Republicans Block Attempt To Question Donald Trump’s Interpreter

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Russia is run entirely by the Russian mafia. Yes, even Putin. If you don't believe me go there and see for yourself. They are engaged in public assassination, funding terrorism, the drug trade, human trafficking, the whole lot. Their interests are counter to ours. Putin is a trained intelligence operative. He's playing trump like a fool.

a reply to: shooterbrody


There is no written summary of Trump's Twitter posts being sent to the National Archives either, but they are. This is a majorly significant meeting, that apparently discussed everything from Syria, Ukraine, trade, North Korea and nuclear issues without any record.

IIn June 2018, Politico reports that President Donald Trump frequently and routinely would tear up papers he received, resulting in government officials taping them together for archiving to ensure that Trump did not violate the Presidential Records Act.[4]
In July 2018, Business Insider reported that President Trump gave his personal cellphone number to various world leaders, having unrecorded conversations with them completely without U.S. officials' knowledge.

en.wikipedia.org...-5

Apparently US official thought that Trump talking on his phone without a recording of the call was a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

President Donald Trump reportedly gave out his personal cell phone number to foreign leaders shortly after taking office.

White House officials were shocked after a summary of a conversation was released without their knowledge.

US officials reportedly had to rely on Trump's memory of the call for details.

Following the incident, US officials insisted Trump adhere to the federal records law and route all calls with foreign leaders through the Situation Room.

www.businessinsider.com...

Why would this meeting with Putin be less important than a phone call, as far as record keeping goes?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
For Trump or Putin to even hint there conversation included strategies for "getting around" the sanctions is undermining US foreign policy and Congress. That is equal to giving aide and comfort to a US enemy, who has been accused of attacking American democracy on US soil.

Are we at war with Russia? Do you have even a clue as to where their conversations led? Do you feel even talking about sanctions was completely off base, if that is even what they did?

It seems until Trump, Presidents didn't need a Congressional hall pass/over site to talk to other leaders. The President can do all kinds of things, but Congress funds it and if Congress doesn't fund, it doesn't happen.

I LOVE IT !

Trump, Putin secret meeting.... Something something something, TREASON !!!! TRAITOR !!!!


Previous administration gives Russia, Britian's Nuclear secrets (as well as our, same missile) so that they sign the START treaty... Nothing.... The same people so damned worried about treason from a meeting between Trump & Putin ignore a president actually GIVING NUCLEAR SECRETS TO RUSSIA.....


And we're supposed to believe this is a genuine outrage on their part ?

Hypocrites each and everyone...

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Russia is run entirely by the Russian mafia. Yes, even Putin. If you don't believe me go there and see for yourself. They are engaged in public assassination, funding terrorism, the drug trade, human trafficking, the whole lot. Their interests are counter to ours. Putin is a trained intelligence operative. He's playing trump like a fool.

Aside from listing profitable trades that we have in America too...

He may be a intelligence pro who is playing Trump. I mean, he didn't do bad with Bush or Obama. Boy Russia did some naughty things under those guy's watch.

I really did think when Obama came down on him hard we were gonna see them shape up. Obama squared up, he looked Putin square in the eyes, and with the voice of thunder usually only heard by gods among men, he looked directly at his soul and said "Mr. Putin, cut it out".

Sends chills down my spine just thinking about it. Probably the single greatest move of one of our presidents in at least ten years.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


What many won't admit is that Trump has been very tough on Russia, tougher than any president in recent memory. We get to watch as they pretend Trump and Putin is having some sort of love affair, with Trump as the more submissive partner, while in fact Trump has been dominating Russia in nearly every aspect. It just goes to prove that some care about rhetoric more than they do action and results.

Come on, Obama told him to "cut it out" how harder can a President be?? A Russian friend of mine told me that Russia has 7 days of food on hand for the population due to these sanctions. It doesn't take much for the starving masses, if it gets to that, to remove the Government. NK is completely broke, Kim used up billions of whatever reserves he might have had, once again starving masses mean new Government, and these guys know that.

My tin foil hat thought is that much of the reduced oil prices is to affect Russia more than anyone else. Russia needs about 110 per barrel for sustainment and at 68 it hurts, hell ask Canada if 68 hurts as their dollar is down to .76 US, Russia is much worst off. This is why ANY new energy agreements with EU and Russia without seeing changes to lift sanctions is just plain stupid, and Trump knows that...

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hillary broke the law by storing classified emails on a private server. Once she did that, the entire server contents became the interest of the US government.

The only reason we even know about Hillary's emails is because she refused to copy her email over to the National Archives. If she had copied her emails over to the National Archives, her server wouldn't even be a topic of discussion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

Hillary broke the law by storing classified emails on a private server. Once she did that, the entire server contents became the interest of the US government.

The only reason we even know about Hillary's emails is because she refused to copy her email over to the National Archives. If she had copied her emails over to the National Archives, her server wouldn't even be a topic of discussion.

Archived or not... It's a Federal violation to keep, maintain, store, disseminate or remove from proper-holding, classified information & materials. So no, it would still be a big deal and still be discussed....

a reply to: Xtrozero

Are we at war with Russia?

Congress declares war. Many, on both sides of the aisle, are calling Russia's attacks "an act of war". Apparently, the US bombed and killed around 100 Russians in Syria. Sounds like war, but again, Congress declares war.

Also, there is a difference between colloquial language referrences to things that are "value statments" vs legal deffintions. I can call someone treasonous or a traitor without invoking the law.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

This is a majorly significant meeting, that apparently discussed everything from Syria, Ukraine, trade, North Korea and nuclear issues without any record.

The fact that there is no record shows how unmajorly significant it was. Were any actual decisions made there would be an actual record. The record of the press conference afterward will be archived.
You know who gets to decide who sits in on the meeting?

From your link:

Calls with foreign leaders are usually planned ahead and scripted, requiring consultation with senior advisers, such as the national security adviser. The call is eventually transcribed and then parsed into a public statement.

"usually"and "eventually" are not legally binding are they? Is the POTUS required to "script" calls to foreign leaders? Who is actually making the decisions the POTUS was elected to make if all his calls are required to be "planned ahead and scripted"?
You going to source "the federal records law" that requires trump to do such?

a reply to: CrawlingChaos


Maybe. But, I think the bigger question is WHY she refused to copy her emails to the National Archives. Shoot, we have transcripts of President Johnson talking about how he wants the crotch on his trousers to lay! So what if the National Archives happened to document some planning for Chelsea's wedding emails? What's she really hiding, and why wouldn't she trust the archivists to sort it all out?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Apparently, the US bombed and killed around 100 Russians in Syria. Sounds like war, but again, Congress declares war.

I'm sure it was that manly Obama who bombed those 100 Russians in Syria. Definitely not spineless complicit Trump....

Edit: Scratch that, it was Trump.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The fact that there is no record shows how unmajorly significant it was.

Nope.

Calls with foreign leaders are usually planned ahead and scripted, requiring consultation with senior advisers, such as the national security adviser. The call is eventually transcribed and then parsed into a public statement.

"usually "and "eventually" are not legally binding are they? Is the POTUS required to "script" calls to foreign leaders? Who is actually making the decisions the POTUS was elected to make if all his calls are required to be "planned ahead and scripted"?

That doesn't have anything to do with record keeping, it has to do with government transparency and the Freedom of Information and Open Government Acts. The press isn't alerted every time Trump makes a phone call, but they are recorded.

The public is curious, but there is really very little "need to know". Ergo, the "usually" and "eventually" and "not legally binding" don't apply.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Love how you people suddenly care not only about the president's conversations, but also about Russia.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Southern Guardian

No one provides oversight to the president.

I seriously never thought I'd see an American say these words unironically. Then the fact that so many people starred your post is even more depressing.

Such is the state of the Right Wing these days.

As I said to another member on ATS today that is threatening violence, they are radicalizing themselves through propaganda they themselves perpetuate.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Congress declares war. Many, on both sides of the aisle, are calling Russia's attacks "an act of war". Apparently, the US bombed and killed around 100 Russians in Syria. Sounds like war, but again, Congress declares war.

Also, there is a difference between colloquial language referrences to things that are "value statments" vs legal deffintions. I can call someone treasonous or a traitor without invoking the law.

Here is a little info about the US declaring war... Once again everyone comes down to the finite lettering when it deals with Trump and try to beat him with it. Even judges get involved to be finally be overruled by the SC, but EVERY President before Trump basically had ignored much of what you suggest...Hell even Obama killed Americans without due process, as example.

The United States has not formally declared war since World War II. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." While it's clear that the Framers intended for Congress alone to declare war, presidents don't always check with Congress before acting. After President Harry Truman bypassed Congress to go to war in Korea, presidents have paid almost no attention to the constitutional requirements.
Declaring Less Than War
In 1973, an irate Congress passed the War Powers Act in response to President Lyndon Johnson and President Richard Nixon's prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional declaration. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.

Today, Congress met to discuss legislation to authorize the use of force under the War Powers Act. While lawmakers are still working out the language, the proposed measure will be a modified use-of-force resolution, modeled on the resolution used in 1991 to authorize action by President George Bush against Iraq prior to the Gulf War. That resolution authorized the president to "use armed forces pursuant to the UN Security Council's resolutions passed in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait." The resolution (HR-77) went out of its way not to be a declaration of war. In fact, other than saying this constitutes authorization under the War Powers Act, it never used the word war at all. It did cite a U.N. resolution seeking to "restore international peace and security in that area," so it was only a declaration of war if you can assume that the opposite of peace is sort of war.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Southern Guardian

No one provides oversight to the president.

I seriously never thought I'd see an American say these words unironically. Then the fact that so many people starred your post is even more depressing.

Such is the state of the Right Wing these days.

As I said to another member on ATS today that is threatening violence, they are radicalizing themselves through propaganda they themselves perpetuate.

I think Steve Scalise and Rand Paul would beg to differ

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Maybe. But, I think the bigger question is WHY she refused

Man there are a large number of "whys" with all of that from just having a secret server, to having classified material, to the super poor security, to the destruction of hard drives, phones etc... Anyone of these would see you or I in jail...lol

a reply to: Breakthestreak

3 whataboutisms and deflections in a row. na na na na na you can't catch me. smh

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CrawlingChaos


Maybe. But, I think the bigger question is WHY she refused to copy her emails to the National Archives. Shoot, we have transcripts of President Johnson talking about how he wants the crotch on his trousers to lay! So what if the National Archives happened to document some planning for Chelsea's wedding emails? What's she really hiding, and why wouldn't she trust the archivists to sort it all out?

It doesn't matter WHY you break the law... What matters is THAT you broke the law...