Alternet - International studies professor James Goldgeier, in a Washington Post article, explains why such a “transcript” wouldn’t even come close to telling the whole story.
...Goldgeier, a Robert Bosch visiting senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, acknowledges that “the release of the record of the call will be major news.” But Goldgeier quickly adds that “it is important to understand how documents like it come to be produced — and to remember that this is just one document of one moment in a longer series of events regarding the release of U.S. assistance to Ukraine.”
Goldgeier pointed out that Trump is known for speaking in “mafia code,” meaning that he can get his points across without coming right out and saying something in so many words — and if Trump used “mafia code” during his phone conservation with Zelensky, his defenders could easily spin his words in such a way as to claim that he did nothing improper.
Another thing to bear in mind, Goldgeier adds, is that notetaking is an “art” but not a “science.”
“The quality of the notes varies, depending on the number and quality of the note takers,” Goldgeier observes. “It might sound easy. It isn’t — particularly if there is only one note taker trying desperately to make a record of the conversation.”
Goldgeier goes on to say, “The record we will see should not be called a transcript. Beyond any coded way of speaking that the president might have, the record could be misleading in any number of ways. The notes may not have captured the exact wording — not for nefarious reasons, but simply because of the notetakers’ limited capacity to write as they listen, especially if only one person was taking notes.”d
Thirty-seven percent of voters say that Trump should be impeached and
removed from office, while 57 percent say he should not be impeached,
according to a Quinnipiac University poll
No comments:
Post a Comment