It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans Block Attempt To Question Donald Trump’s Interpreter

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: mikell

Nothing that could be discussed between two world leaders, can possibly qualify as something the heads of the various intelligence agencies could not or should not be party to, unless something untoward is being discussed, something that should not be discussed at all.




posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Your threads make me laugh

Leaders always talk about classified and information

That’s why they talk. They don’t talk about their grandkids on a runway, they talk about besides the money obama give Iran, where else do terrorists funds come from,.

The compare and contrast notes



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: mikell

Nothing that could be discussed between two world leaders, can possibly qualify as something the heads of the various intelligence agencies could not or should not be party to, unless something untoward is being discussed, something that should not be discussed at all.


Wow
Very interesting opinion.
Not quite in line with our constitution.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

How is that exactly?

There is no way in the world that the head of another nation, could possibly be privy to a discussion, without the heads of the intelligence community ALSO being privy to it. The clearance qualification of the head of another state, is automatically MUCH lower than is the clearance of the top intelligence officials, especially since the nation in question has a long and recent history of hostility toward the goals and the operations of the US government.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

You should read up on our 4th ammendment.
The president doesn't lose his rights when taking office.
Also who is the head of our intelligence agencies?
Who has clearance authority?
Your questions are easily dismissed as you clearly don't understand our government.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


There is no way in the world that the head of another nation, could possibly be privy to a discussion, without the heads of the intelligence community ALSO being privy to it.

Is this a new rule you made up?

The President is head of the Executive Branch. All of the intelligence agencies are part of the Executive Branch. Ergo, the President oversees, albeit indirectly in some cases, all of the intelligence agencies. Intelligence takes orders from the President, not the other way around. You might as well say an office worker has the right to overhear a CEO's business meetings.

Might I suggest you actually read our Constitution before making up rules for us? We haven't used your methods since 1776.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

The heads of the intelligence agencies serve at the discretion the President.

Which is how we ended up with leftist hacks like Hayden, Clapper (an actual communist) who now conveniently work at CNN and Comey.

The president decides when and if they can attend his meetings.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Don't you love it when people from other countries make the up rules for our Govt?



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Today's Republicans are traitors pure and simple.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Much as I don't like Trump......

Sorry I agree with this. It's important that translators be protected by privacy.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Today's Democrats are traitors pure and simple.
Blanket false statements are fun.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: shooterbrody

How is that exactly?

There is no way in the world that the head of another nation, could possibly be privy to a discussion, without the heads of the intelligence community ALSO being privy to it. The clearance qualification of the head of another state, is automatically MUCH lower than is the clearance of the top intelligence officials, especially since the nation in question has a long and recent history of hostility toward the goals and the operations of the US government.

Total fail, you need to brush up on facts before you spout BS 😁
edit on 20-7-2018 by Arnie123 because: Heh



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

So you think that a man who very publicly "misspoke", ought to be able to converse with a Russian head of state, without any capacity for the people who will deal with the fallout of whatever was discussed, to know even the slightest bit of what was said?

Great, as long as we understand each other. * is suffused with utter disbelief *

Also, the fourth amendment is a protection offered the citizen, FROM the government. It is not a lever which a government or official thereof, including the President, has any permission at all to use to prevent information flowing from an event to those who are responsible for protecting the nation and indeed his person, from the consequences of his ignorance.

Its not about rules and regulations, or what a person is allowed to do under the law, this is about what is sensible in the moment, and a man who REGULARLY misspeaks, simply cannot be left in the company of a man like Putin, without some checks and balances, or at least, at the very least SOME knowledge of what passed between Trump and Putin, being given to the people who are responsible for securing the nation!



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Grrrrreat, first the OP makes a thread on a hail mary attempt at getting Trumps taxes thru insidious means, NOW they want to subpeona the interpreter???

Lmfao, typical leftist tactics 🤣

No. Just like the taxes, No.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I have read it, and likely in a great deal more depth than you have. However, that document makes no allowances for a person being in the office of president, who does not know when to speak and when to remain silent, or indeed what to say when his mouth is open.

Were your president a capable diplomat, a seasoned person who knows the difference between interesting conversation, and sharing operational secrets of his nations armed forces, intelligence infrastructure, or other entirely restricted information, then of course, we would not be having a conversation about it. But the fact of the matter is, that your president has proven, repeatedly and in some stark fashion to boot, that he barely knows WHAT he is saying, leave alone whether it is the right thing to say at the time, or even whether it is the right thing to say AT ALL!

For crying out loud people, wake up! This is not business as usual! Your President is an incompetent oaf, who is more than capable of sharing critical data with a person who should not have it!



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

"Its not about rules and regulations, or what a person is allowed to do under the law"

Yes, it is. Not liking the person being talked about doesnt mean you get to bypass laws.
Is it just me? Yikes stripes man.



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

As I understand it they want her to testify in front of Congress. So they don't have the right to hear it.





posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


So you think that a man who...

Doesn't matter what he thinks, what I think, or more to the point, what you think. It's what the Constitution says and what the laws passed under that Constitution say. You seem to be confusing fact with opinion.


Also, the fourth amendment is a protection offered the citizen, FROM the government.

You got one right. Doesn't apply in this case, but you got one right.


Its not about rules and regulations, or what a person is allowed to do under the law, this is about what is sensible in the moment

Wrong.

Just completely, unequivocally, absolutely, unconditionally WRONG. Things don't work like you think would be appropriate (unless you became King of the USA and no one told me). Nice to know you support dictatorship, though.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: BoscoMoney

This is nothing to do with whether or not I like the man.

This is a simple matter of facts. Trump has a proven inability to be circumspect, accurate, or indeed sensible with his utterances, and that means that putting him alone with a leader of a nation which has a history of hostility to US institutions, foreign policy and a whole boat load of other US interests, is a national security issue of the most severe sort!

This is like putting a Russian spy in a room with a US intelligence laptop, which is only secured by password protection, and making the password "Password".



posted on Jul, 20 2018 @ 06:38 AM
link   

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.
edit on 20-7-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)







 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join