• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NSC Official Testifies He Heard Nothing Illegal On Trump-Zelensky Call, Transcript Accurate

Doc91478

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
2,778
Reaction score
790
Location
North East
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
BREAKING: NSC Official Testifies He Heard Nothing Illegal On Trump-Zelensky Call, Transcript Accurate​


BREAKING: NSC Official Testifies He Heard Nothing Illegal On Trump-Zelensky Call, Transcript Accurate
Oct. 31, 19 ~ By Timothy Meads
CBS News is reporting that Tim Morrison, the National Security Council's Senior Director for European Affairs, testified before Congress on Thursday that he heard nothing illegal on the phone call between President Donald J. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Morrison also reportedly testified that the transcript released by the White House was accurate.


Comment:
“Well, … yeah … bu, bu, bu, but, we have to impeach Trump before we know if a crime was committed.“ Indeed, this report will immediately be splashed all across CNN, MSNBC, and ABC tonight.
There have been several claims by the Whistle leaker that have already been proven false, which might explain why they don't make much mention of him anymore. It was acknowledged from the beginning that he wasn't present for the call and that his claims are based on second-hand, and in some cases, third-hand information. I keep a pretty close eye on this story, and in fact announced the identity of Whistle leaker #1 days ago. Pretty sure that Whistle leaker #2 is the Lt. Col, who we now know was working as a private advisor to Ukraine at the same time he was employed by the NSC and whose claim that the transcript was not complete were contradicted today by his NSC boss.
To me, there’s a real danger that the public would assume that the Lt. Colonel was somehow speaking for the still-serving military, or even was still on active duty. If a retired officer wants to engage in partisan debates, the military uniform shouldn’t be part of it. I believe this would affect his promotion to Colonel in the future.
The Democrat Party impeachment vote has unleashed President Trump and he will now start declassifying tons of documents. Indictments from grand juries are going to start popping up like dandelions after spring rain.
 
BREAKING: NSC Official Testifies He Heard Nothing Illegal On Trump-Zelensky Call, Transcript Accurate​


BREAKING: NSC Official Testifies He Heard Nothing Illegal On Trump-Zelensky Call, Transcript Accurate
Oct. 31, 19 ~ By Timothy Meads
CBS News is reporting that Tim Morrison, the National Security Council's Senior Director for European Affairs, testified before Congress on Thursday that he heard nothing illegal on the phone call between President Donald J. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Morrison also reportedly testified that the transcript released by the White House was accurate.


Comment:
“Well, … yeah … bu, bu, bu, but, we have to impeach Trump before we know if a crime was committed.“ Indeed, this report will immediately be splashed all across CNN, MSNBC, and ABC tonight.
There have been several claims by the Whistle leaker that have already been proven false, which might explain why they don't make much mention of him anymore. It was acknowledged from the beginning that he wasn't present for the call and that his claims are based on second-hand, and in some cases, third-hand information. I keep a pretty close eye on this story, and in fact announced the identity of Whistle leaker #1 days ago. Pretty sure that Whistle leaker #2 is the Lt. Col, who we now know was working as a private advisor to Ukraine at the same time he was employed by the NSC and whose claim that the transcript was not complete were contradicted today by his NSC boss.
To me, there’s a real danger that the public would assume that the Lt. Colonel was somehow speaking for the still-serving military, or even was still on active duty. If a retired officer wants to engage in partisan debates, the military uniform shouldn’t be part of it. I believe this would affect his promotion to Colonel in the future.
The Democrat Party impeachment vote has unleashed President Trump and he will now start declassifying tons of documents. Indictments from grand juries are going to start popping up like dandelions after spring rain.



The Dems aren't saying in the impeachment articles being drawn that there was anything illegal about the Ukraine call. Morrison is now added to the list of people confirming the quid-pro-quo that the Reps have been staking their defense of the call on as not being such. The transcript is accurate in what it says, but omits what is most critical. It just doesn't include the passages that confirm the quid-pro-quo which Vindman testified he tried unsuccessfully to have included in the transcript. You know, the transcript that Trump said was “an exact word-for-word transcript of the conversation … taken by very talented stenographers.”
 
BREAKING: NSC Official Testifies He Heard Nothing Illegal On Trump-Zelensky Call, Transcript Accurate​


BREAKING: NSC Official Testifies He Heard Nothing Illegal On Trump-Zelensky Call, Transcript Accurate
Oct. 31, 19 ~ By Timothy Meads
CBS News is reporting that Tim Morrison, the National Security Council's Senior Director for European Affairs, testified before Congress on Thursday that he heard nothing illegal on the phone call between President Donald J. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Morrison also reportedly testified that the transcript released by the White House was accurate.


Comment:
“Well, … yeah … bu, bu, bu, but, we have to impeach Trump before we know if a crime was committed.“ Indeed, this report will immediately be splashed all across CNN, MSNBC, and ABC tonight.
There have been several claims by the Whistle leaker that have already been proven false, which might explain why they don't make much mention of him anymore. It was acknowledged from the beginning that he wasn't present for the call and that his claims are based on second-hand, and in some cases, third-hand information. I keep a pretty close eye on this story, and in fact announced the identity of Whistle leaker #1 days ago. Pretty sure that Whistle leaker #2 is the Lt. Col, who we now know was working as a private advisor to Ukraine at the same time he was employed by the NSC and whose claim that the transcript was not complete were contradicted today by his NSC boss.
To me, there’s a real danger that the public would assume that the Lt. Colonel was somehow speaking for the still-serving military, or even was still on active duty. If a retired officer wants to engage in partisan debates, the military uniform shouldn’t be part of it. I believe this would affect his promotion to Colonel in the future.
The Democrat Party impeachment vote has unleashed President Trump and he will now start declassifying tons of documents. Indictments from grand juries are going to start popping up like dandelions after spring rain.

So you're saying thst Trump will abuse his power to indict people who disagree with him? And you support that. That says more about you than it does about Democrats.
 
BREAKING: NSC Official Testifies He Heard Nothing Illegal On Trump-Zelensky Call, Transcript Accurate​


BREAKING: NSC Official Testifies He Heard Nothing Illegal On Trump-Zelensky Call, Transcript Accurate
Oct. 31, 19 ~ By Timothy Meads
CBS News is reporting that Tim Morrison, the National Security Council's Senior Director for European Affairs, testified before Congress on Thursday that he heard nothing illegal on the phone call between President Donald J. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Morrison also reportedly testified that the transcript released by the White House was accurate.


Comment:
“Well, … yeah … bu, bu, bu, but, we have to impeach Trump before we know if a crime was committed.“ Indeed, this report will immediately be splashed all across CNN, MSNBC, and ABC tonight.
There have been several claims by the Whistle leaker that have already been proven false, which might explain why they don't make much mention of him anymore. It was acknowledged from the beginning that he wasn't present for the call and that his claims are based on second-hand, and in some cases, third-hand information. I keep a pretty close eye on this story, and in fact announced the identity of Whistle leaker #1 days ago. Pretty sure that Whistle leaker #2 is the Lt. Col, who we now know was working as a private advisor to Ukraine at the same time he was employed by the NSC and whose claim that the transcript was not complete were contradicted today by his NSC boss.
To me, there’s a real danger that the public would assume that the Lt. Colonel was somehow speaking for the still-serving military, or even was still on active duty. If a retired officer wants to engage in partisan debates, the military uniform shouldn’t be part of it. I believe this would affect his promotion to Colonel in the future.
The Democrat Party impeachment vote has unleashed President Trump and he will now start declassifying tons of documents. Indictments from grand juries are going to start popping up like dandelions after spring rain.

This is totally fake news. If it doesn't match the Democrat narrative it is, by definition, a lie perpetuated by a racist, Nazi Trump sycophant.
 
The Dems aren't saying in the impeachment articles being drawn that there was anything illegal about the Ukraine call. Morrison is now added to the list of people confirming the quid-pro-quo that the Reps have been staking their defense of the call on as not being such. The transcript is accurate in what it says, but omits what is most critical. It just doesn't include the passages that confirm the quid-pro-quo which Vindman testified he tried unsuccessfully to have included in the transcript. You know, the transcript that Trump said was “an exact word-for-word transcript of the conversation … taken by very talented stenographers.”

Sorry, but Morrison did NOT confirm any quid pro quo. In fact, just the opposite.

Morrison testified that Ukrainian officials were not even aware that certain military funding had been delayed by the Trump administration until late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call, casting doubt on allegations that Trump somehow conveyed an illegal quid pro quo demand during the July 25 call.

“I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the [military funding] review until August 28, 2019,” Morrison said. That is the same day that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chief anti-Trump inquisitor in the U.S. House of Representatives, disclosed on Twitter that funding had been held up. Politico also published a story that day, sourced to anonymous leaks, that military funding had been temporarily held up.

NSC Official Tim Morrison To Schiff: Nothing Illegal In Trump-Zelensky Call

I'm thinking Vindman tried to get some bogus stuff added to the transcript. His boss...Morrison...isn't having it.

Schifftileak's game just got screwed. Heck, he's not even going to have the original whistle blower testify.

A source familiar with the discussions told the Washington Examiner that talks halted over potential testimony from the whistleblower and there is no discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first’s claims.

“There is no indication that either of the original whistleblowers will be called to testify or appear before the Senate or House Intelligence committees. There is no further discussion ongoing between the legal team and the committees,” the person said.

'No further discussion': Talks halt between whistleblower lawyers and Schiff staff amid expectation he won’t testify
 
So you're saying thst Trump will abuse his power to indict people who disagree with him? And you support that. That says more about you than it does about Democrats.


~~~~~~
You mean how Gen Flynn was indicted by the power of the former administration?
 
Sorry, but Morrison did NOT confirm any quid pro quo. In fact, just the opposite.



I'm thinking Vindman tried to get some bogus stuff added to the transcript. His boss...Morrison...isn't having it.

Schifftileak's game just got screwed. Heck, he's not even going to have the original whistle blower testify.

Um, he admitted what was said. He did not dispute it, therefore he corroborated what every witness has said that POTUS did. Do you get it now?
 
BREAKING: NSC Official Testifies He Heard Nothing Illegal On Trump-Zelensky Call, Transcript Accurate​


BREAKING: NSC Official Testifies He Heard Nothing Illegal On Trump-Zelensky Call, Transcript Accurate
Oct. 31, 19 ~ By Timothy Meads
CBS News is reporting that Tim Morrison, the National Security Council's Senior Director for European Affairs, testified before Congress on Thursday that he heard nothing illegal on the phone call between President Donald J. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Morrison also reportedly testified that the transcript released by the White House was accurate.


Comment:
“Well, … yeah … bu, bu, bu, but, we have to impeach Trump before we know if a crime was committed.“ Indeed, this report will immediately be splashed all across CNN, MSNBC, and ABC tonight.
There have been several claims by the Whistle leaker that have already been proven false, which might explain why they don't make much mention of him anymore. It was acknowledged from the beginning that he wasn't present for the call and that his claims are based on second-hand, and in some cases, third-hand information. I keep a pretty close eye on this story, and in fact announced the identity of Whistle leaker #1 days ago. Pretty sure that Whistle leaker #2 is the Lt. Col, who we now know was working as a private advisor to Ukraine at the same time he was employed by the NSC and whose claim that the transcript was not complete were contradicted today by his NSC boss.
To me, there’s a real danger that the public would assume that the Lt. Colonel was somehow speaking for the still-serving military, or even was still on active duty. If a retired officer wants to engage in partisan debates, the military uniform shouldn’t be part of it. I believe this would affect his promotion to Colonel in the future.
The Democrat Party impeachment vote has unleashed President Trump and he will now start declassifying tons of documents. Indictments from grand juries are going to start popping up like dandelions after spring rain.

If the call was accurate as Morrison said then POTUS entered into a quid pro quo, thus confirming what everyone testifying has sworn to.
 
Um, he admitted what was said. He did not dispute it, therefore he corroborated what every witness has said that POTUS did. Do you get it now?

Sorry, but you are STILL wrong.

Every witness said "I think blah, blah, blah." Morrison said "I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed."
 
Sorry, but you are STILL wrong.

Every witness said "I think blah, blah, blah." Morrison said "I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed."

That was his opinion and it still corroborates what the other witnesses testified to. He was a factual witness. He did not refute what the others said. Get it?
 
That was his opinion and it still corroborates what the other witnesses testified to. He was a factual witness. He did not refute what the others said. Get it?

sigh...

Okay. What, specifically, do you think Morrison "corroborates"?
 
sigh...

Okay. What, specifically, do you think Morrison "corroborates"?

That the conversation happened. He confirmed that 45 made aid contingent on getting dirt on the Biden's. He was a FACT witness. He corroborated the testimony of the others.
 
That the conversation happened. He confirmed that 45 made aid contingent on getting dirt on the Biden's. He was a FACT witness. He corroborated the testimony of the others.

We all know the conversation happened. Heck, we've all read the transcript. There was never any question that the conversation happened.

Morrison did not say anything about "aid contingent on getting dirt on the Biden's". Neither did Trump nor the transcript.

What else do you think Morrison corroborated?
 
If the call was accurate as Morrison said then POTUS entered into a quid pro quo, thus confirming what everyone testifying has sworn to.

~~~~~~
Here's the declassified transcript from the conversation between presidents Zelensky and Trump. please indicate or highlight where the Quid Pro Quo is announced by Trump.. See Page three....

Trump-Zelensky transcript
Uploaded byBreitbart News
Description:
President Donald Trump on Wednesday released the full transcript of his phone call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.Full description
Trump-Zelensky trancript | Government | Politics
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but Morrison did NOT confirm any quid pro quo. In fact, just the opposite.



I'm thinking Vindman tried to get some bogus stuff added to the transcript. His boss...Morrison...isn't having it.

Schifftileak's game just got screwed. Heck, he's not even going to have the original whistle blower testify.



“Sorry, but Morrison did NOT confirm any quid pro quo. In fact, just the opposite.”

You're not sorry.

The following is an excerpt from the text of Morrison’s testimony of his listening-in on the Ukraine call:

‘On page 10 of Ambassador Taylor's statement, he recounts a conversation I relayed to him regarding Ambassador Sondland's conversation with Ukrainian Presidential Advisor Yermak. Ambassador Taylor wrote: "Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until President Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation." My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland's proposal to Mr. Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general—not President Zelensky—would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation.’

As readers who can admit to honest comprehension, perhaps not you, can see, Morrison heard on the call that assistance from the US to the Ukraine would not happen unless the Ukraine investigated Burisma.

You didn’t address the fact that Trump lied about the verbatim of the “transcript”.

“I'm thinking Vindman tried to get some bogus stuff added to the transcript. His boss...Morrison...isn't having it.”

You're thinking is wrong. What was bogus about what Vindman said in testimony? Anybody else testifying that would make what Vindman said bogus?

“Schifftileak's game just got screwed. Heck, he's not even going to have the original whistle blower testify.”

Screwed, how so?

The original WB is not needed because officials directly involved have come forward to confirm what the WB said.
 
I'd advise the president not to have a fireside chat and read the partial summary of the conversation. If he does it will a confession.;)
 
The Dems aren't saying in the impeachment articles being drawn that there was anything illegal about the Ukraine call. Morrison is now added to the list of people confirming the quid-pro-quo that the Reps have been staking their defense of the call on as not being such. The transcript is accurate in what it says, but omits what is most critical. It just doesn't include the passages that confirm the quid-pro-quo which Vindman testified he tried unsuccessfully to have included in the transcript. You know, the transcript that Trump said was “an exact word-for-word transcript of the conversation … taken by very talented stenographers.”

Actually, Morrison established that IN HIS OPINION what transpired in the phone call was not illegal or improper. But investigators are interested in what he heard, saw, and did - they are not (rightly IMO) much interested in his personal judgement of was is proper or legal. In the words of Dragnet's Sgt. Friday, "Just the facts please".

So the facts he reports, if accurately reported, underscore that the transcript (sans Vindmsn's quibbles over exact words used) shows what seems to be accurate: that in pursuit of the great things the US does (or will do) for Ukraine, Trump wanted "a favor", an investigation of Biden and his son's role in the Ukraine. More importantly Morrison's testimony on other evidence is reported to back Taylor's account over other the demand negotiations, than that of Sondland.

In short, Morrison reported that per Sondland, Trump wanted the Ukrainians to promise and announce that the Burisma probe would be reopened and that it wasn’t good enough to just reopen it; but had to be publicly known. There was even talk of Zelensky doing an interview with CNN to announce to the world that Hunter Biden’s company was being investigated in the Ukraine.

When combined with Taylor and Vindman's testimony regarding Bolton tossing these folks (with two Ukrainian officials) out of his office for discussing improper subjects, and the followup meeting, well Sondland is the only guy in denial. If so, either he lied about what Trump told him (and that he passed on to others) OR he is telling the truth and trying to cover for Trump.

Not good.
 
Last edited:
My inside sources confirm that the transcript did leave out one thing Trump said:

"Someday - and that day may never come - I'll call upon you to do a "favor" for me. But until that day, accept this "justice" as a gift from me..."

Oh wait, my bad. That was Don Corleone. My mistake.
 
So you're saying thst Trump will abuse his power to indict people who disagree with him? And you support that. That says more about you than it does about Democrats.

Define presidential abuse of power? Surely all presidents use their position and their bully pulpit. Are you claiming that the former presidents did not abuse their power of office?
 
Define presidential abuse of power? Surely all presidents use their position and their bully pulpit. Are you claiming that the former presidents did not abuse their power of office?

I'm saying just handing out indictments and prison time for the crime of disagreeing with him would be. That's what you were talking about.
 
Back
Top Bottom