Chronicles in 'Too Stupid', Another Failed Lynching of Trump by Critics...sad.

[Somerville]

His "essence" has zero relation to Trump's words.

Your opinion and not one held by others.

 

[Mycroft]

Your opinion and not one held by others.

LOL!!

Certainly not held by anti-Trump biased Trump haters.

 

[Fletch]

Its going to be pretty odd when instead of Nothingburger threads here we have:
Thread title: the nothingburger that ended the Trump era

For those too blind to see, a brail version will be provided

This isnt 'going to end the Trump era.' Thats silly. Crazy, in fact, if you think Trump is going to be removed over that conversation.

 

[Fletch]

I smell fear and desperation. Not a pleasant cocktail:lamo The next few days or weeks will be revealing, one way or another. I recall similar squealing from conservatives about Watergate. Didn't work out too well for that incumbent, did it.

This isnt Watergate. In fact, there are zero similarities. This is Collusion Delusion Part II. And the ending will be exactly the same as Part I

 

[JasperL]

There's no way to argue about what Schiffty did. It was on national TV and video.

Schiffty! Nice!

 

[JMR]

Funny how you have to reorder there conversation and add the $ aid to make it fit your narrative. The transcript is out and it doesn't support your allegations.

It is not a transcript. Funny how Trump loyalists keep forgetting that.

 

[Fletch]

It is not a transcript. Funny how Trump loyalists keep forgetting that.

And what does that matter?

 

[JMR]

And what does that matter?

It matters because claims that "it" clears Trump are meaningless.

 

[maxparrish]

It is not a transcript. Funny how Trump loyalists keep forgetting that.

Not only Trump loyalists "keep forgetting", but so does the mainstream press including those considered to be "liberal" or "democratic". Repeatedly (e.g. NYT and WP) they call it a transcript, so do they have a "memory" problem? Or might it be that you can't deal with uttering the words "a transcript", however flawed your imagination tells you this transcript must be?

Let's get to the nub of it: yes, it is a transcript. Perhaps, as the left of center MSM says, "a rough transcript" or "a transcript but not a full one" but still a transcript. It means, at the very least, the words and sentences cited occurred and none of provided content or in the provided paragraphs of context, support the absurd WB accusations which, by the way, is claimed (or admitted) by the WB to be essentially hearsay.

Mind you, the editing and processing of transcripts of presidential phone calls is routine, and done by the NSC. Security or diplomatically sensitive information is redacted by NSC staff for every President, but rest assured they are not a part of some grand "conspiracy" plotted out by a cabal of Trump agents.

Nice try at blustering your way through dissembling though.

 

[Fletch]

It matters because claims that "it" clears Trump are meaningless.

Then claims that it condemns him as just as meaningless.

 

[Somerville]

Not only Trump loyalists "keep forgetting", but so does the mainstream press including those considered to be "liberal" or "democratic". Repeatedly (e.g. NYT and WP) they call it a transcript, so do they have a "memory" problem? Or might it be that you can't deal with uttering the words "a transcript", however flawed your imagination tells you this transcript must be?

Let's get to the nub of it: yes, it is a transcript. Perhaps, as the left of center MSM says, "a rough transcript" or "a transcript but not a full one" but still a transcript. It means, at the very least, the words and sentences cited occurred and none of provided content or in the provided paragraphs of context, support the absurd WB accusations which, by the way, is claimed (or admitted) by the WB to be essentially hearsay.

Mind you, the editing and processing of transcripts of presidential phone calls is routine, and done by the NSC. Security or diplomatically sensitive information is redacted by NSC staff for every President, but rest assured they are not a part of some grand "conspiracy" plotted out by a cabal of Trump agents.

Nice try at blustering your way through dissembling though.

I agree - Nice try at blustering your way through dissembling though. FIVE pages, double spaced, is supposed to cover a half-hour long conversation? Normal procedure, as shown in documents released by other administrations, shows the reader when redactions are made. At this time, even Trump minions and followers should be willing to admit -- I know it's hard but try -- that the public does not have a full transcript of the conversation(s). The document is labelled MEMORANDUM, which should tell the rational that it is not a transcript.

 

[JMR]

Then claims that it condemns him as just as meaningless.

I don't believe I claimed that. The memorandum of the telephone conversation, along with the whistleblower's report and the investigation by the National Intelligence Agency, and the investigations of Congress, along with the facts surrounding the coverup of the entire incident will do the condemning.

 

[jnug]

Not only Trump loyalists "keep forgetting", but so does the mainstream press including those considered to be "liberal" or "democratic". Repeatedly (e.g. NYT and WP) they call it a transcript, so do they have a "memory" problem? Or might it be that you can't deal with uttering the words "a transcript", however flawed your imagination tells you this transcript must be?

Let's get to the nub of it: yes, it is a transcript. Perhaps, as the left of center MSM says, "a rough transcript" or "a transcript but not a full one" but still a transcript. It means, at the very least, the words and sentences cited occurred and none of provided content or in the provided paragraphs of context, support the absurd WB accusations which, by the way, is claimed (or admitted) by the WB to be essentially hearsay.

Mind you, the editing and processing of transcripts of presidential phone calls is routine, and done by the NSC. Security or diplomatically sensitive information is redacted by NSC staff for every President, but rest assured they are not a part of some grand "conspiracy" plotted out by a cabal of Trump agents.

Nice try at blustering your way through dissembling though.

The document itself is titled "Memorandum of telephone conversation" and its a WH document.

 

[JMR]

Not only Trump loyalists "keep forgetting", but so does the mainstream press including those considered to be "liberal" or "democratic". Repeatedly (e.g. NYT and WP) they call it a transcript, so do they have a "memory" problem? Or might it be that you can't deal with uttering the words "a transcript", however flawed your imagination tells you this transcript must be?

Let's get to the nub of it: yes, it is a transcript. Perhaps, as the left of center MSM says, "a rough transcript" or "a transcript but not a full one" but still a transcript. It means, at the very least, the words and sentences cited occurred and none of provided content or in the provided paragraphs of context, support the absurd WB accusations which, by the way, is claimed (or admitted) by the WB to be essentially hearsay.

Mind you, the editing and processing of transcripts of presidential phone calls is routine, and done by the NSC. Security or diplomatically sensitive information is redacted by NSC staff for every President, but rest assured they are not a part of some grand "conspiracy" plotted out by a cabal of Trump agents.

Nice try at blustering your way through dissembling though.

Hope you feel better getting that off your chest.

"The exchange, revealed in a declassified, five-page “memorandum of telephone conversation,” prompted an unidentified whistle-blower to accuse the president of a quid pro quo, trading a promise of foreign assistance for help in legitimizing an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory and gathering dirt on a political rival." --- NYT


All outlets have referred to the document as a memorandum, or "reconstructed transcript." Like yourself, KellyAnne Conway can't seem to remember that either, she was corrected several times in her interview with NPR. It seems to be a Republican talking point, that there is no there there because the "transcript" does not include it. Good job staying true to the message!

 

[jnug]

It is not a transcript. Funny how Trump loyalists keep forgetting that.

In fact do we even know if the WH was telling the media that they were getting a Transcript instead of a Memorandum? Certainly all the way up until the document was released Media would only have known what was coming based on what the WH told them was coming.

 

[maxparrish]

I agree - Nice try at blustering your way through dissembling though. FIVE pages, double spaced, is supposed to cover a half-hour long conversation? Normal procedure, as shown in documents released by other administrations, shows the reader when redactions are made. At this time, even Trump minions and followers should be willing to admit -- I know it's hard but try -- that the public does not have a full transcript of the conversation(s). The document is labelled MEMORANDUM, which should tell the rational that it is not a transcript.

First, as I said, everyone else including those on your side of the political divide calls it a transcript.

Second, as far as I know it is common practice to convey transcribed telephone exchanges in a "Memorandum" - the routine entitlement of memorandum containing a transcript has no significance beyond that of how the information is distributed. Which, by the way, is that anyone familiar with white house protocol has not found it to be a flag.

Third, there is nothing particularly significant in your unsupported conjecture. While a 2,000 word stream of "normal speed" delivery takes about 1/2 of the 30 minutes, that leaves out the fact that Zelensky who is only partially able to speak English spoke through a translator or any of their remarks. Nor does it include an lead-in remarks from WH or Ukraine staff, nor redacted security information by NSC staff. So yes, in a conversation where this is combined with Trumps highly problematical command of English 30 minutes is perfectly understandable.

You need to move on...your wasting your time on chasing this rabbit.

 

[maxparrish]

Hope you feel better getting that off your chest.

"The exchange, revealed in a declassified, five-page “memorandum of telephone conversation,” prompted an unidentified whistle-blower to accuse the president of a quid pro quo, trading a promise of foreign assistance for help in legitimizing an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory and gathering dirt on a political rival." --- NYT


All outlets have referred to the document as a memorandum, or "reconstructed transcript." Like yourself, KellyAnne Conway can't seem to remember that either, she was corrected several times in her interview with NPR. It seems to be a Republican talking point, that there is no there there because the "transcript" does not include it. Good job staying true to the message!

Thank you for providing us with unsupported claims. Unfortunately for your false trope, the rest of us can read what's on the internet. Try using Google because "all outlets" have not referred to is solely as a memorandum or "reconstructed transcript". Among them:

"Schumer says Ukraine call transcript "damaging"...
REUTERS

"White House releases transcript of call with Ukraine"
ABC NEWS

"WSJ: Mike Pence advised against releasing rough transcript of Ukraine call"
MSNBC

"Ukraine transcript: Read the Trump-Ukraine..."
CBS NEWS

"Trump Ukraine call transcript released"
CBSNEWS

"Transcript of Donald Trump's Ukraine phone call shows..."
TELEGRAPH

"Trump releases transcript of Ukraine phone call..."
POLITICO

"Annotated transcript: Trump's call...", "rough transcript"
WASHINGTON POST

As I previously pointed out, unlike the denial of a previous poster, it was a transcript. He (or you) might not like it, you may think it incomplete, rough, or "not-full" but anyone whose brain is larger than a pea knows its a transcription, sent by memo; i.e. a transcript.

 

[jnug]

Thank you for providing us with unsupported claims. Unfortunately for your false trope, the rest of us can read what's on the internet. Try using Google because "all outlets" have not referred to is solely as a memorandum or "reconstructed transcript". Among them:

"Schumer says Ukraine call transcript "damaging"...
REUTERS

"White House releases transcript of call with Ukraine"
ABC NEWS

"WSJ: Mike Pence advised against releasing rough transcript of Ukraine call"
MSNBC

"Ukraine transcript: Read the Trump-Ukraine..."
CBS NEWS

"Trump Ukraine call transcript released"
CBSNEWS

"Transcript of Donald Trump's Ukraine phone call shows..."
TELEGRAPH

"Trump releases transcript of Ukraine phone call..."
POLITICO

"Annotated transcript: Trump's call...", "rough transcript"
WASHINGTON POST

As I previously pointed out, unlike the denial of a previous poster, it was a transcript. He (or you) might not like it, you may think it incomplete, rough, or "not-full" but anyone whose brain is larger than a pea knows its a transcription, sent by memo; i.e. a transcript.

Transcript from Marriam Webster:
a : a written, printed, or typed copy
especially : a usually typed copy of dictated or recorded material
b : an official or legal and often published copy

Memorandum from Marriam Webster:
an informal record
also : a written reminder
2 : an informal written record of an agreement that has not yet become official
3a : an informal diplomatic (see DIPLOMATIC sense 2) communication
b : a usually brief communication written for interoffice circulation

As I have so often said, some of you boys either do not understand the English Language or are simply so unscrupulous as to pass off whatever gibberish you wish to make some silly point or another.

The piece in question is titled MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION and the document is a WH document. It is the description chosen by the WH.

It is entirely possible that media thought they were getting a transcript. It is also entirely possible that the WH thought it would provide a transcript and then thought better of it. All those ellipsis in the MEMORANDUM are interesting and bear some investigation by the relevant parties.

In any event, a memorandum is not a transcript and a transcript is not a memorandum and no amount of gibberish will make them the same thing. But go ahead....take your credibility to zero. Seems pretty popular today.

 

[JMR]

Thank you for providing us with unsupported claims. Unfortunately for your false trope, the rest of us can read what's on the internet. Try using Google because "all outlets" have not referred to is solely as a memorandum or "reconstructed transcript". Among them:

"Schumer says Ukraine call transcript "damaging"...
REUTERS

"White House releases transcript of call with Ukraine"
ABC NEWS

"WSJ: Mike Pence advised against releasing rough transcript of Ukraine call"
MSNBC

"Ukraine transcript: Read the Trump-Ukraine..."
CBS NEWS

"Trump Ukraine call transcript released"
CBSNEWS

"Transcript of Donald Trump's Ukraine phone call shows..."
TELEGRAPH

"Trump releases transcript of Ukraine phone call..."
POLITICO

"Annotated transcript: Trump's call...", "rough transcript"
WASHINGTON POST

As I previously pointed out, unlike the denial of a previous poster, it was a transcript. He (or you) might not like it, you may think it incomplete, rough, or "not-full" but anyone whose brain is larger than a pea knows its a transcription, sent by memo; i.e. a transcript.

It doesn't matter if I think it is incomplete, rough, or not full....it matters that it is not a full and accurate "transcript" as anyone with a brain larger than a pea would recognize. Finding 100 more references to people calling it a transcript will not turn it into one.

 

[Rich2018]

So ACT ONE, ends. The WBlower complaint and the transcripts have amounted to yet another bout of Democratic gasbag hysteria over nothing.

1) Trump asked a favor of Ukraine to examine what happened with the 2016 election look into the rumor of Ukraine having the (missing?) DNC server. He mentions the name Crowdstrike, involved in analyzing the hack. (U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating the role the Ukraine played in the FBI investigation).

2) Trump mentions a rumor about Biden's son and Biden's bragging about getting a prosecution shut down. Would like the Ukraine to look at that, and assist the AG who will be in touch. Giuliani to work on the other matters mentioned above.

That's It! What a dud...

and that impeachable offense is enough

- Trump did not urge "eight times" to work with Giuliani to hamper the 2020 elections.
- Even an electron microscope could not locate where Trump demanded a quid pro quo for aid.
- Trump did not ask for a Ukrainian legal investigation of Joe Biden or Hunter Biden.

So other than Trump's usual habits of unseemly allusions and obtuseness to protocol (Giuliani should not be used for official state business), its a 98.8 percent nothing burger.

Stayed tuned for the predictable "grasping at straws" by Trump haters in Act 2. The impeachment show trial must go on!

98.8% ? Another figure Republicans pull out of their ass


Trump violated the law. He committed gross crimes that violated the security of the country he swore to serve but just served his own interests instead.


He needs to be thrown out of office and then tried for tax evasion and fraud and if convicted thrown into jail.


What size do you want that orange jump suit ?

 

[maxparrish]

It doesn't matter if I think it is incomplete, rough, or not full....it matters that it is not a full and accurate "transcript" as anyone with a brain larger than a pea would recognize. Finding 100 more references to people calling it a transcript will not turn it into one.

Nor will matter that your inability to accept the terms of the professional media, most of them also liberal, turns a transcript into something else. You are entitled to argue that it is incomplete or not full transcription of all words spoken...what you can't sensibly argue is that is not in fact, a transcription of words spoken (i.e. a transcript).

 

[RaleBulgarian]

So ACT ONE, ends. The WBlower complaint and the transcripts have amounted to yet another bout of Democratic gasbag hysteria over nothing.

1) Trump asked a favor of Ukraine to examine what happened with the 2016 election look into the rumor of Ukraine having the (missing?) DNC server. He mentions the name Crowdstrike, involved in analyzing the hack. (U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating the role the Ukraine played in the FBI investigation).

2) Trump mentions a rumor about Biden's son and Biden's bragging about getting a prosecution shut down. Would like the Ukraine to look at that, and assist the AG who will be in touch. Giuliani to work on the other matters mentioned above.

That's It! What a dud... among the pratfalls by the press and Dems:

- Trump did not urge "eight times" to work with Giuliani to hamper the 2020 elections.
- Even an electron microscope could not locate where Trump demanded a quid pro quo for aid.
- Trump did not ask for a Ukrainian legal investigation of Joe Biden or Hunter Biden.

So other than Trump's usual habits of unseemly allusions and obtuseness to protocol (Giuliani should not be used for official state business), its a 98.8 percent nothing burger.

Stayed tuned for the predictable "grasping at straws" by Trump haters in Act 2. The impeachment show trial must go on!

Have you always been so gullible and not so smart?

 

[jnug]

Nor will matter that your inability to accept the terms of the professional media, most of them also liberal, turns a transcript into something else. You are entitled to argue that it is incomplete or not full transcription of all words spoken...what you can't sensibly argue is that is not in fact, a transcription of words spoken (i.e. a transcript).

Media covering government has to go with what they are being given. If they were told Transcript by the government agency announcing a release of information then that would be what they would have to go with until they had the document and even then, somebody would have had to look carefully to see how the document was titled. This is on the WH. Its their doc and they have titled it Memorandum of Telephone Conversation. Not being able to accept that would be YOUR PROBLEM.

All those ellipsis more than says a Memorandum and not a Transcript. The lack of any grammatical pauses says Memorandum and not Transcript and the title of the document says MEMORANDUM, not TRANSCRIPT.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Funny how you have to reorder there conversation and add the $ aid to make it fit your narrative. The transcript is out and it doesn't support your allegations.

It more than supports jasper’s allegation.
YouTube
Pull your head out of the sand and start facing the reality that Trump is as crooked a son of a bitch as they come. His whole life’s history is a testament to it.

 

[maxparrish]

Transcript from Marriam Webster:
a : a written, printed, or typed copy
especially : a usually typed copy of dictated or recorded material
b : an official or legal and often published copy

Memorandum from Marriam Webster:
an informal record
also : a written reminder
2 : an informal written record of an agreement that has not yet become official
3a : an informal diplomatic (see DIPLOMATIC sense 2) communication
b : a usually brief communication written for interoffice circulation

As I have so often said, some of you boys either do not understand the English Language or are simply so unscrupulous as to pass off whatever gibberish you wish to make some silly point or another.

The piece in question is titled MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION and the document is a WH document. It is the description chosen by the WH.

It is entirely possible that media thought they were getting a transcript. It is also entirely possible that the WH thought it would provide a transcript and then thought better of it. All those ellipsis in the MEMORANDUM are interesting and bear some investigation by the relevant parties.

In any event, a memorandum is not a transcript and a transcript is not a memorandum and no amount of gibberish will make them the same thing. But go ahead....take your credibility to zero. Seems pretty popular today.

Us "boys" include most of the mainstream professional journalists and editors in America - thanks for pointing that out. To continue:

First, arguments that attempt to ignore something that indisputably exists (such as a transcription of words spoken) through the pedantic use of a dictionary is as pointless as claiming the sun does not exist because a dictionary calls it "a star". Amusing but a dumb and obviously discredited rhetorical ploy.

Second, even using your own picked dictionary citation, the transcription fits the definition of "a: written, printed, or typed copy" of "recorded material". That is, it is a transcript.

Third, you might note that IF you insist that a transcript can't be also be a memorandum (which you claimed), then you are claiming that the document provided by the Trump Administration is mislabeled because it can't really be a memorandum. A double-edged sword to your word gaming, no?

Four, what should be obvious to you, by now, is that it is a transcription of literal words and sentences spoken (which NONE have challenged) conveyed IN a memorandum (informally or otherwise) is BOTH transcript and memorandum. There is nothing impossible in being both because, as your eyeballs and reading skills should tell you, IT LITERALLY EXISTS.

Finally, for the record, you should note that the Oxford Dictionary underscores the meaning of a transcript "a usually typed copy of recorded material", which you see it is. These are not paraphrases, characterizations, or second party summaries...the dialog is explicitly identified by speaker.

Case closed.