Loony Dems want Trump’s Russia interpreter to testify. By Paul Mirengoff.
Two Democratic members of Congress, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Rep. Joe Kennedy, are demanding that President Trump’s interpreter testify before Congress about what Trump said to Vladimir Putin during their meeting in Helsinki. Shaheen tweeted:
“I’m calling for a hearing with the U.S. interpreter who was present during President Trump’s meeting with Putin to uncover what they discussed privately. This interpreter can help determine what @POTUS shared/promised Putin on our behalf.”
Kennedy, who has no knowledge of what was said at the meeting, claimed that Trump sold out our security, democracy, and credibility. Apparently, he wants the translator to confirm his conspiracy theory.
But why stop with the translator? Meetings with Putin aren’t the only opportunity to sell out the U.S. Why not demand testimony about what is said at meetings of the National Security Council or during conversations between Trump and John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Gen. Mattis, etc?
Why not make Trump wear a microphone and a body camera at all times?
When Barack Obama was president we didn’t need testimony from a translator to know that he was promising concessions to the Russians. An open mic caught Obama pledging to be more accommodating to the Russians after the 2012 election.
Truly outrageous. For the first time in recent history a large political group lives in an echo chamber that secludes them from untoward facts. So convinced of their own tribe’s virtue, they have abandoned all pretense of fairness or even the realization that what goes around comes around. Madness.
I think people need to be held responsible if they deliberately choose only wildly unbalanced media sources and then do or say things about topics of the day. Surely it is dangerously negligent to allow yourself to be systematically misinformed, when it is so easy nowadays to find out what else is being said.
Here in Australia the ABC fuels such behavior in the political tribe who only get their news and opinions from the ABC and Fairfax (the Sydney Morning Herald, Melbourne Age, and the Financial Review). As it says on our About page,
Something is “politically correct” (PC) if the only reason to say it is to seek political favor, to avoid public disgrace and dishonor, or for self-advancement by virtue of going along to get along. …
In Soviet Europe people who believed the state broadcasters were considered a special kind of stupid. There was a huge hunger for truth, but most people checked out mentally because they were offered only lies. The same is increasingly happening today, in the West. It is said that the photocopier eventually brought down the Soviets — today we have the Internet.