By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Hanan Elatr Khashoggi, the widow of Jamal Khashoggi, and Democratic members of Congress have called upon President Trump to release the transcript of his phone conversation with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman following Khashoggi’s murder in 2018. Rep. Vindman, who served on Trump’s National Security Council, has described the 2019 call as “highly disturbing” and urged for its declassification. Khashoggi’s widow and other critics have condemned Trump’s cordial reception of MBS and defense of Saudi Arabia, especially given US intelligence agencies’ findings that MBS ordered the murder. This call for transparency and justice comes amid continued arms sales to the kingdom, ongoing investigations, and potential business ventures that may present conflicts of interest.
Read the original article here
Calls Grow to Release Transcript of ‘Highly Disturbing’ Trump-MBS Call After Khashoggi Murder
The central point here is pretty clear: if a phone call between a U.S. President and a foreign leader is deemed “highly disturbing,” then the public has a right to know what was said. Transparency is, after all, a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. This isn’t just about idle curiosity; it’s about accountability, especially when a murder is involved. The fact that this call allegedly involved a discussion with MBS, following the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, elevates the stakes considerably.
It’s easy to envision the potential content of such a call, and frankly, it doesn’t paint a pretty picture. Imagine a scenario where MBS admits to the crime, and the former President makes some flippant remark, perhaps expressing envy or even support. It’s the kind of scenario that fuels skepticism and anger, reinforcing the perception that certain actions are permissible for those in power. However, even with the knowledge of such a call, some speculate that it might not significantly alter the political landscape. The argument is that the former President’s base of support is unwavering, and such revelations would have minimal impact.
The discussion highlights the feeling that the political needle is already moving, with shifts happening both in policy and public perception. Things that were once dismissed as unimportant are now gaining traction, suggesting that public opinion and political alignments are more fluid than some might believe. It’s a reminder that even seemingly small actions, like targeting specific groups, can have long-term consequences. The reactions of individuals and communities to these actions can be a catalyst for change. The cumulative effect of these actions is undeniable; it’s a process of erosion of trust, damage to international relationships, and a shifting of the power dynamics.
The conversation touches on the idea that the damage done by certain administrations has been significant, perhaps even irreparable in some ways. Broken trade relations, damaged international agreements, and tarnished reputations on the global stage are mentioned as examples. The article explores the sentiment that political allegiances often trump policy or ethical considerations. It suggests that party affiliation can override concerns about behavior or the impact of decisions, creating a seemingly impenetrable barrier to holding individuals accountable. This also applies to the public’s understanding of global issues.
The issue of change is highlighted here. Real change looks like a slow process of shifting attitudes and behaviors. Instead of dramatic reversals or public apologies, it looks like a gradual decrease in public support and visibility, and perhaps a hesitation to vote at all. It’s a shift that requires recognizing and capitalizing on opportunities for positive movement. The focus here is on the actions of politicians and the influence they can exert on their base. The hope is that through enough pushback, a change in behavior, while slow, will begin to set in.
Ultimately, the debate boils down to a question of whether transparency matters. The sentiment is that exposing questionable communications between leaders, especially in the context of a grave crime, is crucial. It’s an assertion that even if the revelations don’t immediately trigger a seismic shift, they contribute to a broader understanding of how power operates and how actions are perceived.