Daily Mail: Purple Heart vet tells Congress the White House REMOVED words and phrases from the transcript of President Trump's call with the Ukrainian president and claims his efforts to make the corrections were ignored
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council's top Ukraine expert, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of the July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president was ‘mostly accurate’ but missed key words or crucial phrases that he tried – and failed – to have corrected.
Such omissions, Vindman said, included Trump’s proclamation that there were recordings of former Vice President Joe Biden discussing Ukrainian corruption, and the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, directly mentioning the energy company who employed Hunter Biden to its board, Burisma Holdings.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The above headline implies one thing, but when you read into the story you find the following ....
.... Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council's top Ukraine expert, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of the July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president was ‘mostly accurate’ but missed key words or crucial phrases that he tried – and failed – to have corrected.
So if the phone call was "mostly accurate", why the fuss?
Here is my perspective as someone who has been involved in translation. When translating a discussion we always find ourselves in a situation where some words and phrases are interpreted differently by different people. It is even more difficult when English is being used but it is not the translator's first language .... as in my case (Russian is my first language), or in the case of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (his first language is Ukrainian). It is why translating instantaneously is always difficult, and why we can never be 100% accurate. Personally, I have seen over the years my fair share of people becoming very frustrated at the translator when they felt that their remarks were not being conveyed properly. Here is another point. When I was translating and/or listening into a conversation where translation was an integral part of the discussion, I can never remember later on the precise details on what was discussed (just the generalities). After-all, my focus was on translating and not remembering precisely what was discussed. But somehow Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman did remember precise details? It makes me wonder if he really did say that what the media is telling us he said. And that is why I find the media reports on Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's testimony questionable. This testimony was held behind closed doors for ten hours, and what we are hearing from the media are just leaks that they got from Democrats on what they want us to hear. Can that be accurate? In my book the answer is no.
More News On The National Security Council's Top Ukraine Expert Testifying That President Trump's Ukraine Phone Call Raised National Security Concerns
Colonel testifies he raised concerns about Ukraine, Trump -- AP
White House adviser tells lawmakers Trump Ukraine call raised national security concerns -- Reuters
'Extremely disturbing': Top Democrats alarmed over Vindman's testimony on Trump-Ukraine call -- NBC
Trump impeachment: Officer Alexander Vindman raised alarm over Ukraine call -- BBC
Senior House Democrat calls Purple Heart vet's closed door impeachment testimony 'extremely disturbing' as Donald Trump blasts witness as 'Never Trumper' and allies accuse Ukrainian language speaker of dual loyalty and 'espionage' -- Daily Mail
Republicans and Democrats face off in 'shouting match' over 'plot to out whistleblower' during impeachment hearing behind closed doors -- Daily Mail
