New Transcript Drops Before Impeachment Hearing

New Transcript Drops Before Impeachment Hearing

New Transcript Drops Before Impeachment Hearing

Never let it be said that the Trump administration doesn’t have a great sense of timing, as a second transcript was released just before the impeachment hearing opened this morning.

This transcript, which is of the very first phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, is very vanilla and mostly congratulatory. The call was made back in April, when Zelensky won his election.

Trump took the April 21 call with Volodymyr Zelensky while aboard Air Force One. The conversation predated the highly controversial conversation between the two presidents on July 25, which prompted the House’s impeachment inquiry.

But in the transcript of the call released Friday, much of which is formal congratulations, Trump invites Zelensky to the White House, without any mention of investigations — as was the case in the July 25 phone call.

“When you’re settled in and ready, I’d like to invite you to the White House,” Trump says. “We’ll have a lot of things to talk about, but we’re with you all the way.”

Zelensky replies: “Well, thank you for the invitation. We accept the invitation and look forward to the visit. Thank you again. The whole team and I are looking forward to the visit.”

Zelensky also, repeatedly, invited Trump to attend his inauguration — which Trump said he would “look into,” but said “at a very minimum, we’ll have a great representative. Or more than one from the United States will be with you on that great day.”

If only President Zelensky knew what he was getting into, maybe he wouldn’t have been so eager to visit the White House.

So, why release this transcript now? Congressman Devin Nunes read it into the record as the committee opened up this morning.

The White House is releasing the transcript of this first phone call now, for Nunes to use in the hearing, in order to show that there was no pressure on Ukraine or Zelensky from the beginning of their communication to investigate either corruption or Burisma or the Bidens. There’s really no evidentiary value to it, but it doesn’t hurt Trump to release it.

As the hearings continue, we are simply getting a show parade of people – right now, most of them career State Department diplomats – whose opinions and feelings Trump showed no regard for at all. Former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch is up today, and even though Adam Schiff himself admits that all diplomats serve at the pleasure of the president and can be recalled at any time, why oh why would Yovanovitch be pulled because she’s just that awesome??? At least, in Schiff’s opinion.

“Some have argued, that a president has the ability to nominate or remove any ambassador he wants, that they serve at the pleasure of the president. And that is true,” Schiff, D-Calif., said. “The question before us is not whether Donald Trump could recall an American ambassador with a stellar reputation for fighting corruption in Ukraine, but why would he want to?”

Ummm, because that’s what presidents do, including President Obama in 2008. Schiff is being deliberately disingenuous here – but is anyone surprised by that?

But because Trump is Trump, we heard his reaction immediately on Twitter.

And because Adam Schiff has his aides monitoring the president’s Twitter feed, he immediately fed these tweets to Yovanovitch, while she was testifying, to get her reaction. Because this isn’t bad reality TV at all, uh-uh, nopity nope nope, this is SERIOUS BUSINESS. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE TWEETS, AND MAKE IT GOOD. DO YOU FEEL INTIMIDATED BY A TWEET?

When back from a break in the hearing, Congressman Nunes suggested that maybe Yovanovitch should be taking this up with HR, not with the impeachment inquiry.

Yeah, Trump tweeting about this in real time is not great, but neither is Schiff squeeing with glee and running with it to the hearing. And Schiff looking like a jerk to Congresswoman Elise Stefanik is also a very bad look. What, Schiff, you can’t handle a woman asking questions of your witness? What a jackass.

Honestly, would anyone have blamed Devin Nunes if he had planted his fist in Adam Schiff’s smug face at that moment? (I was actually hoping that Elise Stefanik would walk over and slap him herself, but Nunes was sitting next to this prick.)

The impeachment follies will continue, with all the people whose feelings President Trump has hurt at the forefront, until we actually get to someone that Trump actually talked to about Ukraine. Remember, these hearings are supposed to be taken seriously. It’s really hard to do that when the hearing sounds like complaints being filed against a boss you don’t like who fired you.

Featured image via Pixabay, Pixabay license, cropped

Written by

  • Kevin says:

    Anyone that has ever managed, directed, supervised others or if the position you held had influence/power over an employee, as the person in power, you would never publicly discuss or reference an employee especially if you were displeased for whatever reason. In addition, you would never speak to another person or organization about that person … ever. I know this site routinely references career government employees as “deep state.” I have lived (and do today) in foreign countries when another political party comes to power and ousts all the previous administrations people … everyone. Not only political appointees but the entry level paper pusher. It’s chaos. Systems are not followed, no one knows the rules, the person overseeing one office doesn’t have a relationship with the person in another office so there’s no ability to cross systems to get things done. Is that what you’re desperately searching for? It takes years, especially in high level complex organizations, to understand the system, the people, and the problems in order to do an effective job.

    Is anyone that has spent 30 years in a position/organization/business a “deep state” mole? Isn’t that how employment worked in America up until the last 20 years or so? (Younger employees tend to move around a lot versus in the past when someone remained for a long period in one agency. It was once a negative for future employers; not so much today.) You finish your education (high school, college, trade school, whatever) and go to work in the field of your interest/training/experience and then work up to a higher position (if that’s what you wanted) and then 30 years later retire and go on a cruise with your spouse to Hawaii. Now, anyone that’s worked in a place for longer than a few years is considered the enemy and a “deep state” mole? We all have family and friends who’ve spent decades at one job and it’s admirable. At least it was.

    It’s so sad to see the Republicans tearing apart the fabric of society just so they can keep in power a President that only cares about himself and his family. There have been at least 34 people that have been indicted and convicted of crimes associated with working for Mr. Trump. (Is it 34 with Roger Stone’s conviction today?) More than any other President … ever. That should tell you the company he keeps. Here’s going to be horribly sad thing to those that are supporting him blindly … Mr. Trump has a history of turning against most everyone that has worked for him. It’s something he does and does it without much thought and in a cavalier manner. If it can happen to those close to him it will eventually happen to everyone else. It’s only a matter of time.

  • kevin says:

    Oops … I miscounted … 35. I wish there were a way to “edit” a post. I’ve seen some sites that give you five minutes or so to make any edits before it becomes part of the record.

    • Cameron says:

      It’s so sad to see the Republicans tearing apart the fabric of society just so they can keep in power a President that only cares about himself and his family.

      You mean like Obama deliberately trashing our health care system and stoking racial divisions while the media slurped up everything he said and trashed his dissenters as racist? Cool story bro.

      And if you honestly believe that people here are following him “blindly” I would politely suggest you stop posting and actually read the comments around here. But your concern is noted.

      • Brad says:

        Devin nunez is a smarmy political prick. Stated today that all of this is false. I guess he should be called as a witness then, as he seems to have exculpatory evidence.

  • Rdm says:

    What makes someone a ‘deep state mole’ is when they think they get to set policy instead of their boss, and that their boss setting policy THEY don’t like is somehow subverting the nation’s policy.

  • czrpb says:

    agreed! he definitely has a way of bring people together and their best, such as at the end of the hearing! hes my fav!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner