You may even be right about that, but as I wrote: they may not be easy to decypher.
The confidentiality has reasons I had hoped to have sketched. It is not as black and white as you make it sound.
You never know what documents might be made available in the future. With the fall of the Soviet Union, a lot of their documents became available. Not just their documents, many former Soviet officials were willing to talk to westerners.
Good. That doesn’t need to be discussed.
It just needs to be done.
Not to hijack too severely, but I think you may be elevating your profession a step too far. What you say is perfectly true about confidentiality, but with the codical that the client preserves a record of the interpreter’s transcript. That client may not reveal the record publicly, or in the lifetime of anyone now living, etc., though you or I might object to that policy, but when the client destroys the record, I think the interpreter might take a different path from the standard one. I think there’s a larger gray area for interpreters than there is for doctors or lawyers, simply because I don’t see the interpreters’ pledge to protect their clients as absolutely essential to the profession. It’s good if the client feels 100% free to speak openly without fear that the interpreter will blab about the content, but when the client makes the interpreter into a collaborator in distorting history, their agreement changes, in my opinion.
My memory is that he took them from her, then tore them up, right then and there. I recall being pissed when I heard about it, because I thought of them as being presidential records, which he did not have the right or authority to dispose of as he pleased.
My assumption, then and now is that Trump specifically and openly asked Putin to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. And asked exactly what Putin wanted in return.
According to this article it looks as if Biden can release her from her vow of silence, since it is based on her clearance of access to top secret information. If Biden were to declassify it, for example, she would no longer be bound by it.
I don’t believe this is a hijack at all: there were only four people in that room. Trump, Putin, the US interpreter (Marina Gross) and the Russian interpreter (name unknown to me, can be seen in the picture in the article). And I don’t believe I am elevating my profession at all. You must understand the roles of those four people, what they can do and what not, if you want to know what they can say in the future about that meeting. If people don’t trust us, they won’t talk frankly. We must make them trust us for their own sake. Some people still will not trust us. Angela Merkel did not trust us. She spoke English whenever she could, just to sidestep us. According to your article Nixon and Kissinger avoided US interpreters for fear of sub-poenas. I doubt that this did them good or helped them in their negotiations.
There may be interpreter’s notes, perhaps not even that. But I have never heard of a transcript. That is not our job. That is the reason why there should have been a high ranking civil servant from the State Department present in that meeting. It is their role to make a transcript to be archived, confidentially if must be, in the National Archives.
Then I have not made myself clear. It is.
That is your opinion and I see how you came to believe that, but if Ms. Gross unilaterally decided to forgo confidentiality she might well end up in prison.
That is not how I read that article at all. You are letting your wishes cloud your judgement, I am afraid. Just some quotes from that article:
Veteran interpreters are concerned that a Congressional subpoena of Gross or her notes of the meeting would set a dangerous precedent.
Professional interpreters are concerned about the dangerous precedent that would be set by Congress if a diplomatic interpreter is subpoenaed.
“I’ve never heard of that happening in the 30 years that I worked the State Department or subsequently since I retired,” said Dimitry Zarechnak a former interpreter with the State Department’s Office of Language Services, who interpreted for President Ronald Reagan during some of his summits with Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union.
A greater concern is the impact a subpoena could have on state leaders excluding interpreters from their meeting if they believe they could be subpoenaed by Congress in the future.
“The whole idea of subpoenaing an interpreter is atrocious,” said Zarechnak. “What foreign leader would want to meet with the U.S. leader thinking that ‘well, the interpreter could be subpoenaed and tell Congress what the meeting was about.’”
Actually that article says many things I have written here too.
No, it is not. Her vow of silence is a prerequisite to access conficential information as per her profession. You are getting this backwards. Biden can not release her from her bow of silence. And I see nowhere in that article that says so.
Under what circumstances should a US president be able to hide information from the US Congress about discussions with a foreign adversary, especially when there is prior information about this president working with the adversary for personal gain?
That is a very good question. Do you believe the interpreter, someone who has no degree in law btw, is the right one to make that call? I have been accused of elevating my profession already, but that would really be going too far.
I really appreciate your speaking up and sharing the parameters of your profession, fighting our ignorance. You’re someone with actual experience in the job and your insights are invaluable.
Thank you.
On what charge?
At least breach of contract. At that political level treason could be argued (though I understand that treason is quite narrowly defined in the USA). And remembering the loaded political climate and the divisive partisanship in the USA and all things surrounding Trump there is a real danger to life and limb (remember the “2nd ammendment guys” Trump has openly called to have a deep look at Ms. Clinton?) that Ms. Gross may also have taken into account. But IANAL, others may know better what the consequences could be in the USA for divulging state secrets.
Historians hate writing things like, “there’s really no way to know for sure”, but those that can bring themselves to do so have my respect.
This. There’s nothing really to say about it at this point, although that could change in the future.
Absolutely not, in the US. Not even close. If the contract is worded anything like “prohibited from revealing state secrets” then reclassifying the secrets, which Biden can do, makes that moot. If she’s afraid for her life, that’s another thing entirely, but people do all sorts of things that anger their political enemies, and Ms. Clinton would have been assassinated long ago if all it took was sufficient hatred.
IANAL, but to my knowledge that’s not a criminal offense, it’s a civil one. You can be sued civilly for monetary damages for breaching a contract, but you can’t be charged criminally and imprisoned on that basis. Treason isn’t even in the realms of arguable in the US.
What a pity you are not a lawyer either, otherwise I would refer you to Mr. Julian Assange, Mr. Edward Snowden and Mr. Bradley / Ms. Chelsea Manning who would greatly appretiate your counsel.
But anyway: I believe I have told what I know about what one of the four persons in that room is likely to tell. What the consequences might be if she did is up to the courts to decide if and when she does speak. That is not my area of expertise.
I would expect that if they hear someone planning a crime that impacts the entire government, they should consult a lawyer and then potentially inform Congress that the current President of the USA is conspiring with a foreign adversary to overthrow the government.
Professions do have the responsibility to come forward in certain circumstances, where crime is involved, or human life is at risk. Their professional responsibilities of privacy to clients is not unlimited.
I was unaware the breach of contract is an offense that can land you in prison.