Should the Trump-Putin interpreter be forced to talk?
The 360 is a feature designed to show you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories.
What’s happening
Increasingly concerned about President Trump’s relationship with Russia, House Democrats say they may subpoena notes from the interpreter present for his closed-door summit with President Putin in Helsinki last summer to finally learn what the pair discussed during their private meeting.
That news comes on the heels of bombshell reports in the New York Times, which said the FBI is investigating whether Trump was working on behalf of Russia when he fired James Comey, and in the Washington Post, which itemized Trump’s extensive efforts to conceal details of his Putin powwow from even his administration.
It would be unprecedented for Congress to force testimony from a translator on the president’s private meetings with another world leader (and Trump could claim executive privilege allows protected communication), but Democratic lawmakers say they may have no choice. “There’s no other way to find out what was agreed upon between these two individuals,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., of the House Intelligence Committee.
Such a step would also violate the code of ethics upheld among professional translators. “If statesmen are to speak freely, they must be able to trust interpreters unreservedly not to reveal confidential information,” the International Association of Conference Interpreters said in response to the possible subpoena.
So is a subpoena unfortunate but necessary, or would it be a dangerous precedent causing irreparable damage to diplomacy between world leaders?
Perspectives
There are real costs to a subpoena, but the public must know what was said
“The scandal of the Trump presidency leaves Americans only bad choices. Powers and privileges essential to the functioning of an honest and patriotic presidency are called into question by this dishonest and unpatriotic presidency. Succeeding presidents and Congresses will have to find a way to restore or replace busted norms with new ones — but pretending now that the old rules can function as intended is not only delusive, but dangerous. Subpoena the interpreter now; write a new law formalizing the confidentiality of interpretation later.” – “Trumpocracy” author David Frum,
“Though the Trump administration might fight a subpoena by claiming executive privilege, the administration should instead view a demand from Congress as an opportunity to exonerate the president. If the testimony shows that, in Helsinki, he was conducting the business of American diplomacy in a responsible fashion, then it’ll bolster Trump’s defenders. But if that’s not what the interpreters heard — well, in that case, Americans have an urgent right to know what they did hear.” –
Boston Globe editorial board
Interpreters must be allowed to protect confidentiality
“Congress may have the power to make Trump’s interpreter testify, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. Trump may be shredding rules and norms on a daily basis, but we don’t need to let him drag us down with him. The work of all future presidents and diplomats depends on their ability to rely on the complete confidentiality of interpreters. We should vigorously investigate Trump’s misconduct — but we should leave the interpreter out of it.” – Georgetown University criminal law professor Randall D. Eliason, the
“If you look at the long term, let’s say the interpreter is subpoenaed, called to testify. Well, perhaps there is some kind of short-term gain for those involved in this discussion, but in the long term it’s going to do possibly irreparable damage to the ability of the United States to actually conduct diplomacy.” – G20 and World Economic Forum interpreter Barry Slaughter Olsen,
What happens next
The House Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., is working with members of the House Intelligence Committee, including Chairman Adam Schiff, D. Calif., (who first began talking about the possible subpoena over the summer) and Swalwell, to determine next moves.
“What we’re not going to do is sit back and do nothing,” Engel said, but the timeline on pushing the initiative forward is unclear.
