I don’t know what to say beyond “because”. If he spoke Russian and/or Putin’s English was such that he was willing to meet using it, then there wouldn’t have been translators in the room. Are you suggesting that the President must always have some else present when conducting business?
The problem with Trump is that he is breaking so many norms that there is going to be pressure to create rules to deal with things that were always left loosey-goosey in the past to allow the President and others the flexibility to do what needed to be done.
Kind of like what McConnel has done to the norms of the Senate. Yeah, there is no Constitutional requirement to vote on a nomination, but everyone knew that the vote should happen (either on the floor or in committee).
I was listening to MSNBC the other day on the way home and Ari Melber had on a senator (can’t remember which one) who was talking about this. And how it needed to happen because [lots of reasons]. But I didn’t quite agree with them because I couldn’t see it being worthwhile if Clinton or Bush or Obama was in the same position, I wouldn’t want it to happen to them. And something crystalized for me.
I am against any normal president’s translator being subpoenaed about a meeting. There needs to be a level of executive privilege and that needs to be respected.
BUT NOT THIS PRESIDENT.
Why? Because This. Is. Not. Normal. The person currently occupying the presidency is nothing but exceptions, and we need to treat it as such.
Lots of posters here, and on TV, and all over have been saying we need to avoid normalizing the Donald Trump presidency because it’s just not normal. And this is yet another example. If he’s going to make an exception to every rule, be an exception to every rule and norm of behavior, then so be it - we absolutely need to fucking treat him as such.
ETA - and i don’t think we need to create “new rules” that last beyond the end of Trump. He’s not normal, his presidency is not normal, so the normal rules shouldn’t apply, right?
The same reasoning applied to the Pubbies’ attempts to subpoena the Secret Service agents at the White House about Bubba’s blowjobs. They have nothing to say about this.
Subject to correction (I’m going from memory), my understanding is that for this sort of meeting there would normally be advisers in the room along with the President: Pompeo, perhaps, or Bolton. One-on-one meetings between heads of state would be much shorter and not expected to discuss policy in depth or come to agreements — “How are the missus and the kids?” or somesuch.
IMHO this way of thinking is looking at things with a misplaced focus. And this has much broader application than this EP claim, or even Donald Trump. It has to do with relating to and dealing with political opponents generally.
If you look at things solely in the context of your own moral equation, you can always find ways to justify treating your political or ideological opponents differently than you believe they should treat you. After all, you’re right and morally just and they’re the opposite. The problem with this is that they see things very differently.
The only way that rules of conduct work is if they’re shared by all sides and applied equally regardless of what one side thinks of the other side. Once you make a rule that depends entirely on what you think of the other guys and you don’t apply it to anyone who you think is unworthy of that level of respect and deference, then there’s no way you will get the other side to treat you in accordance with that rule, since their opinion of you is going to mirror your opinion of them.
Bottom line is that either the rules and principles apply to everyone or they apply to no one, regardless of what you think of them.
The only exception is if you have a position which has so little popular support that you don’t need to rely on its adherents maintaining the standards. You can declare all out war on that position and its adherents. But if you have a position which has a lot of popular support, then you need to come to some sort of accommodation with that group and arrive at a set of rules which apply to both sides equally, regardless of your moral position.
From this perspective, the fact that you think Trump is not normal is irrelevant. Normal would be defined by what the public at large thinks. From this perspective, anyone who has the support of 40% of the population is by definition normal.
Well, that looks great, although I do notice one troubling sentence toward the end:
Seems like it would be pretty easy for Trump to just declare the conversation classifed. I’m just assuming the same rules apply to translators, but it seems like a safe assumption.
Well, in order for a deal to have any effect - it’s going to have to become known at some point. Much like Russia is making noises about what Trump may or may not have agreed to in the one-on-one. And now people can raise objections. For instance, even if PantsOnHead agreed to turn over the ambassador (McFaul?), that still can be challenged.
Not sure how having other people in the room changes that part of the equation - beyond news getting out quicker (and the Russians not being able to spin the agreement quite so much), the deal would still be made. And depending on the loyalty/legality of the deal, it may very well have secret, hard-to-verify aspects to it.
It comes down to neither you or I trusting PantsOnHead. I’m just saying we need to think about applying rules/changing norms to deal with him and damaging future, saner holders of the office.
It allows one to prepare a defense if needed. Sort of like the discovery process.
It also lets us know what kind of shenanigans are going on even if they don’t follow through on the ‘secret’ agreement. With this president, it’s more important than ever.
Depending on the deal, it need never become public.
“Donald, if you do everything you can to keep Congress from imposing sanctions on Russia, I’ll do everything I can to keep the Russian banks from calling in your lines of credit.”
“Sounds good, Vlad! and may I say, you’re a pleasure to work with, unlike that whiny Canadian and that German b------.”
The President could keep up that deal without ever making it public.
Maybe allowing hordes of zealous sycophants and enemies alike the opportunity to misquote, misinterpret or otherwise simply read way too much into it is sometimes just a bad idea.
I agree that it would be a problem to subpoena the translator. I don’t think that’s a good precedent for the days after Trump (may they come swiftly). To the extent that Congress wishes to have oversight over Trump, they can do it by blocking his actions. Let them pass a law that folks like McFaul and Browder can’t be handed over to Russia, pass reforms that make our elections more secure. Let Trump promise Putin anything he wants, but make sure he can’t deliver.
What’s not getting enough attention is why Trump wanted a private meeting with Putin in the first place. I think the operation of the U.S. government should be open to its citizens, unless there’s a good reason to keep something secret. There are, of course, lots of good reasons. If we have some new, mach 5+ spy plane, I understand why the government doesn’t announce it. Anything I know, everyone else will know, too. If they tell me something, Putin will find out. Why I can’t understand is why Putin should know things about my government that I can’t. At the very least, let the Secretary of State in on the meeting. This could be the very most secret thing in the U.S. right now; above Classified, Top Secret, Most Secret, etc. Only four people in the world know what my government said in that meeting, why is Vladimir Putin one of them?
Can any of Trump’s defenders take a crack at that. Feel free to speculate. What could Donald Trump have said that was meant for Putin’s ears only?
