The whistleblower's summary of the White House official's account of the call largely comports with the call record released by the White House, though some details are missing.
My impression, from a comparison with the actual call transcript, is that the memo is very tendentious. It definitely cannot be said, without serious qualification to "comport with" the call transcript.
For example, the claim is made that the call was "completely lacking in substance related to national security." OK. Supposing that to be the case, must phone calls between heads of state always involve "national security?" Moreover, "national security" is susceptible of broad interpretation. Might not the integrity of our elections, especially when foreign money is involved, be a national security concern? I believe so.
The president is said to have asked Ukrainian authorities to "investigate his political rivals, chiefly former Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter." "Rivals" is plural, yet only one such rival is mentioned in the transcript: Joe Biden. Hunter Biden is not a political rival--just a sleaze. Further, the notion that political rivals of a president are somehow ipso facto immune from investigation is extraordinary--and stupid. But this characterization of the conversation is readily seen from the transcript to be tendentious in the extreme, to the point of outright misrepresentation.
The claim that Trump asked Zelenskyy to meet with Giuliani and that Zelenskyy "reluctantly agreed" is a clear falsehood. Zelenskyy introduced and repeately pushed the idea of talking to Giuliani. Also false is the claim that Zelenskyy "demurred ... to most of the president's requests."
The clear takeaway is that Sammy Two is unreliable as a source of actual information, and probably a liar.
26 July 2019
The following is a record of a conversation I had this afternoon with a White House official about the telephone call yesterday morning between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The official who listened to the entirety of the phone call was visibly shaken by what had transpired and seemed keen to inform a trusted colleague within the U.S. national security apparatus about the call. After my call with this official I [redacted] returned to my office, and wrote up my best recollection of what I had heard.
The official described the call as "crazy," "frightening" and "completely lacking in substance related to national security." The official asserted that the President used the call to persuade Ukrainian authorities to investigate his political rivals, chiefly former Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter. The official stated that there was already a conversation underway with White House lawyers about how to handle the discussion because, in the official's view, the President had clearly committed a criminal act by urging a foreign power to investigate a U.S. person for the purposes of advancing his own reelection bid in 2020.
The phone call lasted approximately half an hour. The two leaders spoke through interpreters. My conversation with the official only lasted a few minutes, and as a result, I only received highlights:
The official described the call as "crazy," "frightening" and "completely lacking in substance related to national security." The official asserted that the President used the call to persuade Ukrainian authorities to investigate his political rivals, chiefly former Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter. The official stated that there was already a conversation underway with White House lawyers about how to handle the discussion because, in the official's view, the President had clearly committed a criminal act by urging a foreign power to investigate a U.S. person for the purposes of advancing his own reelection bid in 2020.
The phone call lasted approximately half an hour. The two leaders spoke through interpreters. My conversation with the official only lasted a few minutes, and as a result, I only received highlights:
- The President asserted that "it all started in Ukraine," referring to the allegations of foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the subsequent investigation into the Trump campaign's contact with Russian individuals
- The President asked Zelenskyy to locate the "Crowdstrike server" and turn it over to the United States, claiming that Crowdstrike is "a Ukrainian company," (Note: This appears to be a reference to the DNC server from which Russian hackers stole data and emails that were subsequently leaked in mid-2016; the DNC hired cyber security firm Crowdstrike to do the forensic analysis, which informed the FBI's investigation. It is not clear what the president was referring to when he claimed Crowdstrike is a Ukrainian company; one of its cofounders was born in Moscow.)
- The President told Zelenskyy that he would be sending his personal lawyer, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to Ukraine soon and requested that Zelenskyy meet with him. Zelenskyy reluctantly agreed that, if Giuliani traveled to Ukraine, he would see him.
- The President raised the case of Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden's role in the company, and former Vice President Biden's role in setting Ukraine policy. The President urged Zelenskyy to [end page 1] investigate the Bidens and stated that Giuliani would discuss this topic further with Zelenskyy during his trip to Kyiv.
- The President urged Zelenskyy not to fire Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, who the President claimed was doing a good job. (Note: Lutsenko has spearheaded various politicized investigations, including on Burisma Holdings and alleged "Ukrainian interference" in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Lutsenko is widely reviled in Ukraine, and Zelenskyy has pledged to fire him but has been unable to secure approval from the legislature.)
- The President stated that he wanted Attorney General William Barr to speak with Zelenskyy as soon as possible. (Note: It was not clear whether this conversation was to be in reference to Crowdstrike or the investigations of the Bidens.)
- The President reiterated his concern that Zelenskyy was surrounded by people who were enemies of the President, including "bad oligarchs."
The President did not raise security assistance. According to the official, Zelenskyy demurred in response to most of the President's requests.
I did not review a transcript or written notes, but the official informed me that they exist.
I did not review a transcript or written notes, but the official informed me that they exist.
- The standard White House practice for Presidential-level phone calls with world leaders is for the White House Situation Room to produce a word-for-word electronic transcript that memorializes the call. The transcript is typically then circulated to key White House officials to be transformed into a formal memorandum that is distributed as an eyes-only document, to the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Director of the CIA.
- In this case, the official told me that such a transcript had indeed been produced and was being treated very sensitively, in hard copy only. Moreover, several additional senior White House officials listened to the entire phone call in an adjacent room in the Situation Room suite and they presumably took written notes on the call.
- The official did not know whether the President was aware that other people were listening and that the call was being transcribed. The official also was not certain whether anyone else was in the Oval Office with the President during the call.
- On the Ukrainian side, it is unclear who listened to the call or whether a record was produced.
The "memo" is clearly a partisan effort to "spin" the contents of the phone call into a narrative used for the purpose of a political advantage.
ReplyDeletePretty pathetic and dishonest.
DeleteI am starting to form the theory that the man behind all of this is Bill Taylor (He is Sammy #2). I think that text to Sondland was deliberately place by Taylor, but he didn't expect to get pushed back by Sondland in the reply- he thought the undenied accusation would just lie there until "uncovered" when he gave his phone to the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteThis is my prediction- Bill Taylor is Sammy#2.
Yeah, I read that this morning and his texts were clearly very fishy, intended to give a wrong impression. It looked like he was deliberately trying to create what we used to call a "paper" trail. The use of the word "crazy" in both contexts is interesting. The call transcript blows all this nonsense out of the water.
DeleteMy understanding is that Taylor would not have been in the White House for the phone call, but would have learned about it from the Ukrainians? This, too, would "comport with" Mike's theory of a Ukraine specialist involved, which makes perfect sense.
An interesting thing about Taylor's texts is that his superior told him, hey, you're "incorrect" about Trump's intent, but if you can't let go of it RAISE THE ISSUE THROUGH CHANNELS.
That wasn't done--SURPRISE!
I didn't know that the President had to explain or clear his actions with subordinate and unelected members of the executive branch, to include the IC. That must be found in Article VIII.
ReplyDeleteYeah. That comes right after the part that states that the President may only speak to foreign leaders on national security matters.
DeleteAnd just before the part that says abortion is perfectly legal.
DeleteRight. It's all in the penumbras.
Delete(Note: Lutsenko has spearheaded various politicized investigations, including on Burisma Holdings and alleged "Ukrainian interference" in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Lutsenko is widely reviled in Ukraine, and Zelenskyy has pledged to fire him but has been unable to secure approval from the legislature.)
ReplyDeleteThis parenthetical note inside the memo indicates to me that the memo was written by a Ukraine specialist.
Following up my previous comment:
DeleteI think the memo writer was a Ukraine specialist in the CIA who was assigned to Vice President Biden because Biden had been assigned to be President Obama's "point man" for Ukrainian issues. As such, the memo writer personally informed and advised Biden's pressuring the Ukrainian Government to fire the troublesome Ukrainian prosecutor.
I agree with Yancey's guess that the memo writer was informed about the telephone conversation by Bill Taylor.
The Wikipedia article about Taylor indicates that Taylor was the US Ambassador to Ukraine during 2006-2009 and then again became the acting ambassador in June 2019 (because the incumbent ambassador had been fired). During the interim between those two Ukraine assignments, Taylor was busy with Middle East affairs.
The CIA-Ukraine-specialist memo writer and Taylor might have been involved with each other during Taylor's 2006-2009 ambassadorship. Certainly that memo writer would have at least briefed Taylor when Taylor became the acting Ukraine ambassador in June 2019.
The official who listened to the entirety of the phone call was visibly shaken by what had transpired and seemed keen to inform a trusted colleague within the U.S. national security apparatus about the call. After my call with this official I [redacted] returned to my office, and wrote up my best recollection of what I had heard.
ReplyDeleteThe memo writer is a trusted colleague of the White House official who heard President Trump's conversation.
The memo writer remarks that the White House official who heard President Trump's conversation was visibly shaken. Since the initial conversation between the two colleagues was done by telephone, the memo writer would know that his colleague was visibly shaken only if the memo writer actually saw his colleague immediately afterwards.
Therefore, the redacted part of the above passage must indicate that right after the telephone conversation between the memo writer walked to his colleague's office to continue their phone conversation in person.
Therefore the two White House colleagues have offices that are within a short walking distance.
I am starting to form the theory that the man behind all of this is Bill Taylor (He is Sammy #2).
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that theory is that the memo writer calls his colleague "a White House official".
I now think that the memo writer is a CIA analyst, a Ukraine specialist, who had been assigned to Vice President Biden because Biden had been assigned to be President Obama's "point man" on Ukraine issues. While the writer had been assigned to Biden, he himself had enjoyed the temporary status of "White House official".
Perhaps the memo writer had been removed from that White House status after the Obama Administration was replaced by the Trump Administration.
Eventually, in July 2019, some other CIA analyst was assigned to serve as an advisor -- as a "White House official" -- just as the memo writer previously occupied the same temporary White House status.
They are "trusted colleagues" because both are CIA analysts specializing in Ukraine issues.
Sammy #1 had been such "a White House official" during the Obama Administration, and Sammy #2 now is "a White House official" during the Trump Administration. These White House positions are temporary. Both colleagues are basically are CIA analysts.
Although such CIA analysts temporarily are called "White House officials", their own offices continue to be in the CIA headquarters. By calling his CIA colleague "a White House official", the memo writer disguises his CIA colleague somewhat in this memo.
After Sammy #2 heard President Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian President, he immediately phoned Sammy #1, because Sammy #1 had been Vice President Biden's advisor about Ukraine and had been involved in Biden's pressuring Ukraine to fire the prosecutor.
--------
So, after Sammy #2 hears President Trump's telephone conversation, which is supposed to be secret, Sammy #2 phones Sammy #1 and tells him about Trump's secret telephone conversation. I assume that the telephone conversation between these two colleagues was done on their personal cell phones or office phones and were not encrypted.
I imagine that Sammy #2 was driving from the White House to his CIA office, and he used his cell phone to all Sammy #1 while driving his car on the way. After Sammy #2 reached his office in CIA headquarter, Sammy #1 walked to Sammy #2's office and saw in person that Sammy #2 was "visibly shaken".
A passage in the memo is redacted because that passage indicates that Sammy #1 was able to walk just a short distance from his own office to Sammy #2's office in CIA headquarters.
=====
Why were these two CIA analysts so upset by President Trump's phone conversation? As CIA analysts, they are supposed to be calm and objective.
I speculate that these two CIA analysts were worried that Trump's investigation of Biden's shenanigans in Ukraine might embarrass the CIA as an institution. More specifically, Trump's investigation might embarrass Sammy #1, who had informed and advised Biden to pressure Ukraine to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor.
The CIA -- specifically Sammy #1 -- had provided the arguments and justification to Biden.
Biden probably wanted to get that Ukrainian prosecutor fired anyway -- because Biden's son was endangered -- but Biden needed some justification. Biden needed some proof that the Ukrainian prosecutor deserved to be fired. So, Biden asked Sammy #1 to give him the necessary proof. Therefore Sammy #1 gave Biden the proof, with the knowledge and cooperation
Holmes could not have said it better.
DeleteTom S.
Maybe Sammy 1 and Sammy 2 are the same person and the deception is made to cloud the issue.
DeleteMike is engaged in a useful exercise but, like you, I'm withholding judgment. Lots of possible variables as well as disinformation. We'll know soon enough.
DeleteI stopped in mid-sentence (.... knowledge and cooperation) because my keyboard battery died and I did not have any replacement batteries.
DeleteI think this was God's way to make me stop writing such long, speculative comments.
LOL! But I never heard of a keyboard running on batteries. Do you mean you have keyboard for a laptop? I'm strictly a desktop guy.
DeleteMy desktop computer has an unattached keyboard that runs on batteries.
DeleteBy keeping most everyone in the dark about the identity of Sammy #1 & #2, it creates an aura of mystery which substitutes for credibility. /the focus is turned towards filling-in-the-blanks of identity and circumstance, rather than the substance of the "complaint"--which is hearsay and concerns policy, not national security and/or foreign intelligence, strictly speaking.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the release of the phone transcript should've put an end to the purported controversy, but in Hitchcockian (rather than Holmesian) terms, the introduction of a McGuffin--Sammy #1--takes us down another rabbit hole (adding the Alice in Wonderland fantasy to this tale).
True. Sooner rather than later, though, people will catch on to the scam, just like with Kavanaugh.
DeleteNot on topic, exactly, but just watched the USA SDNY presser about the arrest of the two Ukrainians that at least one commentator referred to as "close" associates of Rudy Giuliani. Between them the USA and director of the FBI NY Field Ofc stated three times that the investigation was continuing, meaning these are not the only indictments coming and the conspiracy is broader than these two.
ReplyDeleteJust so happens the Ambassador to the Ukraine, that they supposedly bought access through campaign contributions to lobby for the removal of, is testifying tomorrow, in secret, to a Congressional Committee conducting an "impeachment inquiry".
What did Schumer say, "Six ways from Christmas."
Tom S.
I'm just so sick of the US Government. That's a sad thing to say because I am a federal employee.
ReplyDeleteThe moral relativism, sleight of hand, rationalizations, contortions, and false equivalency is enough to make me gag. And the comments like "could", "may've", etc., are lies of omission.