Skip to content

Month: January 2019

Poor Mick. So soon???

Poor Mick. So soon???

by digby

President Trump chastised his new chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, over his handling of shutdown talks, creating an awkward scene in front of congressional leaders of both parties, according to two sources who were present.

Behind the scenes: The encounter came near the end of a meeting in the White House Situation Room on Jan. 4, these sources said. Trump had spent the meeting restating his demand for $5.7 billion for his wall. (Vice President Pence, at Trump’s behest, had previously asked the Democrats for just $2.5 billion.)

Mulvaney inserted himself into the conversation and tried to negotiate a compromise sum of money, according to the sources in the room. Mulvaney said “that if Dems weren’t OK with $5.7 [billion] and the president wasn’t OK with $1.3 [the Democratic offer] … he was trying to say we should find a middle ground,” one of the sources said, paraphrasing Mulvaney’s remarks.

“Trump cut him off … ‘You just fucked it all up, Mick,'” the source recalled Trump saying. “It was kind of weird.”

Another source who was in the room confirmed the account. That source said their impression was that Trump was irritated at Mulvaney’s negotiating style. “As a negotiator, Trump was resetting,” the source said. “Mick was not reading the room or the president.”
[…]
Why it matters: Trump’s willingness to humiliate his top staffer in front of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi is another reminder — beyond Democratic unwillingness to fund a barrier — of why shutdown talks have made zero progress: Trump exhibits little regard for the credibility of his own deputies.

And they seem to love it. I’ve never seen any group of men so eager to demean themselves for another. But then Tump is absolutely terrified of Ann Coulter so I guess it’s just something all the macho right wingers are comfortable with.

The irony is that Trump actually believes he’s a good negotiator.

.

Real men want to bomb the shit out of ’em

Real men want to bomb the shit out of ’em

by digby

That allusion is to the old neocon trope “Boys go to Bagdad, real men go to Tehran” Guess what?

President Trump’s National Security Council asked the Pentagon in September for military options against Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.

The request was made shortly after an attack near the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, which the White House blamed on Iranian proxies in Iraq.

The request from the National Security Council troubled many at the Pentagon and State Department, especially given that the attack caused no casualties and little damage.

“It definitely rattled people,” one former senior U.S. administration official told the Journal. “People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran.”

Months later, it remains unclear whether the proposed military actions were provided to President Donald Trump, and even whether he knew that the request was made.

U.S. foreign policy towards Iran has seriously escalated since April, when John Bolton became national security advisor and Mike Pompeo became secretary of state.

In May, the White House released a statement announcing that Israeli intelligence proves that “Iran has a robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program.” According to U.S. intelligence, Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. The White House later corrected the statement to the past tense, without issuing a formal correction online.

A few days later, Trump withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal, despite repeated confirmations from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran was complying with the agreement. As part of that withdrawal, the United States re-imposed nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, which took effect in November.

The upheaval has seriously affected the Iranian economy, with an approximately 60 percent decrease in the Iranian rial last year and inflation soaring to about 40 percent.

Bolton is a strong supporter of the Muhajideen-e Khalq, a cult-like diaspora group that advocates for regime change in Iran. Bolton has been paid by the group and spoke at MEK conferences even when the group was still on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. (It was removed from the list only in 2012). In 2015, while the Iran nuclear deal was being negotiated, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times titled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.”

Pompeo has also been a vocal opponent of the Iran deal. Shortly after it was announced, Pompeo declared in a National Review op-ed that the deal “strengthens Muslim extremists.” One year later in 2016, Pompeo maintained that it was a bad deal and called on Congress “to change Iranian behavior, and, ultimately, the Iranian regime.” On Thursday, Pompeo gave a speech in Cairo blaming many of the problems in the Middle East on Iran.

NObody has any clue what the Trump foreign policy is at this point, least of all him. They’re all just playing their own hands. But I would remind everyone of this little nugget from Bob Woodward’s book in case they might be thinking that Trump will stand in the way of a Bolton or Pompeo push to start a war with Iran(which they have always wanted.) It was in regards to Syria, which he has never had any particular animus toward as he has of the Iranians. Afyter one of the chemical attacks he issued an order to James Mattis, which Mattis ignored:

“Let’s f–king kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the f–king lot of them,”

By the way, Iran has a lot of oil. And we know how Trump feels about that:

“I would bomb the s— out of ’em. I would just bomb those suckers. That’s right. I’d blow up the pipes. … I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left. And you know what, you’ll get Exxon to come in there and in two months, you ever see these guys, how good they are, the great oil companies? They’ll rebuild that sucker, brand new — it’ll be beautiful.”

Bolton and Pompeo will have little trouble convincing their man to do it if they believe the time is right.

Will that happen? Odds are no. But with this crew you just can’t be sure of anything.

.

Trump yells into the phone like a crazy man

Trump yells into the phone like a crazy man

by digby

You’ll note that he never denied being a Russian agent…

Here’s the HuffPost write up of the interview.

President Donald Trump slammed The New York Times in a Fox News interview Saturday, calling its report that the FBI investigated him because of fears he may have been secretly working on behalf of the Kremlin as the “most insulting article” ever written about him.

He also called the Times in his phone interview with Jeanine Pirro a “disaster of a newspaper.” He usually refers to it as the “failing New York Times.” The newspaper reported Friday that the FBI launched its probe after Trump fired FBI director James Comey — whom Trump called a “liar” in the interview.

When Pirro asked Trump “are you now or have you ever worked for Russia,” Trump didn’t directly answer the question, but said: “I think it’s the most insulting thing I’ve ever been asked.”

Trump also criticized the Washington Post for its report Saturday that the president went to “extraordinary lengths” to repeatedly conceal details of his private meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He insisted to Pirro that he’s not hiding anything, and indicated he would be willing to share details of the talks.

“I’m not keeping anything under wraps. I couldn’t care less,” Trump said. “We had a great conversation,” he said, referring to his two-hour meeting with Putin in Helsinki in 2017.

He noted: “We were talking about Israel, and securing Israel and lots of other things. … We talked about very positive things because look, we are beating everybody,” he added before veering into praise for the U.S. economy. He offered no other details about his meetings with Putin.

The rest of Trump’s interview sounded largely like a campaign speech — and included another push for his southern border wall. He touted Republican wins in the Senate in the midterm elections. “We won the Senate … for the most part I campaigned for the Senate. Almost everywhere I went we won. But i’m only one person,” he said.

He also lashed the Democrats for their refusal to allocate $5.7 billion for his wall. He insisted, without evidence, that the amount is “way less than other other presidents” have requested.

“We need a wall, very simple,” he said. He also reiterated his belief that he has an “absolute right” to declare a national emergency and order the wall to be built. But he said he’d rather see the Democrats “act responsibly.” He also repeated that federal workers are happy to forego paychecks for the wall.

Trump lamented the fact that “I haven’t actually left the White House for months,” except for a quick trip to Iraq. He failed to mention trips for golf, campaign rallies, the G20 summit and visits to California fire scenes, among other events. “I’m a worker,” Trump said.

Asked by Pirro what makes him such a great fighter, he responded: “Good genes.”

Full video:

Republicans are getting worse

Republicans are getting worse

by digby

By a wide margin, more Americans blame President Trump and Republicans in Congress than congressional Democrats for the now record-breaking government shutdown, and most reject the president’s assertion that there is an illegal-immigration crisis on the southern border, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

That makes sense. But the Washington Post/ABC News poll also reveals some rather disturbing news:

Support for building a wall on the border, which is the principal sticking point in the stalemate between the president and Democrats, has increased over the past year. Today, 42 percent say they support a wall, up from 34 percent last January. A slight majority of Americans (54 percent) oppose the idea, down from 63 percent a year ago.

The increase in support is sharpest among Republicans, whose backing for Trump’s long-standing campaign promise jumped 16 points in the past year, from 71 percent to 87 percent. Not only has GOP support increased, it has also hardened. Today, 70 percent of Republicans say they strongly support the wall, an increase of 12 points since January 2018.

They are becoming more rigidly Trumpified.

What will it take to wake them up?

The good news is that the rest of the country is still moderately sane:

By a wide margin, more Americans blame President Trump and Republicans in Congress than congressional Democrats for the now record-breaking government shutdown, and most reject the president’s assertion that there is an illegal-immigration crisis on the southern border, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Concerning the allocation of blame, 53 percent say Trump and the Republicans are mainly at fault, and 29 percent blame the Democrats in Congress. Thirteen percent say both sides bear equal responsibility for the shutdown. That is identical to the end of the 16-day shutdown in 2013, when 29 percent blamed then-President Barack Obama and 53 percent put the responsibility on congressional Republicans.

A predictable partisan divide shapes the blame game, with 85 percent of Democrats citing Trump and Republicans as the cause and 68 percent of Republicans pointing the finger at congressional Democrats. Independents fix the blame squarely on the president and his party rather than on the Democrats, by 53 percent to 23 percent. Women blame Trump and Republicans by a margin of 35 points, and men blame the president and the GOP by 13 points.

As long as his cult followers stick with him, he somehow believes that he’s omnipotent and will easily win re-election. He is unconcerned that they only add up to about 40%.  It’s just weird.

It’s almost as if he’s planning to cheat or something.

Update:
CNN poll is out:

Overall, the President’s approval rating in the poll stands at 37% approve to 57% disapprove. Disapproval has risen five points since December, while his approval number has held roughly the same. Trump’s current approval rating matches Ronald Reagan’s at this point in his presidency. January of 1983 was the only time during Reagan’s tenure when his approval rating fell below 40%, according to Gallup. Trump has hit a low point of 35% in CNN’s polling two times — in December 2017 and February 2018 — and has been at 40% or above just nine times out of the 20 CNN has polled on it.

The increase in disapproval for the President comes primarily among whites without college degrees, 45% of whom approve and 47% disapprove, marking the first time his approval rating with this group has been underwater in CNN polling since February 2018. In December, his approval rating with whites who have not received a four-year degree stood at 54%, with 39% disapproving. Among whites who do hold college degrees, Trump’s ratings are largely unchanged in the last month and remain sharply negative — 64% disapprove and 32% approve.

Those whites who do not have college degrees remain in favor of a wall along the border with Mexico (51% favor it, 46% oppose it), but they tilt toward blaming the President for the government shutdown (45% say he is more responsible for it, 39% the Democrats in Congress).

The public generally is more apt to blame the President, with 55% saying he is more responsible for the shutdown than are Democrats in Congress, while 32% say the blame rests mostly with the Democrats. Another 9% say both are responsible. Democrats are more unified in their blame for the President (89% blame Trump) than are the Republican rank-and-file in blaming the Democrats (65% of Republicans blame the Democrats in Congress, 23% blame Trump). Independents are more apt to blame Trump (48% to 34%), and are most likely to say both sides are responsible (14%).

.

They are nervous. Nervous is good. by @BloggersRUs

They are nervous. Nervous is good.
by Tom Sullivan

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) has fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill nervous. A Politico story on the freshman Democrat from New York quotes a senior Democratic aide saying, “People are afraid of her.” Good.

More established players are put off by her star power and want to “rein her in,” as Politico put it. They object to the grassroots effort to award the freshman a seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee. They lag behind voters in supporting ideas as big as her Green New Deal. They especially bristle at her criticizing fellow Democrats and want her to display more esprit de corps. As Republicans are of Donald Trump’s, fellow Democrats are intimidated by her Twitter account.

Less pop-culture-versed colleagues probably had to ask aides what she meant when Friday morning AOC responded to the Politico story by quoting Alan Moore, British author of the “Watchmen” graphic novels.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) tells Politico “he’s taking Ocasio-Cortez at her word that ‘she wants to work with everybody,’ as he said she told him.” The New York delegation intends to nominate her for a seat on Financial Services Committee:

“It’s one thing” for outside activists to go after Democratic incumbents, Meeks said. “It’s another thing when you’re in this institution and you’ve got to work to get things done.”

But Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the former head of the House Progressive Caucus, said Democrats should probably get used to Ocasio-Cortez.

AOC is attempting to pull off that most delicate of moves for a grassroots activist: perfecting the inside-outside game. The insurgent needs to use the authority of her new office to navigate and reform the temple without being seen immediately throwing over the tables of the money changers. All in good time.

Sarah Jones writes at New York magazine:

Some conflict between Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist, and senior Democrats, who are generally to her right, was inevitable. But the criticisms included in the Politico piece were not framed in ideological terms. “She needs to decide: Does she want to be an effective legislator or just continue being a Twitter star?” said one unnamed Democrat described as being “in lockstep with Ocasio-Cortez’s ideology.” They added, “There’s a difference between being an activist and a lawmaker in Congress.” Others worried that Ocasio-Cortez’s fame could cost the party seats. Nydia Velazquez, a Democrat from New York, said that she’d counseled the congresswoman against backing primary challenges to fellow Democrats in the future. Ocasio-Cortez’s own record – she ran as a primary challenger and supported similar bids from other left-wing insurgent – appears to concern them, as does her affiliation with Justice Democrats, which endorsed her and other insurgents in 2018.

It’s not clear from these criticisms that senior Democrats understand the reasons for Ocasio-Cortez’s run, or her victory over incumbent Joe Crowley. One party aide told Politico that people “are afraid of her” and her viral tweets, a sentiment that reduces the congresswoman to emotion and affect. But her stardom has discernible origins that counter such a simplistic depiction of her rise to power. Ocasio-Cortez’s popularity is tied to her ideology, which incorporates both her policies and her hostility to establishment politics. She is an insurgent, and that’s exactly why people like her.

In that, established Democrats lag behind both AOC, other younger progressives, and Democrats weary of political gamesmanship. Donald Trump won the White House in part by playing to voter’s frustration with business as usual in Washington (as well as to darker motives). That frustration has yet to penetrate their bubble.

Matt Stoller, former blogger and Capitol Hill staffer, spoke to that tone-deafness in responding to the Politico story in a tweet thread. “Unless you’ve worked on the Hill, it’s hard to convey just how weird these people are,” Stoller begins. The culture is quite insular, and insiders distrust outsiders, Stoller writes, both quoting the Politico story and responding to it in the tweet thread.

“It just messes you up psychologically to have to write law as a member of the Party of the People while also doing so without disturbing anyone who is powerful,” Stoller explains:

Indeed, conflict aversion is evident even at my far remove. There is a certain “abused spouse” shyness born of years of being relentlessly hammered by right-wing media, a reluctance to be branded as radical in the next election cycle. As if Republicans won’t brand even the most milquetoast centrist as a Nancy Pelosi socialist anyway.

I wrote after AOC’s primary upset of 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley last June:

The Democratic Party in many ways has all the institutional vigor of a men’s fraternal organization. It is wedded to a culture of incumbency that rewards those — with or without talent — willing to toil in the trenches until it is finally their turn to take the reins. It elevates chummy political careerists, perhaps idealists to start, but ambitious enough to linger long enough to become institutionalized and thus everything voters hate, especially younger voters and non-voters.

Many among the new crop of freshman Democrats, perhaps AOC chief among them, grew up in the wild west of social media. They do not flinch from confrontation nor react to digital barbs without giving better than they got.

“Where the hell is the Democratic party?” former DNC chair Howard Dean told NBC’s Meet the Press after his party’s 2014 shellacking. “You’ve got to stand for something if you want to win.”

It took another four years and Donald Trump for a new generation of Democrats with spine to remind the rest of the party what spine looks like. Voters want to leaders who will actually fight for them, not just trot out the language for photo ops. Establishment Democrats being unnerved is just what’s needed.

American Movie Classics yesterday ran A Man for All Seasons (1966). More striking than Sir Thomas More’s determination to hold to his principles was the pressure brought to bear by court hangers-on for him to go along to get along. That’s not winning elections these days.

Making ends meet: A top 10 mixtape By Dennis Hartle

Making ends meet: A top 10 mixtape

By Dennis Hartley

As we enter the 3rd week of the “partial” government shutdown, we’re hearing more and more stories of how it’s affecting thousands of federal employees and contractors who are either on forced furloughs, or who are being asked to continue working…without pay.

This has not only thrown a spotlight on how many of the folks who help keep the country running smoothly are barely scraping by as it is, but it has opened a broader dialogue on how many Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, period. The stats are not too rosy:

[from US News & World Report]

In fact, living paycheck to paycheck – meaning there’s not a cash cushion to cover the bills if the income stops for a while – is a common condition in America. In the 12th richest nation in the world by per capita GDP, nearly 8 in 10 U.S. workers live paycheck to paycheck, according to a 2017 study by CareerBuilder, a human capital management firm. And the trend crosses over income groups: more than half of minimum wage workers said they needed to hold down two jobs to make ends meet, while one in 10 workers earning $100,000 or more yearly say they live paycheck to paycheck.

And if there’s an emergency? A large number of Americans don’t have an accessible stash of money to cover a substantial health care expense or car repair, studies show. The Federal Reserve Board in 2017 found that 44 percent of American households surveyed could not cover a $400 emergency expense.

Oy vay.

With that cheery thought in mind (and in consideration of the adage “misery loves company”) I’ve curated a playlist of songs that appropriately…commiserate. Erm, enjoy?

(In alphabetical order…)

“Blue Collar” – Bachman-Turner Overdrive

“Five O’clock World” – The Vogues

“Hole to Hide In” – Foghat

“Manic Monday” – The Bangles

“9 to 5” – Dolly Parton

“Pieces of a Man” – Gil Scott-Heron

“She Works Hard for the Money” – Donna Summer

“Wichita Lineman” – Glen Campbell

“Working Class Hero” – John Lennon

“Work to Do” – The Isley Brothers

More reviews at Den of Cinema
On Facebook
On Twitter


–Dennis Hartley

Those private meetings

Those private meetings

by digby

There is simply no good reason for him to do this, particularly when he’s under such extreme scrutiny on the Russia question:

President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Trump did so after a meeting with Putin in 2017 in Hamburg that was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. U.S. officials learned of Trump’s actions when a White House adviser and a senior State Department official sought information from the interpreter beyond a readout shared by Tillerson.

The constraints that Trump imposed are part of a broader pattern by the president of shielding his communications with Putin from public scrutiny and preventing even high-ranking officials in his own administration from fully knowing what he has told one of the United States’ main adversaries.

As a result, U.S. officials said there is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with the Russian leader at five locations over the past two years. Such a gap would be unusual in any presidency, let alone one that Russia sought to install through what U.S. intelligence agencies have described as an unprecedented campaign of election interference.

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is thought to be in the final stages of an investigation that has focused largely on whether Trump or his associates conspired with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. The new details about Trump’s continued secrecy underscore the extent to which little is known about his communications with Putin since becoming president.

[A beefed-up White House legal team prepares for battle with special counsel]

Former U.S. officials said that Trump’s behavior is at odds with the known practices of previous presidents, who have relied on senior aides to witness meetings and take comprehensive notes then shared with other officials and departments.

Trump’s secrecy surrounding Putin “is not only unusual by historical standards, it is outrageous,” said Strobe Talbott, a former deputy secretary of state now at the Brookings Institution, who participated in more than a dozen meetings between President Bill Clinton and then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s. “It handicaps the U.S. government — the experts and advisers and Cabinet officers who are there to serve [the president] — and it certainly gives Putin much more scope to manipulate Trump.”

A White House spokesman disputed that characterization and said that the Trump administration has sought to “improve the relationship with Russia” after the Obama administration “pursued a flawed ‘reset’ policy that sought engagement for the sake of engagement.”

[…]

The meeting in Hamburg happened several months after The Washington Post and other news organizations revealed details about what Trump had told senior Russian officials during a meeting with Russian officials in the Oval Office. Trump disclosed classified information about a terror plot, called former FBI director James B. Comey a “nut job,” and said that firing Comey had removed “great pressure” on his relationship with Russia.

The White House launched internal leak hunts after that and other episodes, and sharply curtailed the distribution within the National Security Council of memos on the president’s interactions with foreign leaders.

“Over time it got harder and harder, I think, because of a sense from Trump himself that the leaks of the call transcripts were harmful to him,” said a former administration official.
[…]
It is not clear whether Trump has taken notes from interpreters on other occasions, but several officials said they were never able to get a reliable readout of the president’s two-hour meeting in Helsinki. Unlike in Hamburg, Trump allowed no Cabinet officials or any aides to be in the room for that conversation.

Trump also had other private conversations with Putin at meetings of global leaders outside the presence of aides. He spoke at length with Putin at a banquet at the same 2017 global conference in Hamburg, where only Putin’s interpreter was present. Trump also had a brief conversation with Putin at a Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires last month.

Trump generally has allowed aides to listen to his phone conversations with Putin, although Russia has often been first to disclose those calls when they occur and release statements characterizing them in broad terms favorable to the Kremlin.

In an email, Tillerson said that he “was present for the entirety of the two presidents’ official bilateral meeting in Hamburg,” but declined to discuss the meeting and did not respond to questions about whether Trump had instructed the interpreter to remain silent or had taken the interpreter’s notes.

In a news conference afterward, Tillerson said that the Trump-Putin meeting lasted more than two hours, covered the war in Syria and other subjects, and that Trump had “pressed President Putin on more than one occasion regarding Russian involvement” in election interference. “President Putin denied such involvement, as I think he has in the past,” Tillerson said.

Tillerson refused to say during the news conference whether Trump had rejected Putin’s claim or indicated that he believed the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia had interfered.

Tillerson’s account is at odds with the only detail that other administration officials were able to get from the interpreter, officials said. Though the interpreter refused to discuss the meeting, officials said, he conceded that Putin had denied any Russian involvement in the U.S. election and that Trump responded by saying, “I believe you.”

Senior Trump administration officials said that White House officials including then-National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster were never able to obtain a comprehensive account of the meeting, even from Tillerson.

“We were frustrated because we didn’t get a readout,” a former senior administration official said. “The State Department and [National Security Council] were never comfortable” with Trump’s interactions with Putin, the official said. “God only knows what they were going to talk about or agree to.”

Because of the absence of any reliable record of Trump’s conversations with Putin, officials at times have had to rely on reports by U.S. intelligence agencies tracking the reaction in the Kremlin.

Previous presidents and senior advisers have often studied such reports to assess whether they had accomplished their objectives in meetings as well as to gain insights for future conversations.

U.S. intelligence agencies have been reluctant to call attention to such reports during Trump’s presidency because they have at times included comments by foreign officials disparaging the president or his advisers, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a former senior administration official said.

“There was more of a reticence in the intelligence community going after those kinds of communications and reporting them,” said a former administration official who worked in the White House. “The feedback tended not to be positive.”

The interpreter at Hamburg revealed the restrictions that Trump had imposed when he was approached by administration officials at the hotel where the U.S. delegation was staying, officials said.

Among the officials who asked for details from the meeting were Fiona Hill, the senior Russia adviser at the NSC, and John Heffern, who was then serving at State as the acting assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs.

The State Department did not respond to a request for comment from the interpreter. Heffern, who retired from State in 2017, declined to comment.

Through a spokesman, Hill declined a request for an interview.

There are conflicting accounts of the purpose of the conversation with the interpreter, with some officials saying that Hill was among those briefed by Tillerson and that she was merely seeking more nuanced information from the interpreter.

Others said the aim was to get a more meaningful readout than the scant information furnished by Tillerson. “I recall Fiona reporting that to me,” one former official said. A second former official present in Hamburg said that Tillerson “didn’t offer a briefing or call the ambassador or anybody together. He didn’t brief senior staff,” although he “gave a readout to the press.”

A similar issue arose in Helsinki, the setting for the first formal U.S.-Russia summit since Trump became president. Hill, national security adviser John Bolton and other U.S. officials took part in a preliminary meeting that included Trump, Putin and other senior Russian officials.

But Trump and Putin then met for two hours in private, accompanied only by their interpreters. Trump’s interpreter, Marina Gross, could be seen emerging from the meeting with pages of notes.

Alarmed by the secrecy of Trump’s meeting with Putin, several lawmakers subsequently sought to compel Gross to testify before Congress about what she witnessed. Others argued that forcing her to do so would violate the impartial role that interpreters play in diplomacy. Gross was not forced to testify. She was identified when members of Congress sought to speak with her. The interpreter in Hamburg has not been identified.

During a joint news conference with Putin afterward, Trump acknowledged discussing Syria policy and other subjects but also lashed out at the media and federal investigators, and seemed to reject the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies by saying that he was persuaded by Putin’s “powerful” denial of election interference.

Previous presidents have required senior aides to attend meetings with adversaries including the Russian president largely to ensure that there are not misunderstandings and that others in the administration are able to follow up on any agreements or plans. Detailed notes that Talbot took of Clinton’s meetings with Yeltsin are among hundreds of documents declassified and released last year.

Recall also that Jared tried to set up a secret back channel with the Russian government with former Russian ambassador Kislyak as well.

This is one of the most suspicious behaviors he’s exhibited.

.