Trump and Putin had another meeting without American officials or interpreters

This is disgraceful. Who is Trump working for?

Thanks to the Russians for keeping us informed.

Congress needs to call the interpreter to testify. Given that the FBI suspects that Trump is working for Russia, we need to get to the bottom of this. https://t.co/xSNEpOeYiD
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 12, 2019

Why were no U.S. officials present during Trump's latest private meeting with Putin? https://t.co/Amr06N3PeO pic.twitter.com/fGs3ze8Mvy
— Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) January 30, 2019

FT Exclusive: Donald Trump sat down with Vladimir Putin for an 'informal' conversation at the G20 summit in November — with no translator or note-taker from the US to record the talks between the leaders. https://t.co/DAUUTEhb0r
— Financial Times (@FinancialTimes) January 29, 2019

5-star trolling by Kremlin: Not our business to comment on whether Trump had an interpreter; Putin had his, we have complete stability and order. https://t.co/NSmE0ATi1p
— Lucian Kim (@Lucian_Kim) January 30, 2019

Trump would be gone if he ran a private company instead of the government

There is no private company that exists in which 6 associates of the CEO have been indicted and the CEO is still on the job.#WednesdayWisdom https://t.co/P8IE66r9zo

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) January 30, 2019

Trump and His Associates Had More Than 100 Contacts With Russians Before the Inauguration

and they lied about the contacts over and over, even under oath. Why?

Remember when the Trump campaign used to insist that it had had no contact whatsoever with Russia? Here's an illuminating @nytimes graphic noting more than 100 such contacts: https://t.co/4RMNlaQmlV

— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) January 26, 2019

Except that Michael Cohen had spoken to the Russians, too, about a Trump Tower Moscow—and testified to Mueller that he kept Trump and his family in the loop about it in 2016. https://t.co/XAHcSRjd9F

— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) January 29, 2019

Trump is wrong to attack Cohen’s father-in-law

Just more mob boss stuff

Witness intimidation

Update – it worked, for now

The Godfather in the White House may have snuffed Cohen's testimony for a while. But this is one witness he's right to fear. https://t.co/DtxXzKrE0M

— Chris Matthews (@HardballChris) January 23, 2019

Schiff, Cummings and Nadler issue statement after Trump’s comments about Cohen testimony. “Our nation’s laws prohibit efforts to discourage, intimidate, or otherwise pressure a witness not to provide testimony to Congress.”

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 13, 2019

Trump has been publicly attacking Michael Cohen’s family, an apparent effort to soften or prevent his Congressional testimony.

Trump knows what Cohen knows, and what Cohen can prove, so those attacks are pretty telling as new details of what Cohen might say are coming out.

— Ari Melber (@AriMelber) January 18, 2019

What's that saying about people in glass houses? https://t.co/FKZUmUkpIl

— Crooks and Liars (@crooksandliars) January 20, 2019

This is a big, big deal getting too little attention. Trump and Cohen's father-in-law. (sub req) https://t.co/DtfcB4IYRD

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) January 18, 2019

WATCH: @GeoffRBennett discusses President Trump's tweets about Michael Cohen's father-in-law. https://t.co/2xnedDzdjZ

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) January 18, 2019

For the second time in two months, the president referred to Michael Cohen's father-in-law in ominous terms this morning, which brought me back to a mystery I still haven't solved. Please let me know if you have any ideas. https://t.co/sN4GtEVOBu

— Dan Alexander (@DanAlexander21) January 18, 2019

Are we paying Trump just to tell us what they say on Fox News?

Kevin Corke, @FoxNews “Don’t forget, Michael Cohen has already been convicted of perjury and fraud, and as recently as this week, the Wall Street Journal has suggested that he may have stolen tens of thousands of dollars….” Lying to reduce his jail time! Watch father-in-law!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 18, 2019

Democrats fail to overturn Trump administration lifting sanctions on a Russian oligarch

update – Republicans go along with Trump’s appeasement of Russia

Breaking: GOP defeats Democratic effort to maintain sanctions on key Kremlin ally Oleg Deripaska. Dems needed 60 votes, got only 57, incl 11 Republicans. Treasury accused him of election interference, bribery, ordering murder of a businessman & links to Russian organized crime

— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) January 16, 2019

Trump is seeking to lift sanctions on Oleg Deripaska's companies for no apparent reason. Putin has not changed his policies. #NotToughOnRussia. https://t.co/1VlksKHxL1

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) January 15, 2019

Putin-friendly oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s company is trying to get out from U.S. sanctions. But the firm has quietly installed a new chairman who has expressed support for the Russian aggression that got Deripaska sanctioned in the first place https://t.co/dsqbMLYwtK

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) January 16, 2019

BREAKING: Senate GOP defeats Dem measure to enforce sanctions against companies controlled by Russian oligarch OLEG DERIPASKA.
Dems needed 60 votes, only got 57, even after GOP defections.
Sanctions now all but certain to be lifted this week pursuant to TRUMP administration deal.

— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) January 16, 2019

The Republicans who voted in favor of lifting the sanctions did so at a time when President Trump’s warmer stance toward Russia has inflamed questions about the Kremlin’s efforts to help elect him https://t.co/2O6aOw8bkH

— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) January 16, 2019

More than half a dozen Senate Republicans just joined Democrats to DEFEAT a motion by Maj Leader Mitch McConnell that would have prevented a debate over Treasury decision to lift sanctions on 3 Russian firms tied to oligarch Oleg Deripaska

— Laura Litvan (@LauraLitvan) January 15, 2019

The Treasury Department said it would lift sanctions on companies linked to Deripaska — triggering a statue that gives Congress just 30 days to try to reverse the decision by passing a joint resolution of disapproval. https://t.co/FoidhUoBm6

— Bruno J. Navarro (@Bruno_J_Navarro) January 9, 2019

NEW: @LeaderHoyer introducing resolution to block @USTreasury from lifting sanctions on companies of OLEG DERIPASKA, who HOYER says "has been key to much of the malign activities Russia directs against the US."
SEPARATELY: @SenSchumer will bring similar resolution for vote today. pic.twitter.com/d1VkUhGWxH

— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) January 15, 2019

Senator Chuck Schumer will force a Senate vote tomorrow on whether or not the Trump Admin should be lifting sanctions on companies associated with Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Dear Colleague Letter below… pic.twitter.com/BxHVTR8lFW

— Rachel Maddow MSNBC (@maddow) January 14, 2019

Trump is seeking to lift sanctions on Oleg Deripaska's companies for no apparent reason. Putin has not changed his policies. #NotToughOnRussia. https://t.co/1VlksKHxL1

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) January 15, 2019

Trump is hiding documentation of his meetings with Putin. Why?

Trump is not following the usual protocols for documenting meetings and calls with foreign leaders. What is he hiding? Hopefully, House Democrats can get to the bottom of this. Republicans have just covered up for Trump since they are afraid of his cult.

In their first face to face meeting, Putin denied that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election. “I believe you,” trump said. https://t.co/aqj2Tmgbw3

— Greg Miller (@gregpmiller) January 13, 2019

Last year, we sought to obtain the interpreter’s notes or testimony, from the private meeting between Trump and Putin. The Republicans on our committee voted us down. Will they join us now? Shouldn’t we find out whether our president is really putting “America first?” https://t.co/hzgfTRl653

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) January 13, 2019

Destruction of evidence is consciousness of guilt. At this point please show me evidence that @realDonaldTrump is not working for Russia. https://t.co/t3DOGmNVv8

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) January 13, 2019

"Are you okay with the fact that the Kremlin knows more about these meetings than US intelligence and the national security community?" https://t.co/ANqvIVOlW7

— David Frum (@davidfrum) January 13, 2019

Durbin raises concerns about Trump-Putin relationship: "Why is this President Trump’s best buddy?" https://t.co/pq8vnuu0RB pic.twitter.com/l7IBghvzM9

— The Hill (@thehill) January 13, 2019

Republicans just cover up for Trump. It’s disgraceful.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy does not say whether he is concerned about report that President Trump has concealed details about his conversations with Vladimir Putin. He says it's part of Trump's strategy to "create a personal relationship" with world leaders pic.twitter.com/hHQ4o0aevB

— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 13, 2019

GOP Sen. Ron Johnson: Trump reportedly concealing Putin meeting info is just part of his "unorthodox" presidency https://t.co/etDZbxIiP4 pic.twitter.com/9kaF1L1l0k

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) January 13, 2019

Trump reportedly went to “extraordinary lengths” to hide details of Putin talks from his own officials. https://t.co/uxlRSuECIU

— Slate (@Slate) January 13, 2019

I keep coming back to this. I have some memory about an article on Putin's tradecraft as RUS president; no cell phones, no notes, etc.

I wonder if Putin said to Trump in their first meeting to make sure the translator doesn't keep notes. https://t.co/JCCebzuR5X

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) January 13, 2019

I speak from experience: the biggest challenge as a spy is securely talking to your assets. I suspect that President Trump received directions by Putin how to speak securely and specific taskings. This, I believe, is when our President became an asset of the Russian government. https://t.co/NZIDjXCVQY

— Naveed Jamali (@NaveedAJamali) January 13, 2019

Great summary of the field day Pooty is having a result of our government chaos and compromised POTUS by @sam_vinograd https://t.co/qL9oc2mYou

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) January 13, 2019

Trump didn’t say “No” when asked if he worked for Russia

He’s attacked the New York Times. He’s attacked Comey and McCabe. He has not denied he worked for Russia. How hard is it to say “No” if that is the truth?

It just makes it more obvious that he is working for Putin’s interests instead of ours. We just don’t know why yet.

Here are the 358 words Donald Trump said when asked if he works for Putin. (None of them were ‘no.’) https://t.co/71aWfAM4Ho pic.twitter.com/zrmdazv1VD

— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) January 13, 2019

“So, I’m going to ask you: Are you now or have you ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?” Pirro asked Trump on Fox last night.

Trump’s best answer would have been “no.” Instead, he bobbed, weaved and never answered the question directly. 🤔 https://t.co/rAIF55HtK3

— Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) January 13, 2019

Why not just say “no?” https://t.co/rfwcP56gBm

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) January 13, 2019

America in 2019: The president, after spending the day tweeting alone in the White House, phones into a supporter’s Saturday night TV show and declines to say whether he is working on Russia’s behalf.

— Philip Rucker (@PhilipRucker) January 13, 2019

Jeanine Pirro (sarcastically): “Are you now or have you ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?”

Trump (not denying the charge): “I think it’s the most insulting thing I’ve ever been asked.” https://t.co/39L0ur5sEd

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) January 13, 2019

Could have said ‘no’ https://t.co/WawxTjG2sW

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 13, 2019

Trump shouted into the phone, refused to directly say whether he’s a Russian asset, claimed he “hasn’t left the White House in months” (he has tons of times, including going to *Iraq* recently), and had another unhinged Twitter meltdown today. He’s unwell. That’s dangerous.

— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) January 13, 2019

Trump didn’t say “no.” https://t.co/MsFRAP9p6M

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 13, 2019

Trump didn’t say no when asked on Fox if he was a Russian asset. Now, every witness to every conversation between Trump & Putin needs to be placed under oath for public testimony on the Hill so the American people can get the answers about this President that they deserve. https://t.co/CttGHOPa8h

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) January 13, 2019

Trump lies about calls to Russia

Trump told Jeanine Pirro there were "no calls to Russia," which may be true except for the multiple calls his son made to Russia before the Trump Tower meeting and Cohen's call with an aide to Putin's spokesman.

— Philip Bump (@pbump) January 13, 2019

FBI opened an inquiry into whether Trump was working on behalf of Russia

It’s incredible that they even felt they had to investigate this! I don’t think there has been anything like this in our history.

Of course, this does not mean they found anything. Since this was before Mueller was appointed, I assume he took over.

NEWS: the FBI opened an inquiry into whether Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russia ⁦@adamgoldmanNYT⁩ ⁦@nytmike⁩ ⁦@npfandos⁩ https://t.co/Tl24jU94gw

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) January 12, 2019

Wittingly or not, @realDonaldTrump throughout the 2016 campaign echoed and amplified Russian disinformation when he repeatedly stated— despite being informed otherwise—that Putin was *not* attacking the US election. He aided the Russian coverup. That’s betrayal. https://t.co/VEKnHv51CO

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 12, 2019

The FBI opened an investigation into whether the President of the United States was working on behalf of Vladimir Putin to undermine American interests.

That's the real national emergency, not the fake crisis Trump wants to distract us with at the border. https://t.co/09SrZCasRr

— Robert Reich (@RBReich) January 12, 2019

Trump’s obstruction of the Russia investigation was the “collusion,” writes @benjaminwittes, analyzing the new @nytimes bombshell that the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation to determine if Trump worked to help Russia against our interests. https://t.co/DVUZKtCS31

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 12, 2019

The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation because it had good reason to believe that Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russia against our interests.

If you’re not alarmed by this news, you should be. Congress should conduct hearings and get to the bottom of this. https://t.co/1OXZ5LzaCJ

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 12, 2019

Well, this doesn’t sound at all like utter panic. https://t.co/pQk0tzxPS8

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 12, 2019

Reposting my analysis of Trump and #Russia given this new report. https://t.co/vFN9AenaC3 via @politicomag

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 12, 2019

It was only after Trump twice tied his firing of Comey to his desire to end the Russia investigation that the FBI decided to launch an inquiry into "whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security." https://t.co/gZv9P8uO6V

— Zach Basu (@zacharybasu) January 12, 2019

Stepping back for a minute: If no other reporting existed on Trump/Russia, the fact that the FBI started a CI investigation to determine whether or not the sitting president of the US was either comprised by or an agent of Russia, it would be the biggest political story…ever. https://t.co/RRenfxbgmH

— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) January 12, 2019

Trump echoes Russia’s position on their war in Afghanistan

Just another reason to ask: What does Russia have on Trump?

Chuck Rosenberg: "The President of the U.S. is echoing directly the line of the Kremlin on a whole bunch of things … This is something that U.S. intelligence officials have to understand: Why is the president saying what he’s saying? … is something being fed to him?" @MSNBC

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 4, 2019

The WSJ editorial board on Trump's comments that the Soviets were right to invade Afghanistan in 1979: "We cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President" https://t.co/LVb1CvtI3G

— Byron Tau (@ByronTau) January 4, 2019

An excellent, needed piece. Thank you for writing it, @davidfrum. https://t.co/bu1Uhxne1a

— Jay Nordlinger (@jaynordlinger) January 3, 2019

The incomprehensible ignorance displayed in that 63 seconds on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the collapse of the Soviet Union is really breathtaking.

— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) January 2, 2019

Afghans not thrilled with Trump's history lesson yesterday: https://t.co/GJxYGolapx

— Eli Stokols (@EliStokols) January 3, 2019

The party of Reagan has become the party of Brezhnev.

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) January 3, 2019

Trump's media boosters are very good — too good — at looking the other way… https://t.co/olKMa0i6Ph

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) January 3, 2019

The remark does weirdly align w Soviet propaganda of the period. https://t.co/NdqaJtJYPG

— David Frum (@davidfrum) January 2, 2019

There’s a lot of “Wow, Republicans sure aren’t the party of Reagan anymore” lamentations these days but it’s kinda hard to top endorsing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

— Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) January 2, 2019

Worse yet, even back in the day, the Soviets didn't make the argument that the USSR needed to fight terrorism by going into AFG. Trump basically made that part up. The Sovs argued that it was to stop "counterrevolution" and "American imperialists" and all that crap. /1 https://t.co/ibZTQ8mYmK

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 2, 2019

On March 10, 1982, Ronald Reagan denounced Russia for invading Afghanistan “without provocation,” calling it “a violation of every standard of decency and international law.” Today, Donald Trump answered his criticism of Russia by saying “They were right to be there.”

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) January 2, 2019

Remains absolutely stunning that POTUS yesterday said "the reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there."

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 3, 2019

Defying history, Moscow moves to defend Soviet war in Afghanistan, @vkaramurza writes https://t.co/On2PKBf0pI

— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) December 8, 2018

Just learned from @vkaramurza via @maddow that Putin's party IS seeking to rewrite the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan! And our president just echoed the same. Amazing. I had no idea from where Trump had picked up this crazy idea. Now I have a theory. Thanks Rachel. https://t.co/j63ULNhhb4

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) January 4, 2019