win get moved to a secure server used for classified information? Asking for a friend.
Oh, and why when asked for copies of that transcript would we only get a memorandum with omissions? Asking for the same friend.
So a witness says the transcript left out some important stuff. Whoop-de-do. Did he testify what the left out words were? Maybe, maybe not. Only Schiff really knows and he ain't talking. Trump thought the transcript released was exculpatory, but he had no illusion that there would be many who wouldn't believe it. When there is no interest in the truth, exculpatory stuff does not count.
"I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed," Morrison said about a pivotal phone call between Trump and the Ukraine president, according to prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press.
obozo did it, too. Did you have a problem with it then? The WH having problems with leakers is why those are secured.