Schiff’s Star Witness Tried to Edit the Call Transcript
As the impeachment inquiry by the Democrats continues, they would like us to believe they are getting actually getting somewhere and making some much-needed process. This is evident by the sudden call for a vote on the issue in the House of Representatives after weeks of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying that such a vote isn’t needed.
But what shows this, even more, was Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s testimony about the President’s call to Ukraine on Tuesday and the media’s reaction to that testimony.
Vindman is the National Security Council’s leading expert on Ukraine and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Representative Adam Schiff’s star witness.
Vindman claimed that the transcript left our certain words and key phrases, according to the New York Times. Vindman said that he offered several changes to be made to the call’s transcript. Some of those were accepted and inserted. However, two were not.
The first is that “Mr. Trump’s assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. discussing Ukraine corruption.” The second was that “an explicit mention by Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky, of Burisma Holdings, the energy company whose board employed Mr. Biden’s son Hunter.”
Basically, Vindman offered that the transcript includes something about Trump talking about Biden talking about corruption, which was already known, and that the phrase “the company,” which was cited in the transcript, be replaced with “Burisma” to make it clear which company was being talked about.
However, The Times also added that neither of those changes would have changed the transcript all that much and most certainly would not have changed the overall outcome or understanding of it.
The Times stated, “The phrases do not fundamentally change lawmakers’ understanding of the call.
Everyone already knew what company was being mentioned, so there is no need for it to be referenced by its actual name.
As The Times explains, on the American end, no recording of the call was made. However, voice recognition software was used to create a transcript of it. And like most software of this nature, specific phrases or words, mainly names and technical phrases, can be missed or misjudged.
Therefore, the hard copy of the transcript was given to several people to be “edited” or corrected as needed.
Vindman was one such person who offered edits to his superior, National Security Council Russia and Europe director Timothy Morrison. As we mentioned before, some of his edits were taken, and others were not.
It was then after these edits were turned in that he sought out legal counsel from John A. Eisenberg about the call. According to Vindman’s testimony and the Associated Press, “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine.”
He said, “I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan paly which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”
But several other media outlets took these “edits” to mean that Trump’s aides or the White House had left out critical parts of the transcript and insinuated that he was trying to hide something.
Just take a look at some of the headlines put out about the testimony.
The New York Magazine’s version read: “Official Reveals Trump’s ‘Exact Call’ With Zelensky Was Edited Down.”
And the Daily Kos’ edition is even worse. It says, “Lt. Col. Vindman testifies that Trump-Zelensky call transcript is seriously incomplete.”
At least The New York Times’ headline was rather straightforward. “White House Ukraine Expert Sought to Correct Transcript of Trump Call.”
These headlines and the quickness with which the story has spread throughout mainstream media lets us know that the left is trying to make a bigger deal out of this than is necessary. They want to prove to the world that Trump is hiding something and they are doing the right thing by demanding an investigation on the President.
But what has actually happened is nothing. Vindman’s testimony means just what he said, that he tried to have a few words changed here and there in the transcript. But regardless of whether or not they were changed, the meaning would have still been the same.
It’s a good thing our hard-earned tax dollars are being used on such meaningless information. Tons of progress, indeed.