The Republicans are going to use any excuse they can to sever ties with Trump, to deny their complicity and their past support…and I say let them slide on this matter. If this is the crap we have to swallow to dump Trump and get the Republicans to at least partially turn their ship around, it’ll be worth the cost.
Neither do I.
I still see no reason to potentially embarrass allies and burn diplomatic bridges by releasing conversations to the public, until such conversations are actually used to support articles of impeachment. Our expectation that the president will be implicated does not at all convince me that the public must see the transcripts before articles of impeachments are formally lodged in the House of Representatives.
And again, this opinion of mine would not have prevented Mr. Trump from releasing the transcript himself - that’s his own stupidity.
~Max
Oh I get it. For it to be a real conspiracy it needs to be in writing? Whenever I put mine in writing I get arrested. Maybe you have had better results?
There is no functional difference between turnp being a russian spy and his being a mere sycophant. The only one I can think of is your keyboard warrioring within this little room.
Over the last 3 years there have been many many arguments here about whether something was proven about trinp with evidence or not. In all these cases the reality was worse. So you are in a tradition we might say.
FiveThirtyEight’s aggregate approval figure is now down to 41.5%, thanks to three new polls — one of them, Ipsos, with a good grade (B+).
I think you misunderstand me. Congress should be able to view the transcript in private, and if they use evidence from that transcript to support articles of impeachment, then the relevant parts of the call get released to the public.
If the president isn’t being impeached, then no, I do not think the public is entitled to know exactly what he says to foreign heads of state.
We were talking about an “informing” the public, but you appear to have construed that to mean “oversight”. I have no problem with Congress requesting and viewing transcripts to build an impeachment case. I do have a problem if Congress releases those transcripts before they file articles of impeachment.
I also acknowledge that in this case, the executive branch released the transcripts, not the Congress.
~Max
Because the hard-core MAGAtroids will accept no substitute for their Mango Messiah, and will turn on the GOP if they are seen as stabbing him in the back.
All this talk about Senate Rules is meaningless since Mitch can change them in a day.
(I’m putting these updates in this thread, because many have argued this has a direct bearing on whether and when certain Republican elected officials decide to support the impeachment investigation and/or impeachment itself and/or removal from office of the president.)
You trust Mitch to not lie? And yes, in both cases he said "Senate rules’- rules that can be changed overnite.
And you trust Mitch to tell the truth?
:eek::dubious:
No - I trust Mitch to expose the current party line
If the President is using these calls to discuss matters of foreign policy or national security, then I agree that such calls should be afforded confidentiality.
But if the President is talking about matters of political campaigns, ribald jokes, or what shapes the clouds outside his office look like, then there are no matters of security or policy at stake. Embarrassment does not qualify as a reason for secrecy. In fact, the Executive Order establishing the system of classifying information specifically forbids making things classified just because they are unflattering.
To the extent that there are other call transcripts like this, the public should know about them, whether or not there’s an impeachment inquiry. A President has total control over what he says in a call, and if he isn’t going to talk about national security matters, he conversations should not be protected as such.
I’d go so far as to say that the public should be able to FOIA such records.
I didn’t say it did.
I’m not concerned about embarrassing our president. Our Congress can embarrass the president if he steps over the line. I’m concerned about other heads of state.
If any call between our president and another head of state can find its way into the public eye, realize that it is not only the American public but the whole world who reads the transcript. If foreign leaders want to speak candidly they need some assurance that the whole world isn’t listening in. A call between two heads of state is not a press conference. Even if there isn’t mention of strictly classified intelligence or military operations, I do not want relations between our presidency and every other head of state to be as shallow as a joint press conference.
Imagine trying to negotiate a treaty or trade agreement if foreign leaders are unwilling to even hint at any sort of compromise, lest the Americans “leak” the conversation and undermine that leader’s support at home.
Now if someone in the room thinks the line has been crossed, they can report that to Congress and Congress can look into the matter. If Congress formally decides that the line might be crossed, then the Congress can ask the public what they think. But before that point, I do not support the public availability of otherwise private, top-level diplomatic communications.
~Max
I cannot help it if being able to show that Trump takes orders from Putin is a hard thing to do. Of course it is. But this has not been done. It’s that simple for me. Evidently you and others need less evidence than I do.
I have no idea where this comes from. I have clearly stated in this very thread that I am open to looking at evidence that a foreign power is directing Trump from afar and that he is doing their bidding, for whatever reason. I’ve never said I’m convinced of anything.
Did you read what I wrote? Talking about policy matters should be protected. Talking about non-policy matters should not. I think that addresses everything you raised in your post.
No, you don’t get it at all. Not what I’m saying. John Stamos’ Left Ear’s post had five or six links. I merely asked him to quote something to support his argument from them. I looked at one and found nothing and had no desire to spend 20 minutes to go through the rest and possibly again find nothing. He could at least quote one passage.
Do Presidents do that, or Ambassadors?
No. To put it plainly, you are looking for written evidence of a conspiracy, and gaslighting the victims about it. Conspiracies spool out, and don’t have any of the documentation that you are stuck on, until they are investigated. It is disingenuous to play down a conspiracy because there is nothing in writing. It’s too late to call it a “non-conspiracy” certainly.
When Donnie worships his dictatorial idols he is being played for their real world gains, and the US’ loss. If you want to attrbute that to narcissism or stupidity how is that relevant to any discussion?