Senate votes 98-0...

[RiverDog]

...to approve a non binding resolution warning President Trump not to let the Russian government question diplomats and other officials:

"should refuse to make available any current or former diplomat, civil servant, political appointee, law enforcement official or member of the Armed Forces of the United States for questioning by the government of Vladimir Putin,” the resolution states.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp

Of course, Trump has already backtracked and did so before the vote, but I have to ask, when was it that the Senate voted 98-0 on anything of substance? This has been a very bizarre week to say the least.

[idhawkman]

This is such crap!

The treaty that was signed in '99 is that each country's law enforcement would do the questioning of their own citizens with the other country's law enforcement in attendance.

E.g. our diplomats would be questioned by the FBI in the US with Russian law enforcement in attendance of the depositions. Their 12 GRU agents would be questioned by their law enforcement with our DOJ/FBI (or Mueller's group) in attendance.

The media has screwed this whole thing up suggesting that we would give up our citizens and extradite them.

[RiverDog]

This is such crap!

The treaty that was signed in '99 is that each country's law enforcement would do the questioning of their own citizens with the other country's law enforcement in attendance.

E.g. our diplomats would be questioned by the FBI in the US with Russian law enforcement in attendance of the depositions. Their 12 GRU agents would be questioned by their law enforcement with our DOJ/FBI (or Mueller's group) in attendance.

The media has screwed this whole thing up suggesting that we would give up our citizens and extradite them.

My observation isn't so much about the offer, but how many Senators voted to rebuke the POTUS. When was the last time the Senate voted 98-0 on anything?

[burrrton]

When was the last time the Senate voted 98-0 on anything?

Obama's budgets.

[RiverDog]

Obama's budgets.

Damn, you're right! I'd forgotten about that one. Nice job!

Nevertheless, it's pretty signficant when the entire Senate issues a unaminious advisory to a sitting POTUS over negotiations with a foreign leader. This has been a whacky week.

[Aseahawkfan]

Both parties have much to lose by validating Russia after Crimea nationally and internationally. Sure, we've done worse and recently, but this game has little to do with actual morality and more to do with the exercise of power. You can't dictate to the world if you look weak. We would look weak allowing Russia, a nation that annexed part of an allied nation, to interrogate or question our people.

This is the problem I have. Part of me wants an honest, forthright government that I can trust that isn't involved in the dirty game of political domination that we're engaged in. But another part of me believes America should exert it's dominance, take no crap from anyone, look the world in the face saying yeah, we killed Saddam Hussein, drove the Taliban into holes, nuked Japan, broke Germany, locked down North Korea's advance, check the advance of China and their thieving BS, we jailed Noriega, keep our boot on Iran's back, and we're going to continue to do it. You got a problem, bring it b**** and we'll fight you to the death. We're born out of war and we've fought on every continent on this earth. We are the most powerful country in the world. No one tells us what to do or backs us down or demands from us. You can kiss my American ass.

I really oscillate between trying to create a peaceful world and wanting to finish the job we started liberating the world as much as possible accepting no control from outside.

[burrrton]

Nevertheless, it's pretty signficant when the entire Senate issues a unaminious advisory to a sitting POTUS over negotiations with a foreign leader. This has been a whacky week.

No disagreement there!

[burrrton]

Sure, we've done worse and recently

No. We haven't.

If we were "IMPERIAL!", we could take over every last inch of any plot of land we wanted on this planet.

Do we spend too much on our military? I don't think so, but maybe. Should we have left Saddam in power in the ME? No, but you can make that argument considering how we waged the war.

IOW, there's plenty to b**** about, and plenty to debate, about this country, but "WE'RE WORSE THAN RUSSIA" isn't one of them. Just stop.

[RiverDog]

"Sure, we've done worse and recently"

No. We haven't.

If we were "IMPERIAL!", we could take over every last inch of any plot of land we wanted on this planet.

Do we spend too much on our military? I don't think so, but maybe. Should we have left Saddam in power in the ME? No, but you can make that argument considering how we waged the war.

IOW, there's plenty to b**** about, and plenty to debate, about this country, but "WE'RE WORSE THAN RUSSIA" isn't one of them. Just stop.

Who are you talking to? Did someone edit or delete a post?

[burrrton]

Who are you talking to? Did someone edit or delete a post?

Both parties have much to lose by validating Russia after Crimea nationally and internationally. Sure, we've done worse and recently, but this game has little to do with actual morality and more to do with the exercise of power. You can't dictate to the world if you look weak. We would look weak allowing Russia, a nation that annexed part of an allied nation, to interrogate or question our people.

[Aseahawkfan]

No. We haven't.

If we were "IMPERIAL!", we could take over every last inch of any plot of land we wanted on this planet.

Do we spend too much on our military? I don't think so, but maybe. Should we have left Saddam in power in the ME? No, but you can make that argument considering how we waged the war.

IOW, there's plenty to b**** about, and plenty to debate, about this country, but "WE'RE WORSE THAN RUSSIA" isn't one of them. Just stop.

Way to take another statement out of context. I'm talking about worse than annexing Crimea. Which we have done worse than recently.

Have we started foreign wars unseating foreign governments recently? We did and its documented fact? Did we do it using questionable reasons for starting it? We did and it's documented fact. And did we kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis with American military might? And engaged in hundreds of drone assassinations? And do we spy on our people and other nations? We do and its documented fact. Wow, unbelievable. Yeah, we've done worse than Russia recently. Worse than Russia overall? I can agree no on that. The Soviet Union has us beat as far as murderous, oppressive behavior. But recent Russia? Yeah, that's arguable.

And as far as Imperial movement, we took this entire land from the native population and enslaved a group of people as America for over 70 years. You may have try to justify all this garbage, but we have very much been imperial. We have taken a lot of land directly and indirectly. You pretending it somehow makes us better because we could take more is as ridiculous as the people that claim African folk were better off being enslaved and the natives of America are better off for having been driven off the land because life is better for them now. It's a horescrap argument that doesn't excuse wrongs done.

I know for whatever reason you have to sit there and tell yourself America isn't ruthless and is a good country because we don't go as far as we possibly could, but the very fact you're only argument is "But we could take more" shows how weak your argument is. It's basically saying, "Sure, we've done a lot of ruthless, evil acts, but we could do more, so we're ok." In your mind if I showed up at your house, killed your wife, two of your kids, but left two alive and didn't murder your brother like your neighbor Al did to your other neighbor Joe, then I'm a better person than Joe. Ridiculous argument.

Not acknowledging actions taken by your government that were evil in nature is straight up lying to yourself.

[burrrton]

And as far as Imperial movement, we took this entire land from the native population and enslaved a group of people as America for over 70 years. You may have try to justify all this garbage, but we have very much been imperial.

LOL. What the actual *hell* are you talking about?

Not acknowledging actions taken by your government that were evil in nature is straight up lying to yourself.

So's characterizing literally every move you even partially disagree with as literally Hitler.

Asea, get a grip. Go parrot Alex Jones somewhere else.

[Aseahawkfan]

LOL. What the actual *hell* are you talking about?

I'm talking about pushing native populations off the land here as colonizing Americans spread across the nation. You know very well the ruthless measures taken to take control of this land from native populations that lived here. This is well-documented.

So's characterizing literally every move you even partially disagree with as literally Hitler.

Anything I don't agree with? You think enslaving people and driving native populations off their historical land was agreeable? Well, I don't agree that enslaving people was good and I think the treatment of the natives was quite ruthless and cruel, but also necessary to build a nation.

Your mark for wrong behavior is Hitler? So as long as we aren't as bad as Hitler, we're ok? Is that what you're really saying? Just don't do as bad as Hitler and America's just fine. We're not ruthless, we're perfectly good.

You lie to yourself all you want about America if you need to. It's unfortunate for you that all the wrongs America has done are documented for the historical record as are the rights. History is being truthfully written more and more as minority people gain power to tell their true history rather than the garbage written about Manifest Destiny and the various racial ideas you apparently found agreeable, since you don't believe America has behaved ruthlessly or cruelly or in an imperial manner or done much of anything remotely like Hitler. Dur-dur-durh. I"m burrton. America's never done anything wrong.

Truth is truth, bud. The good and the bad. No amount of smarmy excuse making by yourself will change it.

What a pointless argument for well-documented history of America acting in a ruthless, calculated, and militaristic manner to protect and forward its interests. We are what we are and we've done. There's no fixing the past, just a chance to improve the future.

[burrrton]

I'm talking about pushing native populations off the land here as colonizing Americans spread across the nation. You know very well the ruthless measures taken to take control of this land from native populations that lived here.

Holy shit- you're going back to the settling of this continent?

Now show us what an independent thinker you are and tell us about smallpox blankets or something. LOL.

You lie to yourself all you want about America if you need to.

Uh, I'm not the one whose been filled full of sh*t by some Grievance Studies prof, champ.

[c_hawkbob]

This is such crap!

The treaty that was signed in '99 is that each country's law enforcement would do the questioning of their own citizens with the other country's law enforcement in attendance.

E.g. our diplomats would be questioned by the FBI in the US with Russian law enforcement in attendance of the depositions. Their 12 GRU agents would be questioned by their law enforcement with our DOJ/FBI (or Mueller's group) in attendance.

The media has screwed this whole thing up suggesting that we would give up our citizens and extradite them.

"The media" didn't have anything to do with the Senate writing or voting on that resolution.

[RiverDog]

You lie to yourself all you want about America if you need to. It's unfortunate for you that all the wrongs America has done are documented for the historical record as are the rights. History is being truthfully written more and more as minority people gain power to tell their true history rather than the garbage written about Manifest Destiny and the various racial ideas you apparently found agreeable, since you don't believe America has behaved ruthlessly or cruelly or in an imperial manner or done much of anything remotely like Hitler. Dur-dur-durh. I"m burrton. America's never done anything wrong.

Truth is truth, bud. The good and the bad. No amount of smarmy excuse making by yourself will change it.

What a pointless argument for well-documented history of America acting in a ruthless, calculated, and militaristic manner to protect and forward its interests. We are what we are and we've done. There's no fixing the past, just a chance to improve the future.

We can't be defining what our nation is today based on what happened 100+ years ago anymore than we can define the Germans by the Third Reich or the Japanese by the Rape of Nanking. As ugly as it was, it's simply part of our history and represented a time when human civilization world wide was at a much differnt point in its evolution than it is today.

[RiverDog]

It would appear that Trump hasn't learned a damn thing from his disastrous Helsinki meeting as he's invited Putin to a meeting in DC before they've been able to digest this past summit and without so much as talking to our own intelligence agencies. Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence and a Republican, found out while being interviewed by Andrea Mitchell:

Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats was on stage at the Aspen Security Forum in the middle of an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, who broke the news to him. Coats, clearly surprised, took a deep breath. “Say that again,” he said. “Did I hear you?” She repeated the news.

“Okaaaay,” Coats said. “That’s going to be special.”

Coats said he would have advised against Trump and Putin’s private meeting in Helsinki, which worried U.S. security officials because no notes were taken and only two interpreters were present, but that he had not been consulted. Underscoring how little is known about the meeting, Coats acknowledged that he has not been told what happened in the room. Asked whether it was possible Putin had secretly recorded the more-than two-hour meeting, Coats answered, “That risk is always there.”

I can understand a POTUS not selling his soul to our intelligence services. After all, there's been occasions where they've led past Presidents astray: Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs, Johnson in Vietnam, Bush 43 in Iraq. But it's becoming more and more clear to me that Trump trusts the Russians more than he trusts our own intelligence community and isn't even talking to them, that he's just winging it.

[idhawkman]

My observation isn't so much about the offer, but how many Senators voted to rebuke the POTUS. When was the last time the Senate voted 98-0 on anything?

But that is my point River, it isn't rebuking POTUS because POTUS never offered to send him to Russia or hand him over to their investigators. He said that Putin had a good idea in using the treaty that exists. That treaty doesn't involve handing either country's citizens over to the other countries investigators. It only allows the other countries investigators to be present when the accused's own law enforcement questions the suspect.

[idhawkman]

"The media" didn't have anything to do with the Senate writing or voting on that resolution.

The media contorted what was suggested and the stupid Senate took what the contorted reports were to draft a bill that has nothing to do with what was suggested. So yeah, the media had a lot to do with it.

[RiverDog]

But that is my point River, it isn't rebuking POTUS because POTUS never offered to send him to Russia or hand him over to their investigators. He said that Putin had a good idea in using the treaty that exists. That treaty doesn't involve handing either country's citizens over to the other countries investigators. It only allows the other countries investigators to be present when the accused's own law enforcement questions the suspect.

And you glossed over my point entirely, which was that the Senate voted 98-0 to warn him about such an arrangement.

And to be clear, Trump used a lot more flowery superlatives to define Putin's offer besides simply a "good idea", then the next day, reversed his position after nearly universal condemnation.

[RiverDog]

The media contorted what was suggested and the stupid Senate took what the contorted reports were to draft a bill that has nothing to do with what was suggested. So yeah, the media had a lot to do with it.

Well, if the stupid Senate was manipulated by the media, then stupid Trump was manipulated by the Senate (and others) as he quickly reversed his opinion of the offer, started changing words that he was quoted as saying to try to make it look like he simply made some sort of typo error.

[idhawkman]

It would appear that Trump hasn't learned a damn thing from his disastrous Helsinki meeting as he's invited Putin to a meeting in DC before they've been able to digest this past summit and without so much as talking to our own intelligence agencies.

****NEWS FLASH**** Polls are showing that the Helsinki meeting has such low numbers on voters radar that it gets an asterisk instead of a number. From a political perspective it is not so disasterous.

I can understand a POTUS not selling his soul to our intelligence services. After all, there's been occasions where they've led past Presidents astray: Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs, Johnson in Vietnam, Bush 43 in Iraq. But it's becoming more and more clear to me that Trump trusts the Russians more than he trusts our own intelligence community and isn't even talking to them, that he's just winging it.

I see it more as Trump not bowing down to political pressure to totally ignore Russia. From his standpoint, talking to the Russians have been done by every administration since Roosevelt - even during the hieght of the cold war - to avoid nuclear war and other disasters. Its not a bad thing to talk to them and find areas of agreement and cooperation while acknowledging that there are areas we don't agree with and push back on.

[RiverDog]

***NEWS FLASH**** Polls are showing that the Helsinki meeting has such low numbers on voters radar that it gets an asterisk instead of a number. From a political perspective it is not so disasterous

Then why has the White House spent the past 3 days in full damage control mode?

I see it more as Trump not bowing down to political pressure to totally ignore Russia. From his standpoint, talking to the Russians have been done by every administration since Roosevelt - even during the hieght of the cold war - to avoid nuclear war and other disasters. Its not a bad thing to talk to them and find areas of agreement and cooperation while acknowledging that there are areas we don't agree with and push back on.

If someone is totally ignoring something, it's Trump that is totally ignoring our intelligence agencies. He's talking with the Russians without so much as advising our guys of his plans.

[c_hawkbob]

Seeing the media as responsible for anything the Senate does is seeing the tail wag the dog. The media may have an influence on public perception but the Senate is responsible for what the Senate actually does.

[burrrton]

I can understand a POTUS not selling his soul to our intelligence services. After all, there's been occasions where they've led past Presidents astray: Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs, Johnson in Vietnam, Bush 43 in Iraq. But it's becoming more and more clear to me that Trump trusts the Russians more than he trusts our own intelligence community and isn't even talking to them, that he's just winging it.

Agree about appearing to wing it, but not sure I agree about trusting Russia more than the intel community (again, rhetoric vs actions, but we'll see), and between Brennan, Comey, et al, they've brought 90% of any distrust that does exist on themselves.

[RiverDog]

Agree about appearing to wing it, but not sure I agree about trusting Russia more than the intel community (again, rhetoric vs actions, but we'll see), and between Brennan, Comey, et al, they've brought 90% of any distrust that does exist on themselves.

This isn't just rhetoric, burr. He has completely cut out our Director of National Intelligence...a Republican, no less..hasn't told them what he and Putin talked about in their Helsinki meeting (there wasn't even any notes taken during a 2 hour long meeting) and has not even advised them of his meeting with Putin in DC that he just announced. Those are actions, not rhetoric.

And as I said earlier, I can understand his mistrust. But this is going beyond trust in that he's totally ignoring anything that they might have to say. And certainly there must be SOMEONE in there that he can trust. How can he not trust Dan Coats, a member of his own party?

[burrrton]

This isn't just rhetoric, burr.

I didn't mean to imply there was literally zero 'action', but more that his actions have been limited and less worrying. You may be right, though.

How can he not trust Dan Coats, a member of his own party?

I don't know about him specifically, but the IC's antics haven't been limited to the oppo party.

[idhawkman]

Then why has the White House spent the past 3 days in full damage control mode?

Yeah, it isn't like he just scheduled a fall meeting at the white house with Putin or anything...

If someone is totally ignoring something, it's Trump that is totally ignoring our intelligence agencies. He's talking with the Russians without so much as advising our guys of his plans.

I guess he must really be damaging himself then, right?

[idhawkman]

Seeing the media as responsible for anything the Senate does is seeing the tail wag the dog. The media may have an influence on public perception but the Senate is responsible for what the Senate actually does.

Very true. Maybe thats why the Senate and all of congress for that matter has such a low approval rating. They do stuff without thinking.

[idhawkman]

I don't know about him specifically, but the IC's antics haven't been limited to the oppo party.

Remember, the Oppo party had 8 years to stack the highest levels of the intel community with their people. The Senate democrats have been slow rolling the appointments to many of those positions. Rosenstein's personal secretary was the same person for Sally Yates who openly defied the president's orders.

[RiverDog]

Remember, the Oppo party had 8 years to stack the highest levels of the intel community with their people. The Senate democrats have been slow rolling the appointments to many of those positions. Rosenstein's personal secretary was the same person for Sally Yates who openly defied the president's orders.

So why not at least talk to Coats? Trump appointed him, does he not trust him, either?

This isn't about the political alliegences of the IC. Being that most of the federal government votes Democratic in elections, it wouldn't surprise me if 80 or 90 percent of the IC voted for HRC. But if Trump is such a great reader of a person's pschye as he says he is, which is what he told us before his meeting with Kim, then why doesn't he at least confur with our IC and hear what they have to say? He just got through telling us that he trusts our IC more than he trusts the Russians, so why doesn't he at least tell them of his plans before inviting Putin to DC?

[RiverDog]

I don't know about him (Coats) specifically, but the IC's antics haven't been limited to the oppo party.

Donald Trump appointed Dan Coats as the Director of National Security Intelligence in 2017. Before that, he was a US Senator that served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Bush 41's ambassador to Germany. He is well respected on both sides of the aisle and by all accounts was a good selection for that post.

Yesterday Coats got blindsided when Trump "winged it" by not telling Coats or anyone else in the IC about his invitation to Putin to come to DC (Coats learned via Andrea Mitchell in the middle of an interview). Coats was left without words and appeared to be chuckling, finally managing to say "that will be special". Now the White House is furious, calling him a rouge.

There's a good chance that Coats will either resign or get fired by Trump.

[burrrton]

Yesterday Coats got blindsided when Trump "winged it" by not telling Coats or anyone else in the IC about his invitation to Putin to come to DC (Coats learned via Andrea Mitchell in the middle of an interview). Coats was left without words and appeared to be chuckling, finally managing to say "that will be special". Now the White House is furious, calling him a rouge.

There's a good chance that Coats will either resign or get fired by Trump.

*facepalm*

[RiverDog]

*facepalm*

Can you are articulate? Are you being sarcastic or are you agreeing with the point I'm trying to make?

[burrrton]

Can you are articulate? Are you being sarcastic or are you agreeing with the point I'm trying to make?

Sorry- sounds like a freaking trainwreck.

[idhawkman]

So why not at least talk to Coats? Trump appointed him, does he not trust him, either?

This isn't about the political alliegences of the IC. Being that most of the federal government votes Democratic in elections, it wouldn't surprise me if 80 or 90 percent of the IC voted for HRC. But if Trump is such a great reader of a person's pschye as he says he is, which is what he told us before his meeting with Kim, then why doesn't he at least confur with our IC and hear what they have to say? He just got through telling us that he trusts our IC more than he trusts the Russians, so why doesn't he at least tell them of his plans before inviting Putin to DC?

One of the reasons we like Trump is he doesn't do things bass-ackwards like previous diplomats. that just stymies progress. Trump is a CEO and expects his managers and folks to execute his decisions. That's also why corporate america works so much better than running stuff through endless bureaucrats and red tape. Trump made a decision - its up to Coats to work it out. This is not new news.

[RiverDog]

"So why not at least talk to Coats? Trump appointed him, does he not trust him, either?"

One of the reasons we like Trump is he doesn't do things bass-ackwards like previous diplomats. that just stymies progress. Trump is a CEO and expects his managers and folks to execute his decisions. That's also why corporate america works so much better than running stuff through endless bureaucrats and red tape. Trump made a decision - its up to Coats to work it out. This is not new news.

That's not a good answer. I've worked 40 years in "corporate America", and that's not how good decisions are made. CEO's rarely make decisions before running it through their various departments and VP's, asking their advice, and so on. Rarely do they make unilateral decisions.

And it's not just about making decisions. It's about gathering as much information he can, particularily in an area that he's not used to, ie foreign relations. He might as well get rid of his Secretary of State, national security advisor, defense secretary, do away with cabinent meetings, and so on.

[RiverDog]

Sorry- sounds like a freaking trainwreck.

Thanks for the clarification.

If ever there were a case of the right hand not knowing what the left was doing, it's the Trump White House. Here's another example of Trump being out of touch with what his closest advisors are doing:

...a few days after Secretary of Defense James Mattis cited Montenegro's membership in NATO as an example of how "we're stronger together," reaffirming the U.S. commitment to the alliance's mandate of mutual defense, Trump told Tucker Carlson of Fox News that he too wonders why U.S. forces should defend the tiny Balkan state, noting how such a commitment could lead to World War III.

This is the most dysfunctional White House that I've ever seen. No matter what policy course Trump pursues, it's going to result in a very ineffective one if he doesn't bring members of his team on board with his strategies.

[Aseahawkfan]

Trump is definitely not the president that talks it over first. He's used to running the nation like a company owner, not even like a CEO. A CEO at least has shareholders to answer to, owners not as much. Trump is used to be the top dog with no one to answer to in his company. He does what he wants when he wants and it's always, "The best decision anyone ever made." Trump treats being president like he is running his company. He doesn't consult for every decision, probably drives him nuts to even have to consult anyone. He'd rather just work off the cuff and informally as much as possible. Too bad for Trump that's not how being president works.

[RiverDog]

Trump is definitely not the president that talks it over first. He's used to running the nation like a company owner, not even like a CEO. A CEO at least has shareholders to answer to, owners not as much. Trump is used to be the top dog with no one to answer to in his company. He does what he wants when he wants and it's always, "The best decision anyone ever made." Trump treats being president like he is running his company. He doesn't consult for every decision, probably drives him nuts to even have to consult anyone. He'd rather just work off the cuff and informally as much as possible. Too bad for Trump that's not how being president works.

A better analogy would be a king or autocratic ruler. It doesn't matter whether it's a public company or a privately held one. It's simply a good management practice to engage your subordinates and solicit their opinions before making a decision. Trump does just that prior to his Supreme Court nominations, and as a result has IMO made two very solid selections. I don't know why he can't apply that style to his other decision making situations. All of the past POTUS's have utilized that practice and very seldom have they gone rouge and made decisions without at least soliciting opinions. That doesn't mean that they've always accepted the consensus opinion, but they've never been on complete opposite pages like Trump has with his defense secretary and his AG.

I am very suspicious of Trump's motivations. He's so untrustworthy that I cannot believe him when he goes into a private meeting with a head of state without so much as a scribe to take notes and believe that he's acting in our nation's best interests or whether he's trying to advance his own personal agenda.