Republicans Block Attempt To Question Donald Trump’s Interpreter

By Matthew Moore, Gordon Rayner and Christopher Hope

9:25PM GMT 04 Feb 2011





Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.


Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.


The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Outrage ?!? Worried about a president giving secrets to Russians ?!?

Let me know when Trump sells out the Brits for 5 minutes of diplomatic fame.... The hypocrisy, and the stage acting is disgusting....

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

a reply to: CB328

Today's Republicans are traitors pure and simple.

And tomorrow they'll conveniently be patriots again if a D makes office again.

It's a predictable pattern.

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.

Please quote the constitutional authority for the oversight you are arguing for.

a reply to: DieGloke

It's important that translators be protected by privacy.

Not if it's a matter of national security. If not in front of a committee, there needs to be accountability somewhere with somebody independent of the administration.

a reply to: TrueBrit

HAHAHAHA!

The only fact in your posts is the fact that your opinion is that your opinion is a fact.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

This quote I'll hold near and dear to me.

"No one provides oversight to the president."

bigfatfurrytexan, July 20th, 2018.

Please quote tye constituion. I need to see who oversees the president.

#deepstate

a reply to: Krazysh0t

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.

Just keep a note of that post Krazy.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: CB328

Today's Republicans are traitors pure and simple.

And tomorrow they'll conveniently be patriots again if a D makes office again.

It's a predictable pattern.

Pot, meet kettle.... You two are very similar but I don't think you'll get along.

I hope to God this country can get rid of the two party system and end this circle jerk once and for all.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

So....no powers granted to oversee an elected official? You just gonna chuckle in that special kinda way?

Checks...balances...sure. Oversight of an elected official? Ridiculous.

Wow this thread got a lot more responses than a I thought....



a reply to: CriticalStinker

I hope to God this country can get rid of the two party system

By getting rid of the Democrats right? So then it will be a one party system.

I'm fairly certain that's what you're hoping for along with others. Very sad.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Oversight includes checks and balances. You need to make up your mind Texan. Well, you've already done so.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, it is my mere opinion that Mayonnaise is superior to ketchup, my mere opinion that oils are superior to acrylics, and that speed garage is not music, just noise. There is a difference.

There is no subjectivity happening here. Even if he was a sweet, bumbling old man, who had never harmed a fly or caused one to be harmed, and gave everyone below the top five percent of earners a tax cut, and raised everyone else's taxes, HE would be a threat to your national security in that setting. This is nothing to do with my attitude toward his politics, this is simply a fact pertaining to his inability to keep his mouth under control.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

By getting rid of the Democrats right? So then it will be a one party system.

I'm fairly certain that's what you're hoping for along with others. Very sad.

Hmmmm, you won't have to look far to see that's not the case. I said in this thread all administrations have been more for keeping things the way they are more than ever getting change. I also said I haven't supported any of them.

I'm not surprised or offended, this has been the rule of both parties fallacies... Follow our script or you're with the other party.

Forgive me, I decline both options.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Piers Morgan is in no position to educate anyone on proper conduct. He is beneath notice, and worthy of only the most complete contempt, therefore his concerns mean less than nothing.

Yes, that's not a logical fallacy at all--ignore the message, just discredit the messenger!

I agree, I think that the guy is a terrible human being, but even broken clocks are right twice a day. It's 8:30 at 8:30, even if it's a broken clock telling you that.

And I did not suggest that the broad body of congress needs to know what was said in that room, but I do say that the intelligence heads need to know what was said, because it is their job to protect the nation, or so we are told. In order to do that, they need to be sure that the President has not outed or compromised any of their assets, something they cannot be sure of because he refuses to share anything with them.

The "intelligence heads" do not have a need to know about anything unless the president tells them that they do or if there is legitimate belief that the president is engaging in illegal activity.

As it stands, they do not have a need to know. It is readily apparent that you have a massive misunderstanding of what the role of the "intelligence heads" are in America and what their jurisdiction is concerning the POTUS. They have no official right to know what the president is saying to anyone unless the president wants them to know--and that does not automatically equate to "a threat" if they don't know.

And as for your poke about the Queen, unlike Russia, there is a long history of co-operation and unity between Britain and America. That makes the situation rather less concerning, especially since the Queen is in no position to act on uncarefully provided intelligence from the President, being as she is purely a figurehead, possessed of little to no power of her own, not even the power to refuse to meet the man a power she would absolutely have exercised if she could possibly have done, which you would know if you were fit to comment on her at all.

As for your poke about my fitness to comment, I've done ample research into the pointlessness of your country's expensive "need" to keep royalty floating about, and I find it absurd--probably more absurd than you find our president.

So, basically, what you're saying is that your queen is a waste of time for our President to even talk to. Got it, and agreed.

And for the record, our countries' long history of cooperation isn't that long at all in the grand scheme of things. Hell, both of our countries were fighting with Russia (well, the Soviets) during a war less than 100 years ago. I sympathize with your foreign belief that our president needs his hand held and to go tell Mommy Intel about what he spoke about, but I'd prefer that our congress butt the hell out and let him do his job, because I'd much rather be on friendly terms with places like N. Korea and Russia than still be in, for all intents and purposes, a cold war with both of them.

But if you want to subscribe to the belief that Trump is going to cause NK to initiate a nuclear war "because Trump," or that he's going to incite some grandiose global issue with Russia "because Trump," that's on you, I suppose. Just don't be surprised when people call out the silliness of it all. At least he's not running around the world bowing to leaders and making apology tours. I'll take Trump's style and, thus far, his progress with places like N. Korea over what our previous president did...and the one before that.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I said in this thread all administrations have been more for keeping things the way they are

Do you think Trump and the GOP are part of the establishment ruining this country Critical?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

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.

Please quote the constitutional authority for the oversight you are arguing for.

Constitutional Topic: Checks and Balances

Legislative Branch

Checks on the Executive
Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Selection of the President (House) and Vice President (Senate) in the case of no majority of electoral votes
May override Presidential vetoes
Senate approves departmental appointments
Senate approves treaties and ambassadors
Approval of replacement Vice President
Power to declare war
Power to enact taxes and allocate funds
President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address

Checks on the Executive

Judicial review
Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential impeachment

And that is saying nothing to the fact that the President has 300 million bosses and answers to them (not the Russian dictator).

Those are checks and balances to Executive power. Not that you're going to see the difference between what BFFT is discussing and what you're trying to argue...

Sounds like fishing to me. Remember when people actually need a viable reason before initiating an action like this? I know, it's been a while.

a reply to: TrueBrit

it is my mere opinion that Mayonnaise is superior to ketchup, my mere opinion that oils are superior to acrylics, and that speed garage is not music, just noise.

Mayonnaise superiority, check.

Oils vs. acrylics... who cares?

What in the name of Robert E. Lee is "speed garage music"? Last I heard a speed garage was where one built their hot rod.

This is nothing to do with my attitude toward his politics, this is simply a fact pertaining to his inability to keep his mouth under control.

And that is what makes it an opinion. I think Trump has done a pretty fair job of keeping his mouth under control... he has every Democrat in the country screaming at the sky and half the Republicans asking to join them. That's what he was hired to do. It's his job description.

If what you say is fact and not an opinion, it would have to apply to every President since the system was implemented, from Obama to Bush to Clinton to Bush to Reagan to Carter to Ford to Nixon... all the way back to Washington. It obviously doesn't. Thus, it is your subjective opinion, which in your opinion is fact.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I said in this thread all administrations have been more for keeping things the way they are

Do you think Trump and the GOP are part of the establishment ruining this country Critical?

Anyone complicit in using a large part of our countries resources for war against nations who have never attacked us are ruining this country. Right now that is my biggest political quarrel. Until an administration changes that, they are all part of the same body using foreign projection for the bidding of those that pay for their campaigns.

As long as there are only two parties, who are bought by the same people, we will have the same problems.

I think that was proven when the dems put up a "hope and change guy" who ended up strengthening the patriot act, bombing 4 more countries than Bush, and going after more journalists with the espionage act than any other administration combined since it's inception.

I won't drink either sides Koolaid.