Alexander Vindman and his twin brother were abruptly fired

[Cow Poke]

FYI, JimL, THIS is what a redacted document looks like:

Remember the scene in "Hidden Figures" where the woman held the heavily redacted pages up to the light and figured out the complex math problem?

[JimL]

What parts were redacted JimL? Show me the blacked out parts where they redacted anything.

Well, of course you don't believe the testimony, under oath, of Vindman who testified that parts of the transcript summary was missing. Second, I read the transcript itself, which was said to be a thirty minute call, and what is actually there only amounts to a 10 minute conversation at best. Besides that, if there was nothing of the original convesation to hide, then White House Council, Eisenberg, wouldn't have suggested it be hidden away on a highly classified server as soon as Vindman reported it to Eisenberg. Common sense!

[Cow Poke]

Well, of course you don't believe the testimony, under oath, of Vindman who testified that parts of the transcript summary was missing. Second, I read the transcript itself, which was said to be a thirty minute call, and what is actually there only amounts to a 10 minute conversation at best. Besides that, if there was nothing of the original convesation to hide, then White House Council, Eisenberg, wouldn't have suggested it be hidden away on a highly classified server as soon as Vindman reported it to Eisenberg. Common sense!

You know, Jim, if the House Mangers had put you in charge of the scam impeachment, instead of lying Schiff and his flying monkeys*, you might have gotten the Senate to vote to remove!




*sorry, I just felt the need to be dramatic

[JimL]

You know, Jim, if the House Mangers had put you in charge of the scam impeachment, instead of lying Schiff and his flying monkeys*, you might have gotten the Senate to vote to remove!

Insinuations without evidence don't help your case, CP. It just makes you look naive and easily led.


*sorry, I just felt the need to be dramatic

[Cow Poke]

Insinuations without evidence don't help your case, CP.

My case?

It just makes you look naive and easily led.

Jim, I don't know of ANYBODY on this board who marches to the drummer more obediently than you.

*sorry, I just felt the need to be dramatic

If you're gonna use my trick, you need to include the * to which this corresponds.

[Mountain Man]

Well, of course you don't believe the testimony, under oath, of Vindman who testified that parts of the transcript summary was missing. Second, I read the transcript itself, which was said to be a thirty minute call, and what is actually there only amounts to a 10 minute conversation at best. Besides that, if there was nothing of the original convesation to hide, then White House Council, Eisenberg, wouldn't have suggested it be hidden away on a highly classified server as soon as Vindman reported it to Eisenberg. Common sense!

First of all, we only have Vindman's word that some content was left out. At the time, he proposed additions and alterations, some of which were accepted, others which were rejected by people who were themselves witnesses to the call.

Second, I believe they were speaking through interpreters which will slow down any conservation and explains why the transcript appears short for a 30-conversation.

But keep pushing those wild-eyed conspiracy theories. They might pan out one of these days.

[JimL]

Jim, I don't know of ANYBODY on this board who marches to the drummer more obediently than you.

That's because you're not introspective, CP.

[Cow Poke]

That's because you're not introspective, CP.

That's exactly what somebody would say who was an obedient drummermarcher, Jim.

[Sparko]

Well, of course you don't believe the testimony, under oath, of Vindman who testified that parts of the transcript summary was missing. Second, I read the transcript itself, which was said to be a thirty minute call, and what is actually there only amounts to a 10 minute conversation at best. Besides that, if there was nothing of the original convesation to hide, then White House Council, Eisenberg, wouldn't have suggested it be hidden away on a highly classified server as soon as Vindman reported it to Eisenberg. Common sense!

missing isn't the same as redacted, JimL.

[JimL]

First of all, we only have Vindman's word that some content was left out.

Yes, we have Vindmans testimony "under oath".

At the time, he proposed additions and alterations, some of which were accepted, others which were rejected by people who were themselves witnesses to the call.

That's what would be called a cover-up.

Second, I believe they were speaking through interpreters which will slow down any conservation and explains why the transcript appears short for a 30-conversation.

That's a possibility, though Zelinsky speaks english and it's unlikely that interpreters would take up 2/3 of the call.

But keep pushing those wild-eyed conspiracy theories. They might pan out one of these days.

Believing a highly credible witnesses testimony under oath is hardly believing in a wild eyed conspiracy theory. And knowing the president as we do, his affinity for lying and how he has done everything he can possibly do to cover-up the scheme, including the hiding of the transcript in a highly classified server, gives support to Vindmans testimony that the transcript was edited in a way to protect the president.

[JimL]

missing isn't the same as redacted, JimL.

Well, whatever term you want to use then. Missing, edited, left out, whatever.

[Mountain Man]

Believing a highly credible witnesses testimony under oath...

You are so deluded.

Vindman is not "highly credible", and lying under oath is not unheard of in a legal proceeding.