-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Guardian: White House acknowledges use of separate system to store full Ukraine transcript
- Thread starter Christian
- Start date
what if it was his whole family, waiting in the oval office, all sitting on the couch.
"Hey Donald, i know you probably are wondering why everyone is here today"
lol okay im done
The right wing psychopaths like Levin screaming how it's all a Deomocrat plot, and the whistleblower is a politically-motivated zealot being coached by Democrats, who actually saw nothing, is even more pathetic than their usual "Democrats corrupt and hate America, Republicans always good" rhetoric
"Mother said we could push the twin beds together and fornicate if I just did the right thing"
What if some the Khashoggi killing and King Salman transcripts are on there? This server revelation is a huge deal...
God, this year has been a long 3 years. Prince was the Russian to trump feeler wasn't he? Jared was the trump to Russia (or whoever) feeler. Flynn was feeling out Turkey, bannon the alt-right and Manafort was Ukraine, for a couple of months.
That server has always been there, the problem is we now know NSC have been inappropriately using it store information of a politically sensitive nature when its supposed to store things like covert ops and the like. They had someone who was on the NSC in the bush years on one of the programs last night and basically said if they saw anyone doing what these people were now caught doing they would have been fired and escorted out of the building that very day and depending on the severity arrested. There are some lawyers on the security council that better be hiring their own lawyers at this point.
My concern is not that they will delete it, but that they will edit it. So that when they come for the transcript, the original no longer exists, but technically they can say they provided it and claim no changes were made.
I don't know what kind of document control is in place and if the people in charge of it could be convinced to tamper.
There's probably nothing of value anyway, seems like they're trying to have democrats go all out to get something that will be a wet fart to ridicule them.
The lucky thing is that they are so incompetent they may allow democrats to get their hands on actually damaging shit.
"Server revelation" as in the whistle blower complaint was the Ukraine calls are not the only thing being hidden by Trump administration on that server. I knew the server always existed.
The WH knows Ukraine has a recording and/or transcript of their own so editing or even straight up deleting it is mostly risk with little reward. Trump is a temporary thing but a good relationship with the US in the long term is important to Ukraine going forward.
I've said before that this phone call is just a drop in a bucket already filled with shit anyway. It's not the end-all.
Though it would be a lovely addition to the bucket.
Not too tech savvy, but anybody know how difficult it would be to permanently delete something off of a server like that? In other words, hypothetically, if files are deleted, could a team of tech experts reasonably recover them? I have read that it's difficult to really erase anything nowadays on newer storage devices. My question probably doesn't have an answer, but the thought interest me.
Permanently removing files is pretty difficult to do and involves a lot of physical force and / or chemicals. It's pretty much impossible to do it with software, like special deletions, only.
Yes, this is accurate.
This isn't just "a server." It's code-word protected, so it's not just the average JWICS system that hordes of people have access to; it's managed by the National Security Council's Directorate for Intelligence.
This is not just SCI-level stuff. It's probably SAP-level information: the most restricted programs in existence.
In other words, very specific read-ons for very specific people about very specific things, approved at the (likely) Chief of Staff level, or at least someone very senior in the White House.
And the Administration basically created a new folder on the desktop and titled it "NOT CORRUPTION."
Correct, but all of the reporting I've seen says this is how these calls are recorded. I have seen NO reporting that says that any more complete record of these calls exists or is ever kept.
The ones on the server are "word-for-word." That's not what was released.
I have not seen that reported, is what I'm saying. I'd love it to be true. Source?
The last couple of days remind me of the movie Flight after Denzel admits "That was it. I was finished. I was done. It was as if I had reached my lifelong limit of lies. I could not tell one more lie." It's like the dam has broken and they can't hold any of their shit back anymore.
Except for Trump, he'll lie until he dies.
Except for Trump, he'll lie until he dies.
Last edited:
That wording is in the whistleblower report as written by the Inspector General. He calls the generation of an "official word-for-word transcript" by the White House Situation Room "customary." He then describes multiple officials telling him that transcript was moved to the server designated for especially sensitive materials.
Hmm. If it were "customary" to keep verbatim transcripts, I would expect some of the many articles specifically about how the released memo is NOT one to have mentioned this. The WB may have simply misunderstood or mischaracterized, that seems more plausible than that every journalist has failed to mention this and Schiff hasn't demanded or subpoenaed any such more complete document of the call.
The leaked transcripts from back in 2017 are what prompted them to start putting politically sensitive materials in the separate database. What was leaked then were verbatim transcripts, not memos based on notes from those in the room.
Using your private mail account for sensitive mails is no laughing...
fuck
That's still an anonymous source. Which means they can deny it.
Right, but let me frame this a different way: We knew this from the whistleblower report, which was deemed credible and urgent by the IG. One or two anonymous sources doesn't increase my belief that this was done. The logic surrounding the entire fiasco was too solid to begin with.
It's not the anonymous source (which is really not that anonymous, considering they're listed as a/the WH lawyers) that confirms it. It's the white house by not denying it, really as simple as that. If it were false, they'd correct it immediately. CNN has been leading with this for hours.