The White House-released transcript says it is "not a verbatim transcript of a discussion"
Source: CNN
25 min ago
The White House-released transcript says it is "not a verbatim transcript of a discussion"
From CNN's Pam Brown and Betsy Klein
A senior White House official says the transcript of the call comes from Voice Recognition Software. There is a disclaimer at the bottom of the document that it is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.
Additionally, per the senior official, the White House weighed institutional interests against transparency in making the decision to release the call. Note that Ukraines President Zelensky gave his permission for the transcript to be released, as well.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-09-25-2019/h_059432c46e89de36d5896e31ea08fda3
[url=https://ibb.co/DRzfsN2][img][/img][/url]
[url=https://imgbb.com/upload]upload[/url]
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)fatso could have said -> Youll get your money right after you do me this favor... the point is, a transcript that isnt verbatim isnt worth the paper its written on.
orangecrush
(19,666 posts)FakeNoose
(32,917 posts)... so it's the only one that matters to HIM!
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Botany
(70,657 posts)Trump to the President Zelenskyy
"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 out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your. economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot· of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people."
bitterross
(4,066 posts)As expected, they did not release a full, unredacted version of the transcript. Is anyone surprised?
This is more BS to try to distract. The full whistle-blower report must be delivered to Congress and the whistle-blower needs to appear before the House committees that request their presence.
orangecrush
(19,666 posts)The whistleblower needs to testify.
sprinkleeninow
(20,270 posts)yaesu
(8,020 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)That means it's been edited. Or that it's not accurate and that it's missing information (either intentionally or neglectfully).
Ought not there also be recordings?
orangecrush
(19,666 posts)But you can bet NSA has it!
RockRaven
(15,096 posts)so we are left to imagine what a verbatim transcript might include. This is, to put it mildly, of limited use.
orangecrush
(19,666 posts)FBaggins
(26,793 posts)I think I remember it from the Kissinger calls.
moonseller66
(430 posts)the WH Staff for excellence in science fiction writing!
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,756 posts)neohippie
(1,142 posts)This call transcript of the "perfect call" accounts for about 11 minutes of spoken word during a conversation that lasted for 30 mintues
I want to see the White House talking point on why there is about 19 minutes of missing conversation.
This really is starting to look like a stupid version of Watergate now.
How will they explain the missing time?
Link to tweet
Memorandum of Phone Conversation: call was 9:03 - 9:33
Estimated time it would take to say all of the words released in the memo: 11 minutes.
Checked by the great
@mike_melia
in our broadcast software (time of spoken words matters a lot on TV) from
@NewsHour
C_U_L8R
(45,040 posts)And where are the recordings? I bet there was a recording that since been destroyed. What say you whistleblowers?
Vinca
(50,334 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,756 posts)'Transcript': 🎙 a typed copy of dictated or recorded material
'Memorandum': 📝 an informal report or message
Link to tweet
Bengus81
(6,939 posts)Just like Nixon did with the tapes and how SHOCKING they were when everyone got to hear the REAL DEAL and not some made up transcript fantasy.
orangecrush
(19,666 posts)Iirc.
ck4829
(35,096 posts)jpak
(41,761 posts)geralmar
(2,138 posts)]
orangecrush
(19,666 posts)DeminPennswoods
(15,299 posts)exculpatory parts and hide the incriminating ones behind the ellipses, or at least include the them?