Trump sat down with Putin at G20 without US note-taker

At this point, there is no way that anyone can continue to think that these repeated private meetings between Putin and Trump where our staff are not briefed or read in, and any information we have on these discussions comes from only the Russians........

"If you’re a US president, it’s probably not a great idea to meet with a foreign leader who meddled in your country’s elections without some way to record what’s being discussed.

But that’s just what President Donald Trump apparently did — again.

According to the Financial Times, Trump spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin during last November’s G20 summit in Argentina without a US official present to take notes. First lady Melania Trump was by the president’s side during the chat, but no staff joined them.

The White House had previously acknowledged that both leaders met for an “informal” talk but didn’t disclose that Trump had no official member of his team present. Putin did have someone, though: his translator, although it’s unclear if that person wrote anything down.

This isn’t the first time Trump has done this. During the G20 meeting in Germany in July 2017, he got up from his seat during a dinner in order to sit next to Putin, who did have his translator to help. That meeting, which the White House didn’t initially reveal, came just hours after Trump bought Putin’s denial that Russia didn’t intervene in the 2016 presidential election."

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/29/18202515/trump-putin-russia-g20-ft-note

 

Leaders need to have private, confidential discussions.

I dont care at all but people of your ilk are constantly complaining about titles not matching that of the link. So shape up.

 

what use is a stenographer when it'd be mostly redacted anyways...

 

Why do people talk about Trump as if he will be around long enough to run again? This is a treacherous sociopathic thieving turncoat. Get him the **** outta here already!

 

Rude?

Sorry, the headline was the FT story. You'd know that if you read it.

And no, it is NOT standard at all for leaders of rival nations to meet in secret, with only a translator from the other side present.

Not normal at all.

The first time Trump did it, he essentially compromised his office and his trust as a world leader. He also alienated himself from his own staff (as if he listens to them anyway). Especially, given that the intelligence agencies are all well aware of the Trump and Trump campaigns connections and activties with various well connected Russians, before, during and after the campaign.

After that, it was clear to every world leader that Trump could not be trusted.

 

The FT story was behind a paywall and you linked Vox. No harm no foul, who gives a **** anyway.

As to meeting without babysitters present, I dont care what the norm is. It's perfectly acceptable conduct. If I was leader every meeting I had would be under those terms.

 

Your melodrama is laughable. He didnt meet Putin "in secret", he met him privately. Theres nothing wrong with that. World leaders can meet with other world leaders any way they want. Trump is probably worried about one of those "anonymous sources" leak that is complete bs but the media run with.

 

he's far more trustworthy than the last two dem potus'... and thats saying alot because i never trusted trump at all...

 

No, it is no acceptable conduct, contrary to your opinion.

It has never happened in 75 years with a US president (if ever), and it is certainly not acceptable diplomatic protocal.

Trump's long term connections with various Russians close to Putin and the fact that the FSB went all in on an elaborate and large scale effort to promote Trump's candidacy in a US election cast suspicion were, and are well known to most western world leaders.

There is no record of Angela Merkl or Teresa May sitting in secret meetings with other world leaders without anyone there to make sure what both sides wrote down.

Trump violated that trust almost immediately, walking out of meetings with Putin and saying exactly what Putin clearly wanted him to say (Syria comes to light).

And it's very obvious that no western world leader wants to be in a room with Trump for fear of what Trump would repeat to Putin. They can't trust Trump not to do something that irresponsible. And they've watched him for three years, so they know that he can't be relied on or trusted.

Which serves Putin's purpose.

Sowing distrust and dividing the western alliance is a core Russian foreign policy goal.

Trump is ready made for the role.

And since the Russians own Trump (yes they do, and it's not a separate issue), it obviously isn't hard to make him dance to the Kremlin tune.

 

I do not agree with the Syrian Mission(A neoconservative mission, led by the prior Administration and the foolish Arab Spring.) Trump rightly set the barometers to merely disabling ISIS. We have done this. It does not have to be in the form of total body bag counts(the defense given by neocons) but as Trump noted the substantial loss of territorial gain and political authority.

While they've retained their form as a terrorist organization, this is preferable to the political state they purported to be. As for their remaining numbers, their 'presence' in Iraq-Syria is no longer a strength, but it hinders them. If we, for a moment "do the unthinkable" and align with Assad(or at least agree that any political solution is political, not militaristic) then it changes from a civil war, to putting down dissidents. Which for us, is a long-term effective strategy.

Assad is not a threat to the US Mainland. The chemical weapons were. And it might be easier to get chemical weapons control in peace time, than war time. And Assad's tenuous position makes it so that it'll be hard for him to refute said reforms without losing even Russian support.(Because Russia can't lose face with China/EU.)

You have to remember that neoconservatives are awful military planners. They lost us Vietnam, Iraq and got us into the Afghanistan quagmire ineffectively. They are the proof that no matter how advanced one's military is, if it's being led by a chickenhead it won't be effective.

Resolving Syria peacefully and withdrawing our 2,000 brigade from an isolated area is our strategic imperative. Only a neocon would subject our men and women to a growing civil war zone with little political or logistic military support.

That Putin is happy that we'd leave Syria is irrelevant. I care more for the safety of the men and women who sacrifice themselves for our country, and whose primary duty should be that of national defense in the first place.

 

Comedy Plus! Trump is against the Putin Pick in Venezuela.........

 

What?

Opposing the Assad regieme in Syria has been US foreign policy since at least 1967,

Syria has been a Russian client state for that entire period.

ISIS was largely subdued from a territorial standpoint (Trump's current yardstick), since before Trump became President (which is why right wing media stopped talking about ISIS during 2016). Trump accomplished noting other then empty sabre rattling, unless you count his kowtowing to the Russians.

Russia is dedicated to consolidating its victory in Syria on the heels of the American retreat.

Isreal knows it can't trust or rely on Trump, so they are making uneasy peace with the Russians (which is a real challenge given history). But it is a reflection of how little faith our allies put in the US under Trump.

Isreal has lived in the shadow of Russian weapons on the Golan Heights for half a century. They don't regard the Russian presence as benign.

Of course, Trump has been little more than Putin's poodle for the last two years.

Having even 2000 troops in Syria thwarts the Russian's objective.

And this isn't about whether anyone is a threat to the US mainland. That's the sort of yardstick that parochial isolationists would use. Charles Lindberg used that yardstick in a speech at an America First rally at Madison Square Garden on December 6, 1941 (to a sellout crowd). You can see how that turned out. Most of the other right wingers seem to have forgotten the lessons of the two world wars, and eagerly cheer as Trump betrays three quarters of a century of American world leadership.

This is about geopollitics and the balance of power in a region that the US has traditionally dominated since the end of WWII.

Oh,and you may want to learn what a neo con is.

Neo cons refer to a very specific group of people. They were the signatories of a now defuct group called the Project for a New American Century, and were the architects of teh Iraq war.

There was no such thing as a neo con during the Viet Nam war. The term hadn't even been invented. And a lot of the actual neo cons were your age or younger at the time.

Neo cons have spread throughout the Washington establishment. They are well represented in the Trump Administration ,chief among them, John Bolton. Another prominent PNAC member was Bill Kristol, who is doing the talking heads thing on MSNBC (of all places).

 

So?

 

i wouldn't use a note taker either, why so Nasty Nancy can summon the note taker in front of Congress. No thanks.

 

C'mon Tom...connect the dots! Trump is obviously NOT Putin's puppet - and this proves it, lol.

 

Putin: Meets Obama Privately, Discusses Syria

https://www.chicagotribune.com/77297329-157.html

lol

 

This story reads like a leak from the Russians, in order to remind Trump that they still have leverage on him.

 

"Meeting privately" and "meeting without any staff" are different, just an FYI.

 

So which staff did Obama have in his private meeting with Putin?

I mean you are certain he had others there so who were they?

 

I believe Nixon was Eisenhower's VP, and arguably it is Nixon(though Reagan carried a huge torch IMO) who started neoconservatism. Though I've agreed with the policy of Detente(as you noted. The point is, Syria is the same blundering strategy from the same group of idiots. Even you couldn't deny that, but pointed out said members in the Trump Administration.

And we haven't really dominated the Middle East. If that were the case, we would've been more effective in rooting out the terrorists. No, we've kind of burned those bridges in the same era, and truth be known every ME country(save for barbaric hypocrites. Israel being a very large example) has either utter disdain for us or distrust of us.

Israel's human rights record is on par with that great bastion of human rights, China!(According to the UN) and Israel's interests in Syria is the Golan Heights, and only the Heights. We know this from geopolitical statements. An 'ally to democracy', it is not. Hence why it's in that coalition with Saudi Arabia, another anti-Western State 'allied' to us for its own convenience.

To me, there's sparse little difference in the far-right Likud Party, and the "Supreme Leader" of Iran. When we, the United States finally realize that, the better. We'd failed in advancing 'democracy' in the middle east, and we're not doing that good of a job keeping them from killing each other either.

As some have noted, we should've went full ahead with Reagan's Space Wars. If we did, we'd have an umbrella by now and whether it's Russia or China or Israel(or insert crazy here), we would have been protected(and thus, not have to ally or micromanage terrible actors whose philosophy does not and never will ally with the West.)

And so on that note, you basically concur with the ideology of "We fight them over there, to keep them coming over here." An easier, if more radical proposition is to have a true travel ban, but that's a philosophical discussion for another post on our misinterpretation of the First Amendment and what the Framers truly would have wanted for our secular union.

But in any event, it's only true insofar as our forces on the front lines can hold the front. What happens when they don't? What if Syria declares that the 2,000 brigade is a hostile and illegal actor in Syrian territory? They'll be sitting ducks for starters.

Secondly, such an act would lead to the desire then to formerly end the war through the capitulation of the Washington government. If you thought we had problems before, our vast expanse overseas means that repelling a major invading force would be a task. I wonder how many men and women we have here in reserve.

While there have been economic pacts, there haven't been military ones. While I discussed the strategy of breaking up Russo-China, the greater danger is their merging forces in an actual mutual defense alignment, and if they add the Eastern Nations to their bloc.

We, of course would have the EU. And Israel is our little client State, but in a major war offensive this time, Israel's luck might run out in a two-front warfare where its main defender the US is preoccupied with defending its own territory for once.

This is how deadly and murderous the world map can become, under the current philosophy that they think(wrongly) will defend the US. Our Client State will be gone, the EU will be crushed and maybe at best we can fight it to a stalemate.

If we want to actually rule over the Eastern States, we must get as many of them aligned with the West as possible. And a start is to not ally with hypocrites.

Also, if we didn't blockade the Japanese it's possible that Japan would've limited its war expanses to just Asia. Also, it ended up militarily weakening a strong ally to the Pacific. A weakness we're trying to cover up to this day.

The Soviets/Nazis probably drybleed each other, and in a compromise with MacArthur, no nukes but a blitz of our own to wipe the State clean of the Eurasian actors. Leaving the US/Japan to share the vast majority of the influence.

But the long and short of it is, American foreign policy actually has sucked. We weakened a strong ally(even if we disagreed on the merits), we've enabled and created enemies and we're no closer to Manifest Destiny then we ever were.

Given their failures navigating the major American events over the past 50-70 years, I do not feel the need to concur with our geopolitical experts of the past and present.

 

I did not say that I was certain he had others at that particular meeting. I implied that your proof of whataboutism is failing.

 

Lots of whining but this same activity has gone on for years. Get over it or get elected President.
#resisttheresistingresisters

 

NO LEADER worth a damn, would not take notes, and keep private, so others can know for certain what the agreements are, and can be enforced, etc.

I KNOW the reason Trump hides ****. He is a moron, and they will all see it. And, he likes to change his mind constantly, back and forth, till sane people ignore him. Then he wins. WINNING.

 

Show me where the "others" names are listed in these private meetings first.

When Putin says he met Obama privately why do you think that includes others?

Wouldn't he say he met Obama and some of his staff privately?

 

I like how you think. No, not your ideas, but that you are reality based. You don't rely on NAIVE and PASSIVE trumpeting of Trumpery.

You are one of the few reality based Conservatives.