Republicans Block Attempt To Question Donald Trump’s Interpreter

a reply to: neo96

So the Get Trump crowd is going to take the lead from Adam Schiff .... The guy who thinks him and his wife are Adam & Eve - in the biblical sense ?

Lunacy prevails for the 10 of you!!!!

LOL

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I heard Trump say "We talked about ways of getting around sanctions", at an impromptu presser.

And yet, this presser is not on YouTube? That massive a statement is not published anywhere?

So, per your request, I did a search and sure enough, Russian TV has Putin hinting at just that.

You didn't say Putin said it, you said Trump said it. Is Trump Putin?

Besides, why would you take Putin's word over our own President's word?

Take it or leave it, I don't care.

Leaving it. Just more fake news.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That pretty much covers the Trump Putin 2 hour private meeting.

How so? I thought the complaint was that were no documentary materials.

Nothing in that said documentary materials had to be produced, just that they had to be kept once produced.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
Obamas EO 13489 changed some of this

(g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.

seems the conduct of foreign relations is included in executive privelege
which would exclude the meeting between trump and putin
or any other "foreign relations"

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I do not see anything wrong with any president of the US revealing whatever they want. That is a power of the presidency.

There is a long history of such -- for instance when the Honorable Mr. Carter revealed stealth technology's existence:
www.csmonitor.com...

There are no strings on the president, for better, or for worse.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey

And they have every reason to suspect him of illegal activity, either by accident or design, because not only is the campaign he rose to power on under investigation, but as previously noted, the man has no control over his mouth whatsoever, as shown by his repeated gaffes, over the period directly previous to the meeting with Putin.

No, that is not reason enough for congress to demand the testimony of the translator.

Do you understand that an investigation does not indicate wrongdoing? Do you understand "no control over his mouth" can actually be a good thing (even though that's a mischaracterization by you) in certain instances with certain people?

This is an attempted phishing scheme based on political ideology hoping to find a gotcha moment that will cast doubt on the president (with no evidence that it actually happened). That is an inappropriate way to conduct government.

It beggars belief that you can sit there and deny that the man cannot be trusted to keep vital information contained... He even stated that he had been looking for ways for Russia to move around sanctions, despite the fact that moving around sanctions which are in place, in anyway trying to subvert their presence, or bypass it, is very much within the realm of illegal! I mean Christ, would you pull your head out your arse and actually LOOK at the situation as it is, rather than as you would like it to be?

It beggars belief that you sit there in the UK and think that you are qualified in any way to tell Americans how they should or should not want their government to act or what they should or should not expect from their president, all based on your subjective opinions.

But you're correct in implying/noting that it is illegal for Trump not to implement sanctions passed by congress, but the reality is that there are instances where holding off on sanctions has legitimate reasons that congress may not know about or understand, and will only be privy to if they seek official avenues to gain that knowledge...but it won't always be a guarantee that they receive it or will get a unanimous vote to get it in the first place. Also, they have to undergo legal action against the president in order to get him to fully abide by the sanctions, if they want to take it that far, and as of yet, that isn't happening.

Things aren't as simple as you're pretending that they are, and your inability to acknowledge this based on your opinions on the matter is why you are being engaged in debate by more than just me.

It beggars belief that you dismiss the fact that even Obama (in a closed-door meeting...) during the transition to Trump told him that N Korea would be his No.1 foreign-policy challenge, and so far, he's surpassing what any president before him has done on that front. With that in mind, why do you pretend that it's a foregone conclusion that Trump has done some terrible deed with Putin? Oh, and Trump met with Kim for 30 minutes behind closed doors without any advisors or staff with him. *GASP!*

With that in mind, why do you pretend that it's a foregone conclusion that Trump has done some terrible deed with Putin, or made some terrible mistake?

The reality is, you cannot make that conclusion because you are ignorant to anything and everything said in their meeting, yet here you are, speaking about "fact" and how Trump is a "threat" to the U.S. unless he tells congress or the intelligence community everything that was said.

It's absolute silliness.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sookiechacha

www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
Obamas EO 13489 changed some of this

(g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.

seems the conduct of foreign relations is included in executive privelege
which would exclude the meeting between trump and putin
or any other "foreign relations"

Honey, that's about disclosure of records. There can't be limits on disclosure of records, if there are no records! Everything in that section is about records that are in existence. There is no record in existence of the Trump Putin two hour secret, super private meeting and what they discussed.

a reply to: TheRedneck


I don't know. I heard with my own ears, took a double take, and figured I'd be seeing that clip and hearing that sound bite a lot in the next few days. But, I didn't. Maybe I had an ESP flash, because word for word, that's how the headlines read, people are translating it as "getting around sanctions".

I see no reason why Trump wouldn't have said it.

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.

I wonder if JFK felt that way . He wanted to break apart the cia into a thousand pieces. Would you consider him nefarious or an ignorant idiot who sold out his country? Kinda funny now I think of it JFK wanted to splinter cia into a thousand pieces and he gets killed shortly after and bush senior , mr cia himself who doesn't even know where he was that day called for a thousand points of light. Ironic to say the least.





Do you really trust the cia? Do you? Or do you just hate Trump this much?

If you don't learn from that I have no hope for you.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I don't know. I heard with my own ears, took a double take, and figured I'd be seeing that clip and hearing that sound bite a lot in the next few days. But, I didn't. Maybe I had an ESP flash, because word for word, that's how the headlines read, people are translating it as "getting around sanctions".

It might be possible that you heard the conclusion, possibly in a headline, and made the assumption it was Trump's words. If so, that's not the end of the world; I have misheard things many times and later realized my error. The honest thing to do, which I did when that happened to me, was to admit i might have been wrong.

I see ne reason why Trump wouldn't have said it.

Hahaha, I see what you did there. Star for you, just for that.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck


I don't know. I heard with my own ears, took a double take, and figured I'd be seeing that clip and hearing that sound bite a lot in the next few days. But, I didn't. Maybe I had an ESP flash, because word for word, that's how the headlines read, people are translating it as "getting around sanctions".

I see no reason why Trump wouldn't have said it.

Let's play hypothetical and say that they discussed skirting the sanctions. Russia's Ruble is about half of what it was before they invaded Crimea.

How big of a price do they have to pay? Is it fair that we are still going after them for doing things we do? Did the international community not vote against us going into Iraq, which is not or neihbor and also did not have large populations of ethnic Americans (pretend that's a thing for argument.)

What happened when the world was too hard on Germany post WW1?

How have we treated other countries who were former enemies to the US? Japan and Germany both sit in the top 5 economies in the world.

So is it possible this comes down to competition more than actual bad blood? Would you admit we have meddled in their political affairs? Would you argue that we fund some of Putin's opposition? Or would you say that it's OK that we have done those things because we are the good guys? Ask much of South America that, ask Palestinians that, or refer to a world wide poll that asks people from all over which country they're at fear of going to war with.

a reply to: TheRedneck

How so? I thought the complaint was that were no documentary materials.

Every email, phone call and security swipe the President makes in and outside of the White House is recorded. A stenographer and a photographer follow the president around and document everything he says and does, outside of his private residence. This meeting with Putin should have been no different. There should have been a stenographer documenting the President of the United States' 2 hour meeting with the President of Russia.

If it weren't for these rules, Hillary's emails wouldn't be a big deal. The Trump/Putin secret, unrecorded meeting is 100 times worse than Hillary deleting so called private emails, that if they really were private wouldn't even be covered under the National Archive rules.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: angeldoll
The truth is...people don't trust Trump. And we have no reason to. Whatsoever.

When's the last time you trusted a president?

I don't believe I have your issues. But it should be clear to all that this is not only the most dishonest "president' we've ever had, but also one of the most dishonest individuals we've had the displeasure of coming to know.

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,”

a reply to: TheRedneck

It might be possible that you heard the conclusion, possibly in a headline, and made the assumption it was Trump's words. If so, that's not the end of the world; I have misheard things many times and later realized my error. The honest thing to do, which I did when that happened to me, was to admit i might have been wrong.

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.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Let's play hypothetical and say that they discussed skirting the sanctions. Russia's Ruble is about half of what it was before they invaded Crimea.

Those sanctions are designed to hurt Russia's economy and were imposed by Congress, not Trump. 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.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That is equal to giving aide and comfort to a US enemy, who has been accused of attacking American democracy on US soil.

They have countered. Like I said, we meddle in their affairs as well, like giving money to Putin opponents.

That being said, we have no proof of an "attack" yet, propaganda on the internet is not an attack. Phishing is not an attack. If they did hack the DNC (they probably did), that is a cyber intrusion, do you really think we don't do that?

At the end of the day, just because people choose to look at this emotionally doesn't change the fact that this is business as usual for the US and Russia since WWII, we just have the internet now.

The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring.

Stop drinking the koolaid, it's bad for you.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Every email, phone call and security swipe the President makes in and outside of the White House is recorded.

Yes, because those are documents produced.

A stenographer and a photographer follow the president around and document everything he says and does, outside of his private residence.

No. That happens at his direction. Trust me, there is no stenographer in the stall next to him when he uses the restroom in the West Wing. It is customary to have a stenographer (rather, likely a portable recorder) for most things that may need to be documented, but in a first meeting with Putin, what needed documentation? The two leaders documented what needed documenting in a press conference.

Understand that no treaties were signed, no formal agreements were made (other than to continue talks), and no decisions were set in stone. This was just a meeting to feel each other out and for each leader to get an idea of what the other wants and expects.

If it weren't for these rules, Hillary's emails wouldn't be a big deal.

Really? You are comparing apples to Ferraris now?

Hillary was not the President.

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.

Hillary purposely destroyed subpoenaed evidence.

Hillary purposely wiped her drives to destroy subpoenaed evidence.

Hillary then lied about her activities on multiple occasions.

In contrast:

Trump is the President.

Trump met with a foreign leader to establish talks.

Trump has not been shown to have lied about anything that happened in the meeting.


You are so far off base here, you're in the ballpark across the country.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sookiechacha

www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
Obamas EO 13489 changed some of this

(g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.

seems the conduct of foreign relations is included in executive privelege
which would exclude the meeting between trump and putin
or any other "foreign relations"

Honey, that's about disclosure of records. There can't be limits on disclosure of records, if there are no records! Everything in that section is about records that are in existence. There is no record in existence of the Trump Putin two hour secret, super private meeting and what they discussed.

So then why did you site it as regulation requiring a public record?

originally posted by: CB328
Today's Republicans are traitors pure and simple.

If we are, I hope we can kick all democrats out of this country.

originally posted by: Flatcoat


No, I'm saying what's the point of a secret meeting if it's not secret?

I think the right word is confidential, as in confidential between two world leaders. When you say "secret" the left will instantly say Wait a minute you mean state secrets were discussed? The meeting was not secret, everyone knew about it, but what was discussed was confidential.

All of this goes back to the liberal's 2020 agenda to build mistrust for the president to get votes. I mean the President is so untrustworthy he needs liberal over site by Congress...see what I mean...lol