Republicans Block Move To Subpoena Interpreter

Republicans Block Move To Subpoena Interpreter From Trump-Putin Summit

July 19, 2018

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes led Republicans in a party line vote to table the motion
e panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff, said Thursday he wanted the State Department interpreter to appear in closed session, saying Congress must “find out what was said” during the two-hour meeting.

The California lawmaker says he realizes it’s an “extraordinary” step to subpoena the interpreter, but it’s also extraordinary for the president to meet alone with a U.S. adversary.

Chairman Devin Nunes, also of California, led Republicans in a party line vote to table the motion. Nunes said a panel hearing on China was not an appropriate venue. The vote was 11-6.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ummit-interpreter_us_5b50b75de4b0de86f48ac6d5

July 19, 2018

Republicans block effort to subpoena only U.S. witness of secret Trump-Putin meeting


While Putin touts "useful agreements," Trump remains evasive about what was discussed.

https://thinkprogress.org/schiff-swalwell-subpoena-translator-trump-putin-gop-blocks-d51f63551031/

Just a reminder.

It's appropriate they blocked it. It would set a horrible precedent.

about_average said:

It's appropriate they blocked it. It would set a horrible precedent.

Click to expand...

I agree. I thought it was an odd approach to the problem. I think they should just openly say that nothing he agreed to under those circumstances has any effect on anyone else or what the departments do. For the most part, in the foreign affairs departments, they've been ignoring him and moving along more or less as usual with the curtailed resources they have. The State Department, for instance, gave the notion of turning McFall over to the Russians a very public and direct horselaugh while the White House was still saying it was considering it. The answer is to isolate the fucker. Reach the stage where his secret service detail won't even go out for cheeseburgers for him.

sEPARATION OF POWERS.

If Dembos can interrogate Trumos peeps Trump can interrogate Dembo peps.

KeithD said:

The answer is to isolated the fucker.

Click to expand...

Agree. He has spent most of his life obsessed with self-interest. His own isolation is the logical outcome.

FEELINGLUCKYPUNK said:

sEPARATION OF POWERS.

If Dembos can interrogate Trumos peeps Trump can interrogate Dembo peps.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the Russians getting to interrogate a former U.S. ambassador, James? Do try to keep up. I know it's hard for you to think of anyone but yourself, but . . .

about_average said:

It's appropriate they blocked it. It would set a horrible precedent.

Click to expand...

The “intelligence” committees should see the notes! Not the public. He doesn’t get to say “presidential” privileges when meeting with our enemy! Checks and balances! Someone should have been in the room with him! Or, we just admit the Republicans want a dictator or Emperor.

We all paid for that meeting!! (So did the Finns.. unless we reimbursed them! Did we reimburse the Scots for his weekend of golf?)

If we don’t see the notes, then He is colluding NOW!! Prove us wrong!

just4friends said:

The “intelligence” committees should see the notes! Not the public. He doesn’t get to say “presidential” privileges when meeting with our enemy! Checks and balances! Someone should have been in the room with him! Or, we just admit the Republicans want a dictator or Emperor.

We all paid for that meeting!! (So did the Finns.. unless we reimbursed them! Did we reimburse the Scots for his weekend of golf?)

If we don’t see the notes, then He is colluding NOW!! Prove us wrong!

Click to expand...

It would probably be quicker and easier to ask the Russians for the tapes they undoubtedly recorded.

RubenR said:

Let's all shout Trump is evil, and there will be an investigation!

I'm sure there must be rules about what a president can do and can't do.

Click to expand...

Well, no, the parameters were just mostly understood by all presidents before this one. That's the problem. No one in their wildest imagination would think a U.S. president would do/act like Donald Trump does. But, even if there were rules, he wouldn't know what they were--or care.

The "rule breaking" Obama was dinged for was something like wearing a tan suit, with his wife dinged for wearing a sleeveless blouse. The Trumps, in contrast . . .

RubenR said:

That's also the responsibility of his advisers. I can't believe no-one saw this coming. With millions of people shouting 'traitor', people are still surprised he acts like one?

Click to expand...

I think we are will beyond expecting Trump's advisors to have any control over what he says or does whatsoever.

People shout "traitor" because he acts like one; not the other way around.

RubenR said:

Doesn't alter the fact that it should have been told to him, whether he follows the rules or not. If he knowingly breaks the rules...
If there are no rules, then it seems like a typical American problem about minimal rules.

Click to expand...

What makes you think protocols and parameters weren't/aren't told him? No one from his staff has claimed they advised him to do a one-on-one with Putin (although no one has mentioned that Reagan did a one-on-one with Gorbachev in Geneva once). The leaks from the White House staff that have been reported were that he was told a lot about what to say to Putin and did just the opposite. The next day he sat there in an attempt to clean up the would/wouldn't aspect of the press conference and all the world--at least the part of the world that uses its brain--could clearly see what he was told he had to say under the circumstances, that he didn't want to say it, and that, in fact, he adlibbed stuff that negated what he was supposed to say. No one is as transparent as Trump in just burbling out what he really thinks in front of the cameras.

Just don't try this sort of argument on me. I was born with common sense, eyes, and the ability and professional training to process and assess information and behavior.

I've already posted that I didn't think going after the interpreter to testify is the way to go (although the protocol, according to two former presidential interpreters I've seen comment on TV shows, is that the interpreter is responsible for writing up his/her notes in a memo that goes to the archives. That still makes it just their version of whatever they took notes on.) So I'll leave others to respond to you on that.

That said, both the president and the interpreter were working in an official capacity. Their output, written or spoken, is government property and they are responsible for providing it to the government. This is the same issue as the memos on discussions that Comey released to the public through an academic friend. The Republicans in Congress are rightly after him on those. Those are government property--a work discussion with memos he wrote up in his official capacity. They aren't his personal property.

In Trump's case, I think both Congress and governmental departments can just assume nothing exists in the way of commitment or attempts at it unless/until he coughs it up. They have operated this way before, as in his dictum on gays in the military. They did nothing until a recognizable government directive was produced.