It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Southern Guardian
No one provides oversight to the president. Your claim of such betrays a ridiculous ignorance of our government.
The Dems that did this are embeciles. Executive privilege. They know this and acted simply to whip their less insightful base into a froth (again).
How many times now, that we find out from The Kremlin what happened, what Trump said, in a meeting or call with Pres Trump? Every time, that's how many! It's like Trump has acquiesced all Russia/USA public relations to Russia and the Kremlin!
Trump: Vlad, ol' buddy, ol' pal, thanks for the help getting elected.
You misrepresent my concerns.
He was thrilled with the idea of working with Russia on cyber security, after their first meeting. Trump's aides squashed that.
Trump seemed thrilled with Russia interrogating US intel agents involved in the hacking case. His aides pulled that back.
He seemed to be okay with a Ukraine referendum vote. His aides squashed that too.
am thoroughly confused about that. Not one word was said in the press conference about doing that. Russia said they would interrogate Russian operatives with US officials present, if the US would interrogate US operatives with Russian officials present. Not one word about Russians interrogating US operatives.
We are now talking about the private — the — the individuals, not about particular states. And as far as the most recent allegation is concerned, about the Russian intelligence officers, we do have an intergovernmental treaty. Please do send us the request. We will analyze it properly, and we’ll send a formal response.
And as I said, we can extend this cooperation, but we should do it on a reciprocal basis, because we would await (ph) our Russian counterparts to provide us access to the persons of interest for us who — who we believe can have something to do with the intelligence services.
It all stems from an offer Russian President Vladimir Putin made to Trump during their meeting in Helsinki on July 16.
Here’s the proposal:
Putin offered to “help” with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation (the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, which we know was directed by Putin himself) by having his government interrogate the 12 Russian military intelligence officers charged in the probe last Friday — and letting Mueller watch.
But in exchange for this totally legit offer that in no way would be a complete and utter farce (ahem), Trump would have to allow Russian government officials to come to the US and question a group of Americans — including former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul — about their alleged “illegal activities” (in the words of the Kremlin).
It was a patently ridiculous proposal. Obviously.
Trump called it “an incredible offer.”
CNN has been airing Trump wanted to hand Americans over to Russia to interrogate.
Now, let's get back to the issue of these 12 alleged intelligence officers, uh, of Russia. I don't know the full extent of the situation, but President Trump mentioned the issue and I will look into it. So far, I can say the following: I think that, off of my head, we have enacting an existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, am extradition treaty that dates back to 1999. Uh, the mutual assitance is on criminal cases. This treaty is in full effect and works quite efficiently. On average, we initiate 100, 150 criminal cases non requests from foreign states. For instance the Latvia, there was one extradition case that, upon the request sent by the United States. So this treaty has significantly good procedures. We can offer that the appropriate commission headed by, mmm, by special attorney Mueller, he can use this treaty as a solid foundation and send a formal, an official request to us so that we would interrogate, hold questioning of this individuals who he believes, uh, are privy to some crime, and our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate information to the United States.
Moreover, we can meet you halfway; we can make another step. We can actually permit official representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the country and they will be present at this questioning. But in this case there is, uh, there is another condition of this kind, and this kind of effort should be a mutual one. That we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate and they, they would question officials including the, uh, officers of law enforcement and intelligence service of the United States whom we believe are, who have something to do with illegal actions toward the territory of Russia, and we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.
For instance, we can bring up the Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over and one half billion dollars in Russia. They never paid any taxes. neither in Russia nor the United States, and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to the United States. They send huge amount of money, 400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well, that's a sad personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal. So we have a reason to believe that some intelligence officers accompanied and guided this transaction. So we have an interest of questioning them. We can also, that can be a first step and we can also extend it. Options abound and they all can be found and brought with legal framework.
And did you direct any of your officials to help them do that?
Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing US-Russia relation back to normal.
They were transferred to the United States. They send huge amount of money, 400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
Well, that's a sad personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal. So we have a reason to believe that some intelligence officers accompanied and guided this transaction. So we have an interest of questioning them. We can also, that can be a first step and we can also extend it.
The controversy stretched into a third day, when the White House on Thursday was forced to clarify it rejects Putin’s proposal to allow Russia to interrogate Americans, including former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul.
The White House said Wednesday that President Trump would consider whether to allow Russian prosecutors to interview onetime U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul and other Americans in connection with criminal claims against Bill Browder, a prominent critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin.