In this context, the deposition of the 18th House Witness, Michael Atkinson, may be of some interest. Atckinson is the inspector general to whom the whistleblower blew the whistle that started the impeachment investigation. Adam Schiff’s committee interviewed him, but the transcript has never been made public.
AT: Witness time: Did Eric Ciaramella have a conflict of interest on Ukraine’s Burisma?
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Mr. Roberts . . . you said:
“Adam Schiff’s committee interviewed him, but the transcript has never been made public.”
Interesting, you saying that, considering that the WH never released the ‘transcript’ of THE call which actually put this impeachment process on the map.
You should know by now that ‘transcript’ and ‘summary’ are not interchangeable words.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “the WH never released the ‘transcript’ of THE call which actually put this impeachment process on the map.”
Yes, it did. And every witness who was asked about it in the House, agreed that the transcript as published was substantially accurate.
RE: “You should know by now that ‘transcript’ and ‘summary’ are not interchangeable words.”
Perhaps you should look up the word transcript in a dictionary. It can, but doesn’t necessarily, mean “verbatim record.”
LikeLike
She is correct; the document stated on the front page it was NOT a transcript.
You are an idiot.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “the document stated on the front page it was NOT a transcript”
It states no such thing. Perhaps you have the title of the document in mind, “Memorandum of Telephone Conversation.” Such memos are routinely called transcripts for the legitimate reason that they are official records.
LikeLike
“It states no such thing.” My ass.
Page 1, “not a verbatim transcript”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Got it. The phrase is in the footnote. Now pay attention: The phrase does not say, “Not a transcript.”
A transcript doesn’t have to be verbatim to be legitimately called a transcript. For example, are your college transcripts verbatim copies of everything said in every course you took? No, they are merely the official record of your experience at college.
LikeLike
I guess we are all supposed to assume that Ciaramella is the whistleblower.
If he is or isn’t, the GOP operatives putting this man’s life in grave danger is unconscionable. The man did what he thought was his patriotic duty. And it doesn’t excuse Trump from his extortion trick.
But, so long as Trump is seemingly above the law, maybe this man’s early demise, “accidentally” of course, is fine since some jerk water, like Dershowitz, will say it was in the national interest.
What the Trump fans don’t get is that the whistleblower is now moot. He merely pulled the fire alarm and lo and behold, there was a fire.
But it sounds like those same fans will do their level best to hurt this man physically. After all he was labeled a spy by the regime. Don’t need any trial for the likes of him, now do we?
And, of course, Trump will cover the legal bills for anyone charged with harm to the patriot whistleblower.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “What the Trump fans don’t get is that the whistleblower is now moot.”
I can see why the Trump haters might wish it were so. In reality, the whistleblower is highly relevant for two reasons:
As a CIA staffer supporting then Vice President Joe Biden’s efforts in Ukraine, he probably has testimony to give that is relevant to the question of Joe and Hunter Biden’s alleged corruption. And specifically of relevance to the justification for seeking Viktor Shokin’s dismissal, less than a month after Shokin received a court order to freeze the assets of Burisma’s owner.
Adam Schiff and/or his staff appear to have conspired, possibly illegally, to cook up the whistleblower complaint. If true, then the articles of impeachment are defective, and the Senate should never have been compelled to deal with them.
LikeLike
How do you “cook up the complaint” before the so called transcript was even revealed. Everything the whistleblower said he heard was in the “transcript” and corroborated later by a slew of witnesses.
He had to have heard what he said he heard.
As far as the Biden stuff, please post a link to your allegations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “He had to have heard what he said he heard.”
Why? Because he said he heard it?
LikeLike
Don’t be obtuse, please. How can the whistleblower and Schiff conspire about what to say before the phone call? Then if everything he complained about to the IG matched the “transcript” and witnesses how can that have been planned?
In other words, the “transcript” came out long after the whistleblower filed his concerns.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “How can the whistleblower and Schiff conspire about what to say before the phone call?”
Easily. They might have conspired to entrap Trump in some future phone call by exploring how various topics and scuttlebutt already known to them might be exploited. Point being, we cannot cavalierly dismiss whistleblower testimony as moot.
LikeLike
Entrap Trump? How would one entrap the president? In a future phone call yet.
The Jerky Boys did that in a movie.
Or are you saying the “transcript” is not what was released?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This comes off as almost completely delusional. Making stuff up just to make it up is no way to sway people to see your side of things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Or are you saying the “transcript” is not what was released?”
No. Nothing like it.
Here’s the fuller explanation. The phone call occurred on July 25. The whistleblower filed his complaint on August 12. That gave him two weeks to collaborate with Adam Schiff and his staff, which we know happened because the whistleblower approached Schiff’s staff before filing the complaint. It was Schiff’s staff which, reportedly, told the whistleblower to file the complaint with the IG. The extent and details of that particular interaction are what people have questions about.
There is also, however, some speculation that Schif or his staff may have been in communication with the whistleblower previously. The extent of any such communications are a matter of significant interest, as well, because the whistleblower may have been a Schiff “mole” working at the White House, on the lookout for events which could be turned into impeachable offenses. The reason there is suspicion about this is that the whistleblower never informed the IG that he had been dealing with Schiff’s people before filing his complaint. Some people, like me, want to know the why the whistleblower didn’t report those contacts; was it because he meant to keep them secret?
LikeLike
Like most conspiracy theories, just a nugget of truth to make it appear plausible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “As far as the Biden stuff, please post a link to your allegations.”
Here’s one. You can easily find others. Joe Biden made his famous quid-pro-quo demand in March, 2016, although the exact date is uncertain and may have been earlier.
“At the time of his firing, Shokin was investigating Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian gas giant that paid Hunter Biden tens of thousands of dollars a month to sit on its board of directors. Notably, Shokin’s prosecutors seized Zlochevsky’s assets on Feb. 2, 2016, just two weeks before Shokin was forced to resign.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/yovanovitch-demanded-firing-of-top-ukrainian-prosecutor-amid-nations-presidential-election_3147700.html
LikeLike
ANd here is the rebuttal to your post;
https://www.eurasiareview.com/25092019-why-was-ukraines-top-prosecutor-fired-issue-at-heart-of-dispute-gripping-washington-analysis/
LikeLike
Thanks. Some folks seem to have an inexhaustible supply from every right wing echo chamber.
LikeLike
It was actually pretty easy. I Googled “when/why was shokin fired” and there were lots of choices. I specifically chose this one because it is a source focused in that part of the world and not part of the American media bubbles. Yes, I said “bubbles” because they are not a right or left phenomenon
LikeLike
Your link doesn’t address the allegation: “Notably, Shokin’s prosecutors seized Zlochevsky’s assets on Feb. 2, 2016, just two weeks before Shokin was forced to resign.”
In fact, if true, the allegation disputes several statements your link makes.
LikeLike
“Joe Biden made his famous quid-pro-quo demand in March, 2016,”… You only tell part of the story….every time you tell your story. Why do you insist on calling it Biden’s QPQ when it was a policy decision of the administration and other western powers. If it had Michelle Obama made the point person on Ukraine, you would attack her for it. Cherry picked facts leaving out the full story, when the full story is ALWAYS there is as bad as a full fledged lie.
LikeLike
RE: “Why do you insist on calling it Biden’s QPQ”
Because he’s the one who spoke it, did he not?
LikeLike
Would you have preferred some toady spokesperson? Your comment is asinine on its face. He was the freakin VP and he was made the point man for dealings with Ukraine. Next you’ll say that Mike Pompeo is the reason for the middle east peace plan.
LikeLike
RE: “Would you have preferred some toady spokesperson?”
Doesn’t matter to me. I would then have called it the toady’s quid pro quo.
LikeLike
You are so far up Trump’s backside, sunlight ain’t gettin’ in. Hope you are taking Vitamin D supplements.
LikeLike
“If in fact, if true, the allegation disputes several statements your link makes.“
What makes it true at all?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “What makes it true at all?”
Why should I think it is false? It is a point of information I have found on the web in a number of different places at different times. I only looked it up for you because you didn’t want to do the work for yourself.
LikeLike
“the GOP operatives putting this man’s life in grave danger ”
You’re confusing Trump with Clinton.
LikeLike
You’re throwing up old DEBUNKED conspiracy theories again. Go post on the menhaden thread. It is less fishy than your comment.
LikeLike
You liberals are a humorless lot.
LikeLike
You zealous conservatives have taken all the fun out of it.
LikeLike
Justice Roberts refused to read Rand Paul’s question. Clearly, then, the swamp-state is trying to bury what is essentially a plot to topple the POTUS by way of a soft coup d’etat.
It will not work.
{Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric CIAramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that CIAramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings?}
LikeLike
Why do you think Chief Justice Roberts refused to read Paul’s question? Possibly because he understands that protecting ANY whistle blower’s identity is important to the safety of the individual and also to let others know that they will be protected if they report malfeasance or bad behavior in the government.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump must have been in on the plot. His “transcript” matched what the whistleblower and later witnesses corroborated.
And now you have Roberts as part of the conspiracy.
Whatever the IRA is paying you is too much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Clearly, then, the swamp-state is trying to bury what is essentially a plot to topple the POTUS by way of a soft coup d’etat.”
Could be. I sure don’t know, but imagine if such a thing were verified. I heard talk on the radio a couple hours ago that some Senators want to vote to overrule the presiding officer’s control over questions.
LikeLike
In Jan of 2017, the so-called whistleblower’s attorney, Mark Zaid tweeted that a “coup has started” and that “impeachment will follow ultimately.” During the same time-frame, Eric CIAramella and Sean Misko were overheard expressing anger re Mr Trump’s “America First” foreign policy. The evidence suggests that is when they began plotting to topple the POTUS.
Then, there are the interactions between Adam Schiff, Eric CIAramella, Mark Zaid and LTC Vindman. If you recall, Mr Schiff lied about Mr CIA’s contact with the Intel Committee and it appears that the committee’s attorneys actually wrote the complaint for him!
Of course, Mr Horowitz’s report proved that the FBI and other swamp-state agencies created a phony counter-intelligence investigation in order to spy on Mr Trump. That plot is being investigated by John Durham and albeit I do not expect the swamp to indict itself, Mr Durham has taken corrupt govt officials before.
I doubt it will happen, but the DOJ should appoint a special counsel to investigate the aforementioned CIA plot that Mr Four Pinocchios was involved in.
LikeLike