David Frum: Subpoena the Interpreter

[babylonsister]

Subpoena the Interpreter
There are real costs to such a move—but the public needs to know what was said between Trump and Putin.
8:47 AM ET
David Frum
Staff writer at The Atlantic

snip//

There’s only one American who does know: Marina Gross, the professional interpreter who assisted Trump.

Should she be asked? It’s a tough, tough, tough question.

Arguments against:

A friend who holds a senior foreign-policy position in an EU government was absolutely horrified at the prospect of a subpoena for Gross. No admirer of Trump’s, this person felt such a subpoena would create a new precedent that would shadow all future confidential presidential conversations with non-English-speaking heads of government, allied as well as adversarial.

The Trump administration would surely raise an executive-privilege objection. In the 1974 case U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court rejected an absolute claim of internal privilege within the executive branch. But it acknowledged “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties.” The court stressed that this privilege was at its strongest in military and diplomatic affairs, which would presumably describe the Helsinki meeting.

There is a nontrivial possibility that Gross might refuse to testify. Interpreters have a strong professional code of confidentiality. This code is not recognized in law, but like a newspaper reporter protecting his or her sources, Gross might feel honor-bound to uphold the code anyway—risking a contempt citation or even jail. Should she be put in that position?

Against those arguments is this fact: We are facing very possibly the worst scandal in the history of the U.S. government. Previous high-profile cases of disloyalty to the United States—Julius and Ethel Rosenberg’s betrayal of atomic secrets to the U.S.S.R.; Secretary of War John B. Floyd’s allowing federal arsenals to fall into secessionist hands in 1861—did not involve presidents. Previous presidential scandals did not involve allegations of disloyalty.

Is the president of the United States a Russian asset? Is he subject to Russian blackmail? Is he at this hour conniving with the Russian president against the interests of the United States? These are haunting questions, and Trump’s own determination to defy normal presidential operating procedures to keep secret his private conversations with Putin only lends credibility to the worst suspicions.

more...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/subpoena-trump-putin-helsinki-interpreter/580267/

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

1. I said it THAT day.

She appeared to be our only hope for knowing what happened.

[dalton99a]

2. This is our real national emergency.

Donald Trump's treasonous and destructive behavior

[kentuck]

3. If Trump cannot turn over the notes...

...then she should be subpoenaed. It's in the national interest.

[manor321]

4. Talks of precedent are hilarious. Next time, Republicans will subpoena WITHOUT HESITATION!

[empedocles]

5. We honor all these 'niceties', etc., like listing pro's and con's, while

traitortrump runs roughshod and smashes anything when he feels like it.

[mucifer]

6. I welcome all the repubs who are turning on trump.

[MineralMan]

7. That would do no good. The translator would simply claim

that he or she does not remember the conversation and that, without notes, cannot reconstruct it.

[babylonsister]

10. There's also the possibility she/he wants to cooperate.

[MineralMan]

11. That's possible, I suppose. I simply don't know.

If so, however, Trump will simply deny, as he does so often. Without the notes, there's no way to officially determine what was said.

[Horse with no Name]

8. If I were her

After my notes were “gathered” I would have made extemporaneous notes afterwards.
She should really have some sort of protection.
These types of people tend to have lots of accidents.

[beachbum bob]

9. Mueller or the House Subpoena of the Interpreter will be squashed under executive priviledge

and will be decided in both cases by the Supreme Court.

How do you think that will end??

[Grasswire2]

13. He said it himself the other day.

He said "We have the Supreme Court"

[UTUSN]

12. K&R

[Claritie Pixie]

14. Strange days when I agree with Frum. We are in uncharted waters with no historical precedent.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

15. Even if there were some kind of "Interpreter's Privilege" it only goes so far.

Attorney-client privilege doesn't apply to communications in furtherance of a crime or if the attorney knows that a crime is about to be committed. Your client tells you they're going to murder someone you can go to the police to prevent the murder. If the interpreter has evidence of an ongoing crime, particularly one that pertains to national security, that is not going to be a privileged communication.