,
16 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
1/9 For the non-historians out there: I am a historian of US foreign policy who has read more documents like this than I can remember, so a few thoughts on the Trump MemCon.
1) This is not verbatim, as the document states. It is a sort of summary, which is very different.
1) This is not verbatim, as the document states. It is a sort of summary, which is very different.
2/9 The references to Giuliani strongly suggest that Zelenskyy is familiar with his efforts over the preceding months to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. When reading documents like this, historians often assemble timelines to interpret references to people and events.
3/9 Before getting on phone calls like this, both Trump and Zelenskyy will have gotten briefing materials with talking points and what the other party wants to talk about, Congress will of course subpoena these. Zalenskyy's briefing materials would be super interesting here.
3.5/9 Zelensky's briefing materials would summarize the state of play of US econ and military assistance, diplomacy, etc. There was *no need* for Trump to specifically mention US mil aid. Zelensky knew the US was holding up military assistance, and why, and what he had to say.
4/5 After the call, officials at State, NSC, and other agencies would have circulated the MemCon to relevant officials whose job is to act on whatever was said. They will often annotate the memo, refer to previous meetings, cables, so everyone can follow the conversation.
5/ Congress can and must subpoena all the follow up documents from this call, because State, DOD, DOJ, and others will have created documents from this call that say "here's what we do now." This MemCon is one data point in a narrative, referring to many other relevant events.
5.5/9 When I and other historians at places like @NSArchive use the Freedom of Information Act to request documents related to Presidential conversations, we request all documents from weeks or months before and weeks or months after, because there is prep work and follow up.
6/9 We can read much into the tone, tenor, and other 'cues' in the memo. This is at the heart of what we do as historians - trying to 'read' an incomplete transcript and come to best interpretation of language used. The tone is of a supplicant (Zelenskyy) buttering the President.
7/9 Zelensky flatters Trump in ways I have never seen in such a conversation - mentioning he stayed at Trump's hotel, etc. Its almost certain he was briefed that this is the way to get on Trump's good side: kiss his ass, flatter, praise. This is a weird, weird thing to read.
8/9 Trump mentioning Giuliani repeatedly in the call is a enormous tell. Normally President will refer to Sect State, Ambassador, or cabinet officials as his point person on a policy issue. Trump mentions his personal lawyer, and Zelensky will have known exactly what this means.
9/9 The few paragraphs referring to Barr, Giuliani, Biden, etc. are, from a historian's perspective, very, very clear in their meaning. Take 100 historians, and 99 will see this document in the same way, even if we interpret it with great caution. This is very, very damning.
10/ here is an example of a follow up document resulting from a Presidential phone call (this example is from Bill Clinton calling Indonesian President Suharto in 1998): nsarchive2.gwu.edu//dc.html?doc=4…
11/ Here (docs 3 and 3a) are examples of presidential briefing papers for a meeting still weeks away. Compare to the summary of the meeting itself (document 4). nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB6…
Here (docs 3 and 3a) are examples from briefing papers prepared for Gerald Ford prior to meeting Indonesian President Suharto in 1975: nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB6…
Here is the indispensable @NSArchive providing more context:
And exactly as we would expect, US officials met with their Ukrainian counterparts the *next day* to discuss follow up:
