By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As AP News reports, Jamal Khashoggi’s widow is demanding the release of the transcript of a 2019 phone call between former President Donald Trump and Mohammed bin Salman, raising questions about Trump’s potential personal benefits from his relationship with the Saudi crown prince. Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Eugene Vindman, are also seeking the transcript, with Vindman describing the call as “shocking.” These concerns are fueled by Trump’s dismissal of U.S. intelligence findings regarding Prince Mohammed’s involvement in Khashoggi’s 2018 murder, along with the former president’s family’s business dealings in Saudi Arabia. The situation mirrors Trump’s first impeachment, and while release is unlikely, the lawmakers emphasize that Trump’s actions reflect a concerning trend.
Read the original article here
Khashoggi’s widow and Democrats demand release of call transcript with Trump and Saudi crown prince is at the heart of a deeply troubling situation, one that resonates with both immense personal tragedy and serious political implications. The call in question, between former President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), has become a focal point, particularly for the widow of Jamal Khashoggi, the journalist brutally murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Her understandable demand for transparency, echoed by many Democrats, stems from a desire to understand the nature of the relationship between these two figures and, specifically, to ascertain whether the murder of her husband was ever discussed, acknowledged, or even remotely addressed.
The insistence on the release of the transcript isn’t simply about satisfying curiosity. It’s about accountability, justice, and the principle that government actions, especially those involving sensitive foreign relations, should be subject to scrutiny. When a journalist is killed, and a prominent world leader is subsequently in direct communication with the alleged perpetrator of that crime, the public deserves to know what was said, what was promised, and what, if any, repercussions were discussed. This is especially true when, as is widely alleged, there may have been personal or financial interests at play, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of foreign powers.
The situation is further complicated by the reported involvement of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, in dealings with Saudi Arabia, including managing a significant investment for MBS. The allegation that Kushner oversaw aspects of the Khashoggi investigation, coupled with the fact that these matters were largely kept quiet until the Biden administration took office, paints a concerning picture of potential obstruction and attempts to shield information from public view. The suggestion that Trump hosted a LIV Golf championship and that MBS might have been motivated by kickbacks underscores the pervasive sense of corruption that has plagued this affair.
The call itself, and the secrecy surrounding it, are perceived by many as a symbol of disregard for human rights and an almost transactional approach to international relations. This perception is amplified by the fact that the Saudis, who were involved in Khashoggi’s murder, seem to have received little pushback from the Trump administration. The apparent lack of serious consequences for MBS, despite the outcry over Khashoggi’s murder, raises fundamental questions about the value placed on human life and the role of the United States in upholding human rights on the global stage.
The comments made about Trump’s relationship with MBS hint at a level of complicity that extends beyond mere diplomatic niceties. The description of Trump “kissing Salman’s butt for kickbacks” and “giving him a pass on Khashoggi” suggests a degree of collusion that is deeply troubling. The fear, expressed by those demanding transparency, is that the transcript might reveal a whitewash of the Khashoggi killing, an attempt to gloss over the brutality of the act to preserve the relationship with Saudi Arabia, a relationship apparently built on shared financial and political interests.
This entire situation mirrors the contentious handling of other interactions during Trump’s presidency, such as the destruction of notes from the Putin summit. This pattern of secrecy, lack of transparency, and attempts to shield the public from important information only deepens the mistrust and reinforces the demands for the release of the call transcript and other relevant documents. The Democrats, in advocating for this release, are not just pursuing a political agenda; they are seeking to uphold the principles of accountability, the rule of law, and the right of the public to know what its leaders are doing in its name.
The fact that the release of the transcript is expected to take a considerable amount of time, with the prospect of it being heavily redacted, underscores the challenges in achieving complete transparency. The potential for redactions raises questions about how much of the truth will be revealed and whether it will ultimately serve the goal of accountability. The fact that the call could take over a decade before its full contents are revealed, may result in those most responsible having already evaded justice.
The demands for transparency from Khashoggi’s widow and Democrats are a powerful reminder of the importance of holding those in power to account, especially when dealing with matters of national security, foreign relations, and human rights. It’s a reminder that the victims, such as Khashoggi and the 9/11 survivors, deserve to know the truth. The request for transparency is not just about the specific call, but about a broader commitment to openness and honesty in government. It’s about ensuring that the actions of leaders are always subject to scrutiny, that the pursuit of justice takes precedence over political expediency, and that the victims of injustice are never forgotten.