White House Ukraine Expert Says He Tried To Correct Voice Recognition Transcript Of Trump-Zelensky Call
A Ukrainian-born US army officer who was listening in on President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodomyr Zelensky says he tried to correct portions of the reconstructed transcript which note-takers and voice recognition software missed, according to his Tuesday testimony.
Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman said that the two world leaders explicitly mentioned Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company that employed Hunter Biden at the same time his father Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to have the country’s lead prosecutor – who was investigating Burisma – fired.
The note-takers and voice recognition software used during the July 25 call had missed Mr. Zelensky saying the word “Burisma,” but the reconstructed transcript does reference “the company,” and suggests that the Ukrainian president is aware that it is of great interest to Mr. Trump. –NYT
(Note – the Times lies when they write that “Republicans charge, without evidence, that Mr. Biden was trying to stop an investigation into his son.” In fact, Victor Shokin – the prosecutor Biden had fired – said in a sworn affidavit that he was “forced out because I was leading a wide-range corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine, and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, was a member of the board of directors.”)
Vindman claims he lodged two complaints over Trump’s efforts to have Biden investigated to no avail, telling lawmakers “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” adding “This would all undermine U.S. national security.”
Meanwhile, Vindman – who overseas European affairs at the National Security Council, has come under fire after the New York Times reported that he’s has been advising Ukrainian officials on how to deal with Rudy Giuliani.
“While Colonel Vindman’s concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of whom have already testified, he was in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani, though they typically communicated in English.” –NYT
As a hilarious aside, OANN journalist Jack Posobiec was accused by CNN‘s Oliver Darcy of fabricating the claim that Vindman was advising Ukraine on “Trump’s foreign policy goals,” – saying “The Times reported no such thing.” Filmmaker Mike Cernovich then replied with a screenshot of the original article, clearly disproving Darcy.
This is in the NY Times article. 🤷🏻♂️ pic.twitter.com/eI3qkizswL
— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 29, 2019
Even more hilarious is that the Times then published an second article denying they made the claim!
The NYT has accused @JackPosobiec of publishing falsehoods, yet he simply referenced NYT’s own reporting. This false account of publishing a falsehood is already spreading.
— Jan Jekielek (@JanJekielek) October 29, 2019
If Vindman was in fact advising Ukrainian officials on how to deal with Giuliani, legitimate questions arise as to why he was doing so, and where his allegiances lie. Keep in mind that the Obama administration worked closely with Ukraine’s previous administration, the holdovers of which would ostensibly be suspects in any corruption probes by the Zelensky administration.
“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” Vindman testified, adding “This would all undermine U.S. national security.”
Meanwhile, there seems to be an obvious double-standard in the way the press has breathlessly defended Vindman, who may reasonably harbor politicized bias due to his heritage, and military veteran Tulsi Gabbard – who the press has reportedly smeared with baseless Russian conspiracy theories.
You can’t question the background or motives of this week’s impeachment hero, Lt. Col. Vindman, because of his valiant military service: but it’s fine to explicitly declare that Major Gabbard is doing the bidding of Russia. As you can see, these standards are perfectly consistent
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) October 29, 2019
Of note, Vindman is a first-generation American whose family fled the Soviet Union. During opening testimony he said “The privilege of serving my country is not only rooted in my military service, but also in my personal history. I sit here, as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, an immigrant.”
Read the rest of the Times report here.