The Topic is pretty much it, with the note that I’m wondering less about the absolute verbatim truth of their conversation than I am about the essence. How do they reach conclusions about things like this? What conclusions have been safely drawn? What range of speculation is there? How do such speculations get nailed down and how do they get rejected?
Without some sort of Mannerheim Recording thing, we’ll never know.
OK, but historians speculate, often fairly confidently, about such things. They’ve ruled out discussions about eliminating the Designated Hitter in baseball, I think.
On the assumption that Trump is less than assiduous in note-taking and record-keeping, I don’t imagine anyone can know unless and until the Russian archives on Putin’s years in office become available. Even then, it might just have been no more than a boasting-match about who’s got more gilt around the place.
Was there anyone else in the room? Security? Translators? If other ears heard, then there’s a possibility that other mouths could one day speak.
I think it was well-established that Trump demanded all the translator’s notes, and we can presume he destroyed them. So the only way we’ll ever know with any confidence is if the Russians kept some notes.
But, that was the big downfall of the Nazis at the end of WWII - they were obsessive note-takers, and all those notes came back to haunt them, as they were used to establish their own guilt. I expect Putin et al. will have learned to burn everything long before anyone with a vested interest in prosecuting them can get their hands on it.
I’m really asking about triangulation. We can know some things about what they’ve disclosed publicly (very little), some from their subsequent actions, some from their prior dealings, some from White House insiders who may have spoken with Trump, some from probabilities, some (eventually) from the Russian translators (I can’t imagine that they have enough common language to communicate effectively in Russian or English)–the point is that historians make judgments all the time, some better than others, but will they ever have enough information to go beyond “Who knows?”
We are not called translators, those do the written word, we are called interpreters. Trump’s interpreter in Helsinki was Marina Gross, she was the only other American in the room. No security, it seems. Congress deliberated whether to subpoena her to force her to testify about the content of the conversation between Trump and Putin. I am not sure what to think of that: interpreters, like doctors and lawyers (or even priests, if you believe in that kind of thing) need to have the full confidence of their clients or they cannot work correctly. A medical doctor cannot make the right diagnosis if the patient is not frank with the symptoms, a lawyer will not be able to defend his client if the client does not trust him enough to tell things as they happened, and interpreter will not be able to convey the message one political leaders wants to convey if the leader does not state his message for fear of leaks. It is fundamental for the profession and for the future of diplomacy that what interpreters hear and say remains secret. In the end Ms. Gross was not forcet to testify, which would have put her in a very awkward position.
On the other hand, if Trump commited treason in her judgement (but who is she to tell without a trial? And how can you have a trial about whether her testimony is necessary and can be forced without her testifying about her testimony?), she, having sworn the constitution, should be able to talk about it. Right? I wish it was, and I wish (a little bit) she had done, but it seems that the answer is no.
So historians will have to rely on the Kremlin’s archives, should they exist and be opened to the scholars some day. And then they will have to figure out whether what those archives show is the truth, Putin’s version of it (i.e.: a complete manipulative fabrication) or something else.
Had I been the interpreter (!) in that meeting I would have been able to repeat the whole conversation the next day without any notes*. It’s our job: when you hear something with full concentration, take notes of it and repeat it again shortly afterwards it becomes engrained enough in your mind to repeat it again without the notes. Trump taking away the notes was just a gesture to show he was the boss and an order towards the interpreter not to talk about it, which she is not allowed to anyway (see my previous post).
BTW, interpreter’s notes are usually very cryptic and idiosyncratic, very hard to decypher for a third person. I doubt they would stand as proof in court without the help of the interpreter who took them. But of course Trump would want to show how much in command he was, and he wanted to show that in front of Putin. He also wanted to belittle the woman, that is his SOP.
*Some details like numbers may change, but the general message would be correct. At that level? Over 90% accuracy for sure. Without any notes, I insist.
Unless Trump or Putin honestly tell us, which is unlikely given their past history, we will never know. You can hope for a deathbed confession, but that’s even less likely. Historians have better things to do than to speculate on conversations they know nothing about.
Do you suppose that the interpreter may have transcribed his/her notes from memory shortly after Trump demanded they be destroyed? If I were the interpreter, that’s certainly what I would have done privately, and not just because I personally hate Trump’s guts, just out of a sense of justice and not liking being ordered to do things out of the ordinary that are contrary to standard practice.
Literally, yes. But when they know a tiny bit about something, they go to town speculating. That is what they do, come up with theories and speculations about long-buried historical events.
What tiny bit do they know?
That is an interesting question. If she did she would have put herself at risk, personally and professionally. I probably would have, but I would also have hidden that transcript very well. I have no idea what she did, I only know that she fought publically and vocally not to testify, not even behind closed doors. Which was her right to do, if, perhaps, not the right thing to do. It is really difficult.
They know that the two met, they know that the two of them had expressed their priorities in public, they know what policies Russia and the U.S. followed after the meeting, they know what issues were of no importance at all to either of them, they know what issues Trump had never shown the slightest comprehension of, and–most germane to my OP–there may be in the future new channels of access to what was said.
For example, I wonder what Trump confided to anyone–his Secretary of State or his son-in-law–about the discussion. Hard to imagine a blabbermouth like him being totally tight-lipped about the meeting.
They know that Trump and Putin spoke, they know that Trump said afterwards that he trusted Putin’s word on the meddling in the US presidential election more than he trusted his own secret service, they know that Trump wanted to do business with Moscow for a long time and that Trump Inc. had been heavily dependent on Russian money laundering for many years. They also know that it is highly unusual to exclude high ranking officials from the State Department from a one on one meeting like that. And they know that Trump demanded the notes from the interpreter, and demanded them in a way that everybody knew he had. You don’t need much paranoia to start speculating with that. As you can see in this very thread people are already speculating what transpired in that meeting. Actually, they started right after the meeting. No surprise there.
Sure, they can speculate all they want, but I wouldn’t trust anything Trump told anyone. He’s been known to fib every now and then.
AFAIK, we know nothing about what was actually said during that conversation. Until someone who was there tells us under oath, it’s all just a guess.
I consider Trump an extremely reliable teller of truth. I just assume anything that comes out of his mouth is a bald-faced lie and the opposite is true. Not foolproof, but I’ve never gone far wrong with this assumption, and many, many times I’ve landed on the 100% gospel truth with it.
You’re all assuming that the reason Trump demanded the interpreter’s notes was to destroy them. That would be reasonable… but this is Trump. I think it’s much more likely that he demanded them because he wanted to keep them as a souvenir. They might already be among the documents the FBI has seized.
One day Marina Gross will retire, and by then Trump will probably be dead.
So she might decide to speak openly.
That’s our best hope .
And I hope that she realizes that settling the facts of history correctly and permanently is a more important moral value than maintaining professional confidentiality while she was getting a paycheck.