By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Representative Eugene Vindman is advocating for the release of a classified transcript from a 2019 phone call between Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, following the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Vindman, a former National Security Council lawyer, claims the call’s contents were “shocking” and the public deserves to know what was said. He has launched a campaign, including a press conference with Khashoggi’s widow, and is working with other House Democrats to pressure Trump to release the transcript. Vindman’s efforts were spurred by Trump’s recent defense of the Crown Prince and disparaging remarks about Khashoggi, prompting him to seek accountability and transparency.
Read the original article here
This Congressman Knows What Trump Told MBS After Khashoggi’s Killing. He Says the Public Needs to See the Transcript, and it’s understandably generating a lot of buzz. The core issue is the alleged contents of a 2019 phone call between former President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, following the gruesome murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Congressman Eugene Vindman, who served on the White House’s National Security Council at the time and heard the call’s classified summary, is making the claim. He’s stated the call was “shocking” and that the American people “deserve to hear” what was said.
This raises a host of questions, starting with the very practical one: why doesn’t Vindman just reveal the details? The consensus seems to be that he can use the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution to share this vital information. The clause is meant to protect members of Congress from legal action for actions taken in their official capacity. So, if the information is truly as explosive as he claims, why the hesitation?
The range of possible content is, of course, broad. One can imagine a spectrum of possibilities, from Trump expressing sympathy for MBS’s predicament and offering help to cover things up, to perhaps even, as one commenter mused, something far more sinister like Trump seemingly approving of the murder. Or, as is often the case with Trump, the actual content could be a bizarre mixture of both. The point is, without the actual information, it’s all speculation.
Then, there’s the question of the potential consequences. Will Vindman face legal repercussions for revealing classified information? Will it actually matter in the long run? The cynical view is that even the most shocking revelations might not change much. It is hard to imagine this is the first time anything like this has happened, or the last.
Some comments also touch upon the potential political motivations behind the revelation. Is it about truth and justice, or is it about maximizing media coverage, book sales, or some kind of future career move? The fact that Vindman is only speaking out now, years after the fact and amidst renewed scrutiny of Trump and Saudi-US relations, does raise eyebrows. There are plenty of people out there that have tried to make a difference by speaking out, and they didn’t get this kind of press.
It’s easy to understand the frustration and impatience that people feel. The public is often left in the dark, and they want to know the truth. The people want information, not a tease.
The question of whether Vindman would violate ethical or legal boundaries is also relevant. He worked as a lawyer for the government at the time, and the ethical rules concerning confidentiality. Some are debating whether the Speech and Debate Clause would supersede those duties, but that is also a matter of debate.
The overall sentiment is one of weariness with the political dance and a desire for concrete information. The whole thing has an air of withholding and potential manipulation, like a drawn-out reveal. There’s a widespread feeling of being worn down by the same old games. People are frustrated by this. Vindman’s decision to air this information in the public, but not go all the way, leaves many people wanting answers.