• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The one giant question Donald Trump still hasn't answered on Russia

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
70,171
Reaction score
70,383
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/14/politics/trump-russia-mueller/index.html

Why did Trump go out of his way to ensure that no records of his meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin exist?
Click to expand...


Let's pause on the political aspects of this for the moment and just concentrate on the optics.

If you had an organization, corporation, government, etc. that had a cloud of suspicion hovering over it, a cloud that had to do with accusations of improper relations with another leader, and then the leader of that first organization later met with that leader of the second AND covered his tracks as much as he could... What would people who acted reasonably conclude that the optics of that meeting would be?

This particular question is NOT one of whether Trump is outright guilty. That's not the point here. The point is the optics. If you're the leader, and you have a cloud of suspicion hanging over your head, exactly why would you do something that is just going raise yet another red flag?

Also, because I know some loyal Trump supporter is going to say it, no, anything along the lines of "He's the president, he knows what he's doing" is NOT an acceptable answer. Because that's not how you defuse a cloud of suspicion.

 
This is an interesting thread: https://twitter.com/andrewsweiss/status/1084802080051736577

Trump had two meetings with Putin in Hamburg Germany on July 7 2017. However, the Trump team was informed by the NYT earlier in the day that they had information related to the infamous Trump Tower meeting. Yes, the very day Trump was supposed to meet with Putin, the NYT asked him for comments on the meeting. So he had the first meeting where others were present, and then another where the only other person present was Putin's interpreter. The US had no one else with Trump in the meeting: Trump, Putin, and Putin's interpreter.

Now we also know Trump assisted with the response on the Trump tower meeting. Recall that the very first response to the meeting is that adoptions were discussed. That is also what Trump said he discussed with Putin during the 2nd meeting at Hamburg on July 7.
 

Ummm........errrrr.........I know! I know! Obama! Hillary!

Optics? You mean the optics that make the Trump lovers melt down to this day of Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch meeting on the tarmac? Don't bog them down with optics. They don't even understand what the word means.
 

Philip Bump is also all over this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...over-up/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e4eb966f015e
 

It seems Trump simply does not care about optics because it seems his base will support him no matter what. It truly is the proverbial shooting on 5th Avenue.

He has never really tried to reach out to anyone beyond his base. He does not care two ****s about the rest of the American electorate. You're either for him or against him.
 

The obvious reason he's hiding that information is because the discussions were all about how to use Russian assets to turn the financial and manufacturing industries in the US to his own benefit so that he could take over the world. The evidence is all right there so I really don't know what the question is all about.
 


Y'all really can't be that obtuse, can you?

Trump started out with his phone calls to the Australian PM, Turnbull, and the Mexican president, Nieto, getting leaked. He had other leaks from someone in close, closed door Oval Office meetings. He couldn't reasonably trust ANYBODY around him so, frankly, it made perfect sense to kick everyone out of the office if her really wanted to have a private conversation that didn't end up in the WaPo or NYT 10 minutes later.
 

Look at you excusing this behavior like it's normal then exaggerating for sarcastic effect. This is the guy who went in front of the world and called the US intelligence agencies liars and that he'd rather believe Putin at his word. Almost every single position he's taken has been directly in line with Putin's agenda and we know he's borrowed a lot of money from Russians and was actively trying to get a tower built in Moscow during the campaign. This is not normal behavior for a US president, regardless of the party, so stop excusing this ****.
 

So we can expect someone to leak the details of Trump's discussions with Putin, "y'all"?

Or did you quote me because you don't care about the optics of Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac?
 

He certainly solved that shortly after he dispatched Comey, there was only Russian media allowed in the Oval Office, while meeting the ambassador and the foreign minister. /s
 

Here's a bold idea: don't say stupid **** and you won't be embarrassed when it leaks.

Novel concept!
 
It seems to me that Trump began his presidency fully intent on using the broad spectrum of Executive/Presidential powers to protect him from legal harm. The same reasoning led him to begin attacking the media early and often and labeling all negative stories about him as "fake news". He doesn't seem to care much about optics. He doesn't care about internal corruption as long as his base 'tenets' are being advanced. He seems intent on transforming America into a more authoritarian state. Hence, his demand for pledges of personal loyalty. I think Trump actually believes his bloviating that he is the best negotiator, the greatest builder, the smartest general, etc. etc. etc.

Trump knows that if he tells his base that he has a brilliant secret-squirrel reason for not revealing his discussions with Putin, they will take that as an article of faith.

As for the rest of us, Trump simply doesn't care. He rightly realizes we will never be passengers on his treacherous bandwagon.
 

Trump, when meeting with a leader of another country, is doing it as a representative of our nation and not as a personal contact. In such a case, the content of that meeting should be known by all those that have clearance to know and ability to input their opinions on it.

This is simple common sense as it is our nation that is involved and not just Trump. As such and based on Trump's action in not telling anyone what was said at the meeting and destroying all records of the meeting, he should no longer be permitted to meet with any leader without some changes being made.

Since when do we allow ourselves to be put in the hands of a man that can make decisions for us without us being involved in any way or know what was talked about or decided. I don't know about you or what you think of it, but this is the 100% the doings of a dictator and it means that our vote is no longer important in this democracy. We vote for a "representative" and not for someone that decides for us without us having a voice.

One more reason to believe that Trump does not have our best interests in mind. Trump supporters, wake up and stop supporting this ego driven and uncaring-about-our-welfare man.
 

“Adoptions” is what the Russian government uses as a code word when they are talking about the magnitzky sanctions
 

Now see...this is why you should never listen to the Trump hating media...they ask stupid questions based on fake news.

You see, Trump didn't go out of his way to ensure that no records of his meeting with Putin existed.


But you can be sure that Trump went out of his way to ensure that the media didn't find out what was discussed in that meeting...and for good reason.

/thread
 

Reasonable argument regarding leaks but does that mean you are willing to put your life in the hands of Trump without anyone knowing what is being decided?

For all you know, Trump might have a strong dislike for anyone using a Luther nick and has decided (in conjunction with Putin) to eradicate from the earth all people using that nick and someone will be ringing at your doorbell tonight to take you out to the garbage dump and bury you there without you being able to defend yourself legally or otherwise. Are you in favor of such a scenario?
 

The FBI can’t neutralize a security threat if the president is the threat
 

If you had an organization you knew had enemies in it from the previous administration who were constantly leaking information, including false information and national security secret information fixated on destroying you, would you tell those enemies secret info?

It took a long time for President Trump to figure this out. Looks like he finally has.

Is it suspicious that he doesn't release nuclear launch codes thru staff to the NYT too?
 

First of all, the only people left (and there are very few) are his own people, meaning that he should only have trusted people next to him. If he doesn't, then something is wrong with him to start. Second of all, since when do we approve one person making decisions. This is a Democracy remember? We do not have one person making all decisions without communicating with the other departments of our system (Judicial, Executive, and Legislative). One person making decisions is a Dictatorship, is that what you are suggesting we get?

Your comment about nuclear codes is ridiculous. Trump is not the only one with nuclear codes and it does take 2 people to launch an attack. Imagine if it was only Trump and he woke up one morning in a snit and with a desire to wipe someone off the face of the earth. Is that what you want? Who knows, perhaps he thinks someone named Yoko is Chinese and he wants to wipe you out, ready for it?
 
Democrats panicking because there is no "unnamed source in the White House said" followed by a lie for the NYT to publish. :lamo
 

What an absurd message. Guess what? There is only ONE president, not dozens like you claim.

Obviously there still are leakers or there would be no source secretly publicizing who the president did and did not speak to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…