Trump has concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin from senior officials in admin

[jghiretire]

Innocent until proven guilty means nothing to Trump resisters but it's obvious that they believe that they have the unmitigated gall to question what is said in his meetings with other world leaders. Too funny.

......and all you had was the tan suit crisis.

 

[haymarket]

I rather suspect that if it were Ms. Clinton involved rather than Mr. Trump, then your reaction to "the so-called 'release' of the so-called 'transcripts'" would have been

Your biased suspicions are irrelevant to me.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Actually I think you would find that great majority of experts would tell you that if a US President were truly bound and determined to launch a nuclear attack that it may be very difficult to prevent him or her from doing so. As the President could summarily dismiss any officer who refuses carry out the order and just keep going on down the line until he or she finds somebody that will comply with the order. There's some food for thought. Don't you think?

Not really, as thanks to the 25th Amendment he could easily be removed if he exhibits INSANE ORDERS LIKE RANDOMLY NUKING ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES! :doh

 

[sangha]

They only HAVE TO BE "archived" AFTER the President is finished with them. Until that time they are still "working documents".

I'm sure that Mr. Trump is keeping them specifically as directed by specific legislation.

On the other hand, I do recall the case of a Canadian chicken farmer who "stored" all of his records on the floors of his chicken barns. When Revenue Canada demanded his documents as part of an audit (he had been filing his Income Tax on the basis of "estimated revenues and costs") he told them that they were perfectly free to examine the documents at their leisure and could keep them as long as they liked. When he showed the Revenue Canada auditors where the documents were "stored" they immediately commenced court action because of his "refusal to maintain receipts and invoices".

Unfortunately for Revenue Canada, the Income Tax Act only said "keep" and didn't specify "keep neatly and in order in a clean location, preferably in correctly labelled folders in a filing cabinet that wasn't located in a chicken coop". When Revenue Canada finally admitted that, as far as they could tell, all of the records that they wanted to examine WERE made available to them, the Judge (with remarkable good sense [and a pretty damn good sense of humour]) tossed the case. To this day, that chicken farmer STILL sends Revenue Canada the amount that he thinks that he should pay in income tax and Revenue Canada just cashes the cheque.

That sounds apocryphal

 

[iguanaman]

Well yes. After the election Obama could approach Russia in a way that would perhaps cost him votes had he done so in that manner prior to the election. He asked Putin (Medvedev) not to react to harshly to his harshness toward Russia.
Naturally, as per the standards directed toward Mr. Trump, Obama was conspiring with the chief adversary for the purpose of defrauding Americans in the 2012 election by hiding essential information that voters needed to make an informed choice.

Funny but to me Obama was just stating the obvious. You must be a real neophyte if you didn't already know that about American politics. How that compares with Trump requesting Russia to hack Hillary's emails, or spouting the Kremlin's line about the Russian hacking for the whole campaign even when he was personally briefed on the truth is beyond me.

 

[Athanasius68]

Funny but to me Obama was just stating the obvious. You must be a real neophyte if you didn't already know that about American politics. How that compares with Trump requesting Russia to hack Hillary's emails, or spouting the Kremlin's line about the Russian hacking for the whole campaign even when he was personally briefed on the truth is beyond me.

Trump didn't ask Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton's emails. He suggested that Russia FIND Mrs. Clinton's emails- she said she didn't have them.

It compares because obviously Obama directly asks the head of the foreign adversary to take it easy so as to make it easier for his reelection, with the implication that whatever he did until election day shouldn't be taken seriously. And of course, Trump met with no Russians.
Hey--- these are YOUR standards.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Not really, as thanks to the 25th Amendment he could easily be removed if he exhibits INSANE ORDERS LIKE RANDOMLY NUKING ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES! :doh

LOL! Do you think you can just invoke the 25th Amendment in an instant? It's a cumbersome process and in the meantime while you're doing that the President will be working his or her way through the chain of command. And really. You taking the nuking Texas comment comment seriously is just plain silly as it was clearly intended as hyperbole. Whereas the reality is quite sobering.

 

[sangha]

1. No one said there was. That is a red herring.

actually, someone did. You

I asked a simple question, and if the answer is "NO, there is no requirement," then much like the demand to reveal one's tax returns it has little meaning except to claim some moral high ground.

2. Except to attempt to make a private point that he could have made openly instead of "whispering" when he thought no one could hear. :roll:

You continue to deflect from the issue with the dishonest straw that this is about a president speaking privately to a foreign leader when the issue is Trump not revealing what he spoke about to his own administrations officers.

3. Simply stating "there is absolutely no evidence that any other President's have done the same thing" does not refute the point that you have not proved your assertion that prior President's have not done the same thing. That is an argumentum ad populum "everyone knows this to be true."

No, it is not argumentum ad populum; it is the innocent until proven guilty shtick you play when it is convenient and discard when it is not. According to you, it is wrong to speculate about what Trump is doing but fine to speculate about what Obama did

You are making an unproven assertion and expect me to refute your unproven assertion. I don't have to prove this has never happened since much like you, I was not a fly on the wall of every Presidential foreign encounter that has ever occurred. Nor do either of us have access to such records, if any actually exist.

However, that does not mean that such evidence may not or does not exist.

No.

I've been in this Forum long enough for people to know where I stand when it comes to alleging someone has done something wrong absent proof of guilt. Especially when it is all naked speculation.

Innocent until proven guilty is my motto.

Again, you are engaging in naked speculation. So much for your motto

https://postcourier.com.pg/obama-putin-hold-private-meeting-at-g20/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-putin-have-private-chat-at-g-20-summit-turkey/

Arguably they did meet "in public." So we know they met, it was public knowledge. Yet we only have second-hand reports on what they talked about, no "transcript." No "translator notes."

We also know Trump had at least one meeting with Putin using a translator. Then asked for the notes. No transcript, just what Trump says the meeting was about. Apparently whatever was discussed Trump wanted to keep confidential...as did Obama at the time of his meeting. :shrug:

I believe Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to travel outside the USA, although there may have been foreign heads of state who visited the USA before that time. Are we aware of every conversation he may have had with foreign heads of state?

Woodrow Wilson met several foreign heads of state, do we have transcripts of every conversation/meeting? https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/travels/president/wilson-woodrow

Franklin Roosevelt met several foreign heads of state during WWII, are we certain that we aware of every conversation he had with Stalin, or Churchill? Any other head of state he ever met with? Or just the ones they had in group meetings?

It is entirely possible in all the above situations and in any follow-on Administration that a seated President had a private conversation with a foreign head of state for which we have no public (or private) record available.

And again, the issue is not the president meeting a foriegn leader in private. It is a president actively hiding what occurred in those private meetings from senior members of his own administration, going so far as to order his interpreter to rip u his notes.

4. You engaged in hyperbole, I addressed your fallacious points.

No, you obviously engaged in disingenuity in order to deflect from the issue

 

[Captain Adverse]

LOL! Do you think you can just invoke the 25th Amendment in an instant? It's a cumbersome process and in the meantime while you're doing that the President will be working his or her way through the chain of command. And really. You taking the nuking Texas comment comment seriously is just plain silly as it was clearly intended as hyperbole. Whereas the reality is quite sobering.

Do you think an order to nuke any location in the USA is going to be met with instant "yes sir?" :roll:

Under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, if the VP and a majority of the Cabinet think the President is acting "insane" (or otherwise unable to perform his duties) they can remove him on the spot and the Vice-President assumes the office.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv

 

[Atomic Kid]

Trump didn't ask Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton's emails. He suggested that Russia FIND Mrs. Clinton's emails- she said she didn't have them.

It compares because obviously Obama directly asks the head of the foreign adversary to take it easy so as to make it easier for his reelection, with the implication that whatever he did until election shouldn't be taken seriously. And of course, Trump met with no Russians.
Hey--- these are YOUR standards.

And just how do you think the Russians would get their hands on her emails? By filling a Freedom of Information request? Go and check the local lost and found or something? My God! Sometimes it's hard to believe that you are actually being serious.

 

[Athanasius68]

And just how do you think the Russians would get their hands on her emails? By filling a Freedom of Information request? Go and check the local lost and found or something? My God! Sometimes it's hard to believe that you are actually being serious.

HELLO! Mrs. Clinton had long said SHE DIDNT HAVE THEM. That's why they were called the 'missing Clinton emails.' Are you suggesting that she LIED about their whereabouts?
And it was a joke by Trump.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Do you think an order to nuke any location in the USA is going to be met with instant "yes sir?" :roll:

Under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, if the VP and a majority of the Cabinet think the President is acting "insane" (or otherwise unable to perform his duties) they can remove him on the spot and the Vice-President assumes the office.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv

Really? Why are you taking that posters nuking Texas comment literally? Are you capable of thinking of any other way? And I know how the Amendment reads. How quickly do you really think you can get a Vice President and 8 Cabinet members to come to a consensus that the President is insane and then submit that consensus to Congress and get a 2/3 majority vote in each house to certify invoking the Amendment? I'm guessing that all would take a longer than say 20 minutes.

 

[Captain Adverse]

actually, someone did. You

No, your "citations" did not show that at all. :roll:

No, it is not argumentum ad populum; it is the innocent until proven guilty shtick you play when it is convenient and discard when it is not. According to you, it is wrong to speculate about what Trump is doing but fine to speculate about what Obama did

Again, no. I offered evidence that what Trump did may not be "unique." Since I think he has the authority to do what he did, I am not asserting any crime.

From this same thread:

No.

I've been in this Forum long enough for people to know where I stand when it comes to alleging someone has done something wrong absent proof of guilt. Especially when it is all naked speculation.

Innocent until proven guilty is my motto....

Now ask me how I feel or what I believe AFTER Mueller makes his report and I can examine FACTS used and see what crimes are alleged.

Until then, as far as I am concerned Mr. Trump can have all the secret or public meeting he wants while serving as President, because I don't currently believe he is a "criminal, traitor, or spy."

It is YOU who seem to be asserting he has done something wrong, something no other President has ever done before.

I accept that other Presidents may have done it before, and I have no objection to them having done so, absent clear evidence the discussion contained some criminal content.

Again, you are engaging in naked speculation. So much for your motto

Not quite. Merely pointing out that you made a naked assertion on the basis of an argumentum ad populum, and I responded that you have not shown it to be factually true. :shrug:

And again, the issue is not the president meeting a foriegn leader in private. It is a president actively hiding what occurred in those private meetings from senior members of his own administration, going so far as to order his interpreter to rip u his notes.

Again there is nothing which requires him to do otherwise, therefore just because he did so does not indicate malfeasance or misfeasance of office. :shrug:

No, you obviously engaged in disingenuity in order to deflect from the issue

No, I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

I have no problem with someone having the last word, if I feel any of those three conditions I listed were met. :coffeepap:

 

[Captain Adverse]

Really? Why are you taking that posters nuking Texas comment literally? Are you capable of thinking of any other way? And I know how the Amendment reads. How quickly do you really think you can get vice President and 8 Cabinet members to come to a consensus that the President is insane and then submit that consensus to Congress and get a 2/3 majority vote in each house to certify invoking the Amendment? I'm guessing that all would take a longer than say 20 minutes.

Pretty damn quickly if it is reported that he is trying to "nuke Texas." Wasn't that the example cited?

The point being that there ARE safeguards to prevent a President from randomly and without discernable good cause invoking nuclear authority.

We do have DefCon levels, and we have early warning of nuclear launches. If we are on the brink of war there are usually indicators and "meetings" to discuss responses.

 

[sangha]

No, your "citations" did not show that at all. :roll:

Yes, it did

Again, no. I offered evidence that what Trump did may not be "unique." Since I think he has the authority to do what he did, I am not asserting any crime.

No, you offered no evidence. Just pure speculation.

It is YOU who seem to be asserting he has done something wrong, something no other President has ever done before.

I accept that other Presidents may have done it before, and I have no objection to them having done so, absent clear evidence the discussion contained some criminal content.

I am arguing that he has done something wrong in the sense that it was unwise, not that it was illegal; a point you have studiously avoided responding to

Not quite. Merely pointing out that you made a naked assertion on the basis of an argumentum ad populum, and I responded that you have not shown it to be factually true. :shrug:

This is another dishonest misrepresentation. I never made any argument based on the argument that many people agree with me.

Again there is nothing which requires him to do otherwise, therefore just because he did so does not indicate malfeasance or misfeasance of office. :shrug:

again, the issue I am raising is whether it is wise to keep such discussions a secret from his top officials - an issue you continue to disingenuously avoid

No, I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

I have no problem with someone having the last word, if I feel any of those three conditions I listed were met. :coffeepap:

But you have not even addressed the point of whether it is wise for a president to hide his discussions with foreign leaders from the officials in his own administration going so far as to have his interpreter destroy his notes. I predict you will eventually leave this thread without ever addressing it substantively

 

[Atomic Kid]

HELLO! Mrs. Clinton had long said SHE DIDNT HAVE THEM. That's why they were called the 'missing Clinton emails.' Are you suggesting that she LIED about their whereabouts?
And it was a joke by Trump.

And why and how would the Russians have them then? And the Russians certainly didn't think it was a joke because they almost immediately launched a spearfishing attack on email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton's personal office right after Trump had implored them to go find them.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Pretty damn quickly if it is reported that he is trying to "nuke Texas." Wasn't that the example cited?

The point being that there ARE safeguards to prevent a President from randomly and without discernable good cause invoking nuclear authority.

We do have DefCon levels, and we have early warning of nuclear launches. If we are on the brink of war there are usually indicators and "meetings" to discuss responses.

:lamo Yeah right. Again why are you so focused on the nuking Texas comment as that was clearly an exaggeration? That's just stupid.

 

[HumblePi]

One question. Is there any law or regulation regarding this process which REQUIRES the President to do otherwise, or is this just something people would prefer the President do?

There's no law but any sitting president with an ounce of integrity would know that a secret meeting between two world powers must be public, and if there's a reason to be private then others in the administration should be present. There's a reason for this. Any adversary could take advantage of such a vulnerable position by claiming he said or promised something that they did not. It's called transparency, the thing that Republicans say they're all in favor of. Meeting in secret with Putin with only translators in the room with the two of them, then taking away the notes the translator made, then warning the translator not to speak of what transpired isn't transparency, it's secrecy and that could possibly result in another charge of collusion.

 

[HumblePi]

House intel needs to subpoena the interpreter. ASAP. Trump cannot be trusted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that thought comes into our heads, 'subpoena the translator' then I'm sure that Robert Mueller is way ahead of us on this and knows everything that was said in that private meeting.

 

[iguanaman]

Trump didn't ask Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton's emails. He suggested that Russia FIND Mrs. Clinton's emails- she said she didn't have them.

It compares because obviously Obama directly asks the head of the foreign adversary to take it easy so as to make it easier for his reelection, with the implication that whatever he did until election day shouldn't be taken seriously. And of course, Trump met with no Russians.
Hey--- these are YOUR standards.

The hacking was implied by the word find and the Russians did indeed try to hack Clinton's server that day just like Trump asked them to. There were no implications in Obama saying he could be more flexible later. Obama just stated the obvious truth that pertains to any President. The lying Trump did about the Russians day after day during the campaign was obviously defrauding voters by NOT telling the truth about the Russians illegally trying to help him win. Something he was told early on by a briefing with our intelligence officials and he choose the Kremlin propaganda instead.

 

[iguanaman]

And just how do you think the Russians would get their hands on her emails? By filling a Freedom of Information request? Go and check the local lost and found or something? My God! Sometimes it's hard to believe that you are actually being serious.

The evidence against Trump is so widespread and damaging that double talk, playing dumb (at least I think they are playing) and acting like they were born yesterday are all Trumpists have left. It is like they are working for Putin too. But unlike Trump they are doing it for free. Blind partisanship makes for strange bedfellows.

 

[Athanasius68]

And why and how would the Russians have them then? And the Russians certainly didn't think it was a joke because they almost immediately launched a spearfishing attack on email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton's personal office right after Trump had implored them to go find them.

Why would Russia have, or want to have, the former sec of state and current nominee for president emails? Surely, you jest.
But you are correct: there is no evidence that Russia ever actually had them.
Which makes it kind of difficult for the Trump campaign to get them from there.

 

[Athanasius68]

The hacking was implied by the word find and the Russians did indeed try to hack Clinton's server that day just like Trump asked them to. There were no implications in Obama saying he could be more flexible later. Obama just stated the obvious truth that pertains to any President. The lying Trump did about the Russians day after day during the campaign was obviously defrauding voters by NOT telling the truth about the Russians illegally trying to help him win. Something he was told early on by a briefing with our intelligence officials and he choose the Kremlin propaganda instead.

I see-- Obama can lie to the American people, and ask Putin to be easy on him. No fraud involved because all president's do it.
Nice standards.

 

[sangha]

:lamo Yeah right. Again why are you so focused on the nuking Texas comment as that was clearly an exaggeration? That's just stupid.

Some people would rather discuss trvial matters that are not germane to the more important issue, that of whether or not it is wise for a president to hide his private discussions with foreign leaders from the senior officials in his own administration.

 

[Athanasius68]

Some people would rather discuss trvial matters that are not germane to the more important issue, that of whether or not it is wise for a president to hide his private discussions with foreign leaders from the senior officials in his own administration.

It's probably not wise.
It's also not clear what the paranoia is all about over that he has.