Days after the expected meeting between Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, half the US nation continues to question the tone of the press conference that both held in Helsinki, while the other half thinks it was a simple mistake of words.
Trump, who gave explanations to the avalanche of criticism that came from his own party, the Republican, and the opposition, the Democrats, for what they consider a “misguided words” that denied Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, said that it was a question, a phrase “poorly made”.
Actually, “I wanted to say that I see no reason why Russia was not behind” the interference, the President explained, which quickly calmed the spirits of some but not all.
“We all expected the President to mention something about Russian interference in the US elections, which I do not think has had the impact that many people think, but they tried to do it and that is a violation of the sovereignty of our country,” he told America The former Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Otto Reich, during the Republican Government of George W. Bush.
“I have no doubt that Putin denied, in the strongest and most convincing way” that he stole data and documents to influence the elections “but that is to do what he has done all his life, to lie, because he still thinks like an officer of the Soviet Union, “he stressed.
Another meeting.However, the President took up the issue of relations with Russia on Twitter and said he “looks forward” in search of another meeting with Putin to “start implementing” the issues that were addressed during the meeting in Helsinki.
“The meeting with Russia was a great success, except for the real enemies of the people, the false news press,” he tweeted.
And he mentioned that, in addition to Russian interference, he would address “terrorism, Israel’s security, nuclear proliferation, trade, Ukraine, peace in the Middle East, North Core and more”.
“The idea of a new meeting is not bad,” said Charlie Anderson, political analyst, and professor of political science at George Washington University.
“Not only would it help to take up the pending issues, but it would also help calm people down,” he added.
On the other hand. The White House managed to put out another fire in time, by announcing that the president does not agree with the Russian proposal to “interview” US officials to “help” clarify the investigation of Russian interference in the presidential elections, which the federal grand jury that is headed by special prosecutor Robert Mueller.
“It’s a proposal that was made with sincerity by President Putin but President Trump does not agree with it,” said Press Secretary Sarah Sander.
The Russian ruler proposed the unusual idea during the meeting in Helsinki, where President Trump described it at first sight as “magnificent” and later gave up on it, probably motivated by the lack of guarantees that an interrogation would have on Russian territory.
On the other hand, Sanders explained that the White House “expects Putin to allow the 12 Russians charged by the federal grand jury to come to the US to prove their innocence or guilt.”
“It would be a great gesture by Putin to prove his exculpation, but I doubt very much that he will agree to do so and will argue that it is a conspiracy that threatens Russian sovereignty,” said the professor of political science at George Washington University.
In another order of affairs, the Democrats in Congress failed to send the summons to the translator of the meeting in Helsinki, Marina Gross, to “reveal” the issues addressed during the closed-door meeting.
“For the sake of the country’s security, Congress should talk to the translator of Trump’s meeting with Putin,” said California Intelligence Committee member and Democratic congressman Eric Swalwell.
“We do not know what they talked about and we need to know if the President divulged any information or made a secret pact,” he said.
However, the political analyst and Professor Anderson clarified that “submitting the translator of the President to an interrogation would be devastating for the country and the image of certainty that we know of the presidential figure.”
“There are other ways of finding out things and working for the good of the country. You have to have confidence in the President, “he concluded.
You may also like