Trump wants to meet with Putin alone, with no other aides present on either side, in Helsinki this month. That means no note-takers, witnesses, or official record.

[Jason]

Makes sense I guess, performance reviews are usually confidential after all.

[Chairslinger]

But he definitely wants napkins, mouthwash, and kneepads. 

[Firewithin]

wonder if daddy vlady will clean up down there like a gentleman 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

No puppet

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

No puppet

 

Also note the awkwardly long pause that heavily suggests he was about to call her a bitch or a cunt:

 

 

[Spork3245]

This seems relevant...

[Nokra]

I get that it's ridiculously suspicious to do this when you're under investigation for colluding with the person you're meeting, but... Isn't it somewhat normal for heads of state to meet alone behind closed doors?

[mclumber1]

3 minutes ago, Nokra said:

I get that it's ridiculously suspicious to do this when you're under investigation for colluding with the person you're meeting, but... Isn't it somewhat normal for heads of state to meet alone behind closed doors?

 

I don't know if Putin speaks English fluently.  If he doesn't, it would definitely be a good idea to at least have translators in the room.

[Chairslinger]

16 minutes ago, Nokra said:

I get that it's ridiculously suspicious to do this when you're under investigation for colluding with the person you're meeting, but... Isn't it somewhat normal for heads of state to meet alone behind closed doors?

 

 

It's unusual and a bad idea.

 

With no official record or corroboration when Russia comes out after this meeting and says Trump promised this, this, and this it will leave the world wondering who to believe.

 

This has happened over and over with this administration and Russia. Jared did these type of 1 on 1 private meetings with Middle Easterners that are now leading to a ton of speculation about financial dealings and possible crimes.

 

Best case scenario it plays into Putin's plans to play Trump. Worst case there really is collusion going on and Trump wants to talk about it. Either way, a total 1 on 1 is a bad idea.

[MarSolo]

1 hour ago, Nokra said:

I get that it's ridiculously suspicious to do this when you're under investigation for colluding with the person you're meeting, but... Isn't it somewhat normal for heads of state to meet alone behind closed doors?

 

Remember that whole shit with those other Russian guys that Trump met alone with right after he fired Comey?

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

 

Remember that whole shit with those other Russian guys that Trump met alone with right after he fired Comey?

 

Normal human being laugh:

 

[Nokra]

I'm not debating that it looks bad or is a bad idea, I was just wondering how common it is.

 

For instance, in a quick Google search I found that Obama met with Putin one on one at the 2016 G20 meeting. Obviously Obama was not under investigation for collusion so it doesn't look as bad, but he did it. My question was to try to establish how common these one-on-one meetings are, independent of whether it is a good idea for Trump to do it (which again, I agree it is not). I'm guessing that Obama was not the first President to meet with another head of state behind closed doors, as well.

 

 Because it seems to me that from Trump's perspective, he basically has nothing to lose; whether he's colluding or not, it pisses off his enemies if he meets Putin, which he probably considers a win, and if he is colluding then the benefits are obvious.  And if these meetings are common practice, it might then be even more suspicious if he didn't meet him one on one. 

[Chairslinger]

3 minutes ago, Nokra said:

I'm not debating that it looks bad or is a bad idea, I was just wondering how common it is.

 

For instance, in a quick Google search I found that Obama met with Putin one on one at the 2016 G20 meeting. Obviously Obama was not under investigation for collusion so it doesn't look as bad, but he did it. My question was to try to establish how common these one-on-one meetings are, independent of whether it is a good idea for Trump to do it (which again, I agree it is not). I'm guessing that Obama was not the first President to meet with another head of state behind closed doors, as well.

 

 Because it seems to me that from Trump's perspective, he basically has nothing to lose; whether he's colluding or not, it pisses off his enemies if he meets Putin, which he probably considers a win, and if he is colluding then the benefits are obvious.  And if these meetings are common practice, it might then be even more suspicious if he didn't meet him one on one. 

 

 

Did the article state specifically that Obama and Putin were literally, physically alone in the room?

 

My understanding is that up until Trump shorthand for "one on one" would mean at least translators and maybe an aide.

[Nokra]

23 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

Did the article state specifically that Obama and Putin were literally, physically alone in the room?

 

My understanding is that up until Trump shorthand for "one on one" would mean at least translators and maybe an aide.

 

The one article I found only said "one on one" but after looking into it further, it appears that they each had one translator there as well, and it seems no aides. 

 

There are a few videos of Putin speaking English out there, so a translator isn't strictly necessary, apparently.