Republicans Block Attempt To Question Donald Trump’s Interpreter

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sookiechacha

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

You state this based on what law or precedent?
I don't necessarily disagree, I am just unfamiliar with that law, regulation, or statute.

www.archives.gov...

Donald Trump is a LOOSE CANNON.

He should resign at once and take his family with him. They are a disgrace to our country.


(And putting his family members in the West Wing? Embarrassingly absurd. It's sometimes said the Kennedy's are the closest thing America has to 'Royalty'. Does he want to change that to the Trumps? Sadly, the comparison will more likely be to the Gotti's. )

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did you actually read any of this?

§ 2204. Restrictions on access to Presidential records (a) Prior to the conclusion of a President’s term of office or last consecutive term of office, as the case may be, the President shall specify durations, not to exceed 12 years, for which access shall be restricted with respect to information, in a Presidential record, within one or more of the following categories:
(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and
(B) in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

Meeting with another nations leader is now not "foreign policy"?

When is former pres. Obama's translater scheduled to appear before the committee.

a reply to: angeldoll

Then someone wasn't paying attention.

We don't owe anyone a fair primary process

IL LEGAL immigrants speak at the DNC


Illegal ly spying on Trump


Why still IGNORING?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm not asking to be told what was discussed, but Trump was supposedly acting as POTUS, and POTUS actions aren't supposed to be a secret between only him and his greatest military foe.

The country with an economy smaller than Texas is our greatest military foe?

I'm going to go with China, they can actually pay for a war.

Well, according to Trump, 90% of the "nuclear" is held between our 2 nations. I thought between China, Pakistan and India and Israel, there would be more than 2%.

Well, no one will use them because of mutually assured destruction. Also it doesn't take many if you use them creatively.

As for the percentages, it's not far off.

Russia and the United states have about 13,400~, China has 270~, Pakistan 120~, India 120~, Israel 60~.

Math out of the countries you listed would put US/Russia at 95%. That however noting your list omitted the other powers of, UK, France, and North Korea.

Edit: You never answered my question at why you view a country with an economy smaller than Texas to be our greatest military foe? While China will surpass us economically in the near future. China is also projecting naval power far beyond their borders and increasing fleet size to contend with the US. They are showing more foresight for a possible encounter than Russia, and have more skin in the game to do so.

We would likely team up with Russia should China's britches get too big rather than vise versa.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's why I questioned it... and the reference to heads exploding. Unless I see something that will let me fact check it, I'm calling BS. I never heard him say that.

TheRedneck

Putin Tells Russian State TV Trump Made ‘Very Interesting Offer’ on Ukraine and How to ‘Get Around Sanctions’ latest.com...

Video here: www.dailymotion.com... At the 5 minute mark they talk about Trump and Putin "getting around sanctions" conversation.

Obama cut the snip out of our nukes.

Russia has more than we do.

originally posted by: neo96
Obama cut the snip out of our nukes.

Russia has more than we do.

The numbers are kind of a moot point. Delivery is the more important capability rather than quantity. Their air force is in rough shape, and we both obviously have ICBM's. We also have more Submarines... So idle dumb nukes that are aging aren't worth it IMO.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Actually it's a big point.

You'll have to forgive the authors fuzzy math here.

As of July 8, the United States has 6,800 warheads, according to data from Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris at the Federation of American scientists. 2,800 of them are retired, 4,000 are stockpiled, and 1,800 are deployed. The total number of U.S. warheads is second only to Russia, which currently has 7,000 of them.

The author makes it sound like we have 6,800.

We don't.

Only 1800 are ready at a moments notice.

Russia has a 6-1 advantage.

That's not mutually assured destruction.

That's a guaranteed Eff.

With us on the losing side.

time.com...

Plus Russia has modernized their snip.

And we're all here listening to people whine about translator subpoena's.

a reply to: neo96

source

Given population density of cities in each country.... They're both overkill.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

“So, when asked whether Putin asked for sanctions relief, Putin, of course, as a matter of Russian pride and also, I think, a negotiating tactic, knowing Trump could hand over sanctions relief, he simply says, ‘No but we talked about the interests of our two business communities in increasing economic ties and how we might do that in the current environment.’ So, that’s code for, ‘Yeah, they talked about how to get around sanctions.’ They actually had it as surprisingly substantive conversation. We heard none of it in the press conference,” Rojansky explained.

Your source

Really? Really?

Some guy on CNN claims that a statement about improving economic relations is "code" for something else, then admits Trump nor Putin actually said it, and you're accepting it hook, line, and sinker? Not to mention, the source video is from CNN, who has been proven time after time after time incorrect.

Trump never said what you claimed he said. This Rojansky fellow (with a Russian-sounding name no less) said it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: neo96

I beg to disagree. Drop half of those nukes across Russia and there won't be a Russia. That's enough firepower to burn pages out of history books worldwide.

Once you get to the level of being able to do that, having more is just macho bragging.

Theredneck

a reply to: shooterbrody


What's your point? The president can't specify a duration of record keeping, if there's no record to keep. No where does it say that records shall NOT be kept for secret meetings.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No where does it say that records shall NOT be kept for secret meetings.

Does it say they will be kept for closed meetings?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

About as naïve as demanding to see the intel communities' evidence against Russia or Trump, but people are still demanding to see it before they believe it!

There is never anything naïve about waiting for evidence. That's called being logical about things.

I'm not asking to be told what was discussed, but Trump was supposedly acting as POTUS, and POTUS actions aren't supposed to be a secret between only him and his greatest military foe.

Actually, a president can choose to have closed-door meetings with anyone that he wants to. There is no "aren't supposed to be" when he absolutely can meet one-on-one with heads of states. Your assertion is actually quite perplexing as to why you think that the POTUS must be accompanied by someone to these meetings every time he wants to talk to a head of state.

His aides, certain cabinet members, his intel community needs to know what was discussed. Otherwise, what was the purpose of a 2 hour meeting with Putin, if not to benefit the United States? Secrets between 2 people can't benefit the United States.

This is false, and I'm pretty sure that you know it.

God, I hope that you know it, at least. If not...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You sited regulations that do not back up your original statement.

No where does it say that records shall NOT be kept for secret meetings.

I do not think you understand what you speak of.

a reply to: TheRedneck


My source, for me, is my own eyes and ears. I heard Trump say "We talked about ways of getting around sanctions", at an impromptu presser. So, per your request, I did a search and sure enough, Russian TV has Putin hinting at just that.

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

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No where does it say that records shall NOT be kept for secret meetings.

Does it say they will be kept for closed meetings?

TheRedneck

(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term--

(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but

(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.

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

a reply to: Sookiechacha

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

Who gives a snip?

Maybe Trump and Putin wanted to have a REAL conversation INSTEAD of staged photo ops.