Republicans Block Attempt To Question Donald Trump’s Interpreter

a reply to: Southern Guardian

How do you expect someone to call out an Administration that is 1.5 years old in the same way that they do administrations that lasted eight years and also have 20/20 hindsight with which to judge?

I mean, there's no intellectual honesty in you requesting such an assessment or expecting a certain response, and when you don't get what you're looking for, calling someone "full of it."

See the irony in that?

I'm guessing no...

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: CriticalStinker

we'll see...

The fact you couldn't call out Trump in the same way as the other administrations answers my question.

You're full of it.

Not surprised you think that way, I'm past caring and definitely not trying to appease those who want everyone to follow their script.

I'm going to be you for a second, "I'm going to ask you a question, and you're going to give me the answer I want". *end me being you*

Here was my answer you didn't like because it didn't have nice script approved buzz words.

Both of their administrations are over and the results are in, easier to judge. Trump is two years in, I'm happy with a few things, not happy with quite a few things. That said, we'll see... Based on history I don't have a lot of hope I'll get what I want (stop blowing my money on wars we lose against countries who never attacked us).

I'd be willing to bet if we took a poll on this thread, I wouldn't be the one people thought was "full of it"

Ats should take a poll to find out how many here actually voted for Clinton.

Because she sure didn't have hardly ANY support here.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Southern Guardian

The interpreter was a women, Marina Gross. And in the history of the nation, no presidential interpreter has ever been called to account in this manner.

As BFFT said, this was just a stunt by politicians who should know something about executive privilege... But hey, they knew what they were doing. Your strings were duly tugged.

I doubt there has ever been a meeting between our president and a great military foe that was held in secret, without aides or a stenographer. What Trump and Putin discussed should be part of the National Archives, even if "Classified".

a reply to: TrueBrit

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?

Firstly it is not "a man" it is the president of the united states of america. He can converse with any head of state in any capacity he chooses as that is actually part of his job. He was elected by the people to do that job. We the people have a capacity to "deal with the fallout" as you put it; we can elect someone else in 2020. If it is determined that crimes are going on we have measures for that as well, it is called impeachment. Our government has a system of checks and balances, you should read up on it. Having the intelligence community babysit an elected official is not how we do things.

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.

Protecting the president from the tentacles of an overreacing intelligence community is exactly what the 4th amendment is for. He is still a citizen, and without a warrant he is afforded the protections of such. A FOIA is the prescribed method for our people to obtain the transparency you appear to be speaking of, if the dissemination of the events in question is not enough for the citizens. The POTUS is ultimately responsible for protecting our nation, not some unelected bureaucrat you seem to be cheerleading for.

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!

Finally some honesty.
You are incorrect. It is exactly about rules and regulations and what our duly elected POTUS can do. He can hold private meetings with heads of state no matter if you like it or not. The fact that you don't like our checks and balances does not mean they do not exist. For you to pretend so is disingenuous, and laughable. We as the people evaluate these responsibilities when we decide who to elect as POTUS.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I doubt there has ever been a meeting between our president and a great military foe that was held in secret, without aides or a stenographer.

I wasn't aware we were at war with Russia, but if you want to just go with foreign leaders...

www.express.co.uk...

www.cbsnews.com...

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Must not ever heard of World War 2.

FDR and Stalin.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I doubt there has ever been a meeting between our president and a great military foe that was held in secret, without aides or a stenographer.

That's naïve.

What Trump and Putin discussed should be part of the National Archives, even if "Classified".

So is that.

Hell Murica's entire foreign policy is making besties with people that hate the ever living hell out of it.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

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

Oversight is a very specific word. Its not "checks and balances". Not even a little. Congress has no ability to oversee the president. They can create law, and they can vote to impeach. Thats it. Nothing more.

Just because you want to redefine words so you don't have to admit you misspoke doesn't mean the world is going to fall in line.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Will you point out where either branch of government is granted authority to oversee the presidents efforts? They can check him with impeachment. They can balance with legislation or ruling. But they cannot oversee his efforts and demand answers that fall within the privilege of his elected role.

Elected officials don't get oversight, except from the people. They can be reviewed judicially, impeached legislatively, or voted out electorally. Thats it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Co equal branches of government.

Otherwise what's the point.

a reply to: neo96

Correct.

Congress oversees some executive branch functions, like the FBI being under Intelligence, the DOJ being under Judicial. That is oversight, where they can demand information be produced to outline efforts and ensure that the executives agents are not run amok.

But no one can demand the same from the president without first impeaching him and removing him from office. Or voting him out of office. Or having a judicial ruling that negates executive privilege.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Southern Guardian


Nevermind. Redundant.

edit on 7/20/2018 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)

a reply to: angeldoll

What's a dem to do? We HAVE to know what was said, and given both participants are known liars, there is only one way to do it.

Funny!

Dems are proven liars.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: angeldoll

What's a dem to do? We HAVE to know what was said, and given both participants are known liars, there is only one way to do it.

Funny!

Dems are proven liars.

I mean, that's kind of a stretch in this conversation.

It's not like a Democrat had a questionable secret meeting while they were under investigation. Could you imagine if Hillary was under investigation and someone met with parties involved on her behalf and we didn't hear what was said?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Proven liars.

www.investors.com...

Not a stretch.

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: neo96

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is nothing to suggest any of those meetings, even Obama's "intimate" lunch with Macron, were held to secretly discuss policy without any aides or stenographers present.


One thing that immediately stood out for me was, right after Trump and Putin's secret meeting, when asked what they talked about, which was a whole range of things from Syria and Ukraine to Putin's advice on how Trump should handle his own scandal, Trump also said "We talked about ways Russia can get around the sanctions"!

No national betrayal there, right? WRONG!

There is no question that that two hour meeting should have been recorded for the National Archives.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No national betrayal there, right? WRONG!

Is ignoring federal immigration LAW and gun running to mexican drug cartels, or arming terrorists a 'national betrayal'.

The truth is...people don't trust Trump. And we have no reason to. Whatsoever.