To many it probably just seemed a typical misspeak. To the journalist reporting the story it was never challenged nor followed up on. Yet it’s reality and mere existence is worth noting.
The speaker of the House had knowledge of the transcript of President Trump’s phone call before he released it.
She admitted it on "60 Minutes." She then also attempted to cover her tracks hoping no one noticed.
Scott Pelley of CBS news felt the inclusion of the question as it related to the issue of Trump calling Pelosi prior to the transcript’s release was newsworthy.
He included the tidbit in the story tease, early in the first couple of minutes he narrates Trump’s phoning of the speaker, then plays his asking her the question complete with her answer.
Pelosi responds by touting that the president had assured her that the phone call between himself and the new President of Ukraine “was perfect.” This in itself sounded very consistent with soundbites heard across the media shortly after Pelosi announced her “impeachment inquiry.” (I use the quote marks because until she actually takes the vote to begin an inquiry or to file articles of Impeachment against the president — Congress is not officially impeaching anyone.)
What came next was what caught my ear.
After categorizing the president’s response of the “perfect call,” she then implies that she “knew better” than to believe the president—because—she knew the content of the call. She then hastily tried to cover up that admission by clumsily adding that what she knew in that moment about the transcript was in the public record.
(Watch here around 3:40 into the report: https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_
The phone call she received from President Trump was a courtesy. Trying to do Pelosi a solid—so as not to embarrass herself (and the entire nation)—the president believed a simple bit of clarity might help her avoid the prospects of self-humiliation.
Her hubris in holding her own non-announcement and press conference now made sense.
In the "60 Minutes" piece she even gloats over the “fact” that she had “always claimed” that she’d allow the “facts” to “lead the way.” Smugly stating that now she “had them.”
Believing she had more knowledge of the president’s phone call than the transcript revealed she held the presser and announced “her inquiry.”
Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and others have observed that if Speaker Pelosi had merely waited 48 hours before pronouncing something “opened” (that technically still is not) she might not look quite so foolish.
Anyone that can read the transcript of the president’s phone call (the original source for all of the “urgent concern” — even though the non-Whistleblower and the Intelligence community’s Inspector General had never heard the call nor read the transcript when declaring said “urgent concern”) can see in plain English that the two presidents congratulate one another. The Ukraine’s president then asks for weapons, and the American President asks for the Ukraine’s help in solving the 2016 election meddling.
The Bidens show up 504 words later unrelated to the missile request altogether.
The New York Post’s Michael Goodwin appeared on my show on Monday. Upon hearing the Pelosi admission replayed Goodwin remarked as to the growing certainty in his own thinking that the sequence of the “impeachment” events didn’t appear to add up unless there was coordination between the whistleblower and top committee Congressional Democrats.
Late last week the Federalist’s co-founder Sean M. Davis remarked in a tweet his observation that the Steele dossier and the “whistleblower” complaint seemed to have been authored by the same voice, tone, and style.
On Monday, Davis also pointed out that the intel community’s standard of evidence for whistleblower complaints were not met under rules long established. He noted that only under the rules which had been largely unknowingly and only recently changed concerning a whistleblower’s first-hand knowledge (that they not be required to have any) would one have been able to file this complaint “credibly.”
In my discussion with Goodwin on Monday I even noted that the circular sourcing of news articles referencing the story but not original sources were again used in the whistleblower complaint to beef up the “urgency” in how the complaint read.
The exact same evidentiary process was used in the phony FISA warrants.
Goodwin observed that the repeated use of these tactics appear to indicate that Pelosi may have been in on the game long before the transcript was officially released.
If true it also means that the deep state hacks buried amongst the lifers embedded in the national security apparatus, the White House, and the State Department are still very much alive and their efforts to take down the lawfully elected president is still active.
In 400 days the American voter will decide who is genuinely waking up each morning seeking to make America better. A man who—despite all odds against him—has kept more than 87 promises to the American people, or an establishment class so blinded by their hate for his success that they will stop at literally nothing to prevent the American people from doing exactly that.
What say you, voter?