All things Trump + Russia Part 4

[pgwenthold]

It's being reported that top administration officials have no idea what Trump agreed to with Putin

I am reminded of the Funniest Home Videos of the guilty dogs where the owners are asking, "What did you do?"

 

[Bob001]

In case it hasn't been posted previously, a history of Trump's Russian business connections:

The simple truth is that Trump has been hungry for Russia projects for more than three decades. He has repeatedly touted plans for a Moscow mega-development and has courted a steady stream of investors from the former Soviet Union for ventures in New York, South Florida and other locations. Trump has enjoyed playing the "big guy" in Moscow. As he bragged to a New York real-estate publication after a November 2013 dinner with prominent business leaders: "The Russian market is attracted to me."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?utm_term=.51253c584cbe&noredirect=on

 

[The Great Zaganza]

By now it's obvious that the soccer ball Trump got from Putin is in fact the Glowing Sphere he first touched in Saudi Arabia - an insidious mind-control device.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

House Republicans vote down motion to subpoena Trump/Putin interpreter

 

[The Great Zaganza]

House Republicans vote down motion to subpoena Trump/Putin interpreter

I agree that the interpreter shoudn't be subpoenaed.
But it is unconscionable that there isn't a stenographer present at a meeting of this level.

 

[The Big Dog]

House Republicans vote down motion to subpoena Trump/Putin interpreter

Perhaps you meant to type that Congresscritter's disruptive stunt was slapped down:

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., disrupted a public House Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday, making a motion to subpoena the interpreter who accompanied President Trump earlier this week for a private meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The problem was the hearing was focused on something else entirely — the Chinese threat to the U.S. government and private sector — and ultimately the Democrat's effort was shot down.

That is from your link.

sad.

 

[Aridas]

https://twitter.com/cameron_kasky/status/1019314229537529856



Article about the rule

Not a law, a change of policy. One pushed for by the Kochs.

With this kind of treatment of dark money, though, one of the premises for why Citizens United was decided as it was, whatever its merits in theory, continues to be shown to be unrelated to reality.

“transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

 

[The Don]

I agree that the interpreter shoudn't be subpoenaed.
But it is unconscionable that there isn't a stenographer present at a meeting of this level.

Someone posted an article here recently that President Trump doesn't like stenographers because they tend to record *exactly* what was said, instead of what he thinks was said.

Ah, here it is

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/opinion/trump-recording-press-news.html

 

[quadraginta]

Someone posted an article here recently that President Trump doesn't like stenographers because they tend to record *exactly* what was said, instead of what he thinks was said.

Ah, here it is

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/opinion/trump-recording-press-news.html

Or, more importantly, what he wants to tell people was said.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Someone posted an article here recently that President Trump doesn't like stenographers because they tend to record *exactly* what was said, instead of what he thinks was said.

Ah, here it is

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/opinion/trump-recording-press-news.html

It CANNOT be up to the President what is and what isn't recorded: when he meets with foreign leaders, he is a Public Servant, not a private citizen. He is entitled to bury the transcripts under a mountain of classifications, but a record must be kept.
I would argue that not to have a transcript AT ALL violates the Presidential Record Act.
Unless we get to keep Trump's brain when he leaves office.

 

[The Greater Fool]

It CANNOT be up to the President what is and what isn't recorded: when he meets with foreign leaders, he is a Public Servant, not a private citizen. He is entitled to bury the transcripts under a mountain of classifications, but a record must be kept.
I would argue that not to have a transcript AT ALL violates the Presidential Record Act.
Unless we get to keep Trump's brain when he leaves office.

Not a problem, he won't be using it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Not a problem, he won't be using it.

Why the future tense? He's not using it now.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Why the future tense? He's not using it now.

As much as I would like "when Trump leaves office" to be present tense, it isn't. But, his leaving office comes closer every day.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

As much as I would like "when Trump leaves office" to be present tense, it isn't. But, his leaving office comes closer every day.

A majority of Republicans would be fine with him postponing the 2020 election.

 

[bobdroege7]

Unless we get to keep Trump's brain when he leaves office.

Trump lingered last in line for brains

And the one he got was sorta rotten and insane

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Perhaps you meant to type that Congresscritter's disruptive stunt was slapped down:

My title is accurate.

That is from your link.

Correct. That's why I posted a link, rather than simply making a statement.

Glad you've caught up.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Not a law, a change of policy.[/'quote]

Yes, that's why I called it a "rule", rather than a law, and why I linked to an article rather than just leaving the tweet as it was.

 

[Aridas]

It CANNOT be up to the President what is and what isn't recorded: when he meets with foreign leaders, he is a Public Servant, not a private citizen. He is entitled to bury the transcripts under a mountain of classifications, but a record must be kept.
I would argue that not to have a transcript AT ALL violates the Presidential Record Act.
Unless we get to keep Trump's brain when he leaves office.

It violates the intent, perhaps, but I don't think that it violates the letter of it. It was created during a time when what just happened was pretty much unthinkable, after all.

Of course, it would be unthinkable even today, if the Republicans of Congress hadn't become so lost in partisanship that they're now largely traitorous scum.

Yes, that's why I called it a "rule", rather than a law, and why I linked to an article rather than just leaving the tweet as it was.

Indeed. The tweet's misleading enough that I figured that I would specifically point that out, though. A change in law has much different implications that a change in policy.

 

[dmaker]

Trump lingered last in line for brains

And the one he got was sorta rotten and insane

PUSA, nice.

 

[The Big Dog]

My title is accurate.



Correct. That's why I posted a link, rather than simply making a statement.

Glad you've caught up.

You gave the stunt a veneer of respectability it did not deserve, which is why I typed "perhaps" one might have wished to make the circumstances clear, but we get it.