No ‘G’day, mate’: On call with Australian prime minister, Trump badgers and brags

The Washington Post ^ | February 1st, 2017 | By Greg Miller and Philip Rucker

[Mariner]

It should have been one of the most congenial calls for the new commander in chief — a conversation with the leader of Australia, one of America’s staunchest allies, at the end of a triumphant week.

Instead, President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refu­gee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it.

At one point Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladi­mir Putin — and that “This was the worst call by far.”

[Mariner]

Somebody told a “Senior US Official” who told the Wa Post.
But wants to remain anonymous.

It’s incredible that a once respected outlet has stooped this low.

Papers used to require two separate, named sources before they would run with something so inflammatory and damaging against anyone in high office. They would not publish the names of the sources, but the editor needed to see it before it got any ink.

This is just Bezos using the Post as a propaganda machine. He does not care if this paper is ruined forever...it’s chump change to him.

And expendable.

[indthkr]

"Trump has a dangerous traitor in the White House."

Turnbull could have leaked his call.

The Australians have moved pretty far to the left - they shouldn't be considered a close ally these days.

[Keith]

From the Mexican Foreign Ministry:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3oALftWIAAQ7nI.jpg:large

[jim35]

This is such a pack of lies that only the Washington Post would put it out as true. OK, maybe the NY slimes, too. Utter crap. Stuff it, Bezos.

[gibsonguy]

This follows the recording of the Philadelphia meeting with the GOP cowards about the ACA. In this case I believe they got at least one half of 2 different conversations and are presenting it in the most damaging way they can. This is an extremely high level leak. It has to be an intelligence department holdover. I believe its real.

[House Atreides]

FAKE NEWS — FAKE NEWS — FAKE NEWS

[gibsonguy]

“This is such a pack of lies that only the Washington Post would put it out as true. OK, maybe the NY slimes, too. Utter crap. Stuff it, Bezos.”

It’s on Drudge and the worthless AP.

[naturalman1975]

The reasons Australia will not accept these specific refugees is only an issue for Australia. It relates specifically to one element of Australia's refugee policy.

If you get on a boat without a visa, you will not end up in Australia.
Any vessel attempting to illegally enter Australia will be intercepted and safely removed beyond Australian waters.
The rules apply to everyone; families, children, unaccompanied children, educated and skilled.
No matter who you are, or where you come from, you will not make Australia home.

Australia has an absolute policy that nobody who attempts to come to Australia unlawfully by boat will ever be admitted to Australia. There are no exceptions.

The intent behind the policy is twofold - firstly to uphold the basic principle that we decide who comes here to live. Secondly, it's humanitarian - when we have not had this policy in place, many people have died trying to get here - drowning in the ocean between Indonesia and Australia as the small boats they used were not seaworthy enough to make such a journey. The policy that these people, no matter what their status, will never get into Australia, is the only thing that has proven to successfully deter these people from risking their lives. Unfortunately, the previous Labor government softened the policy for a few years, leading to a renewed influx, which is why we have people on Manus and Nauru now. Reintroducing the policy stopped the boats again, but we still have the people who came under Labor to deal with.

Australia does take refugees - but we take them out of camps overseas after they've applied for asylum and been processed, or in some cases if they enter Australia on a legal visa of some sort, and then claim asylum and are found to have a genuine case.

But you cannot attempt to come here illegally, and ever hope to live here. If you're a genuine refugee - do it legally, do it properly. That's the message.

Australia attempts to intercept boats on their way here and when we succeed we turn the boats back if it is safe to do so. If it not safe, the people aboard are taken to an offshore camp (commonly either Nauru or Manus Island) for processing. If they are not assessed as a genuine refugee, they will be sent home where possible. If they are assessed as genuine, Australia will try to assist them to be resettled in a third country - but not in Australia. We'll help genuine refugees, but we will not change our policy that if you try to come here illegally by boat, you cannot enter Australia.

These people fall into that category. Australia has identified their case as genuine - but they tried to come here illegally. We can't send them home because they are in genuine danger. But they can't come here.

None of this means that the US should take these people. America is under no obligation to do so, or to help Australia find a place to send these people. But I think people need to understand the situation. These people are genuine refugees who have already been subjected to pretty considerable vetting to ensure they are genuine refugees and they are unlikely to be dangerous. Australia is not seeking to send dangerous people to the United States. It's not a hostile act.

President Trump has already said he intends to allow a certain number of genuine refugees to enter the United States each year, after extreme vetting to make sure they are not a threat to the United States. These people have already been through years of such vetting by Australia and been found to be clean. And the US is free to (and presumably will) vet them again. That's a large part of the reason why the deal may seem attractive enough to the US for the new administration to go through with it. You're not likely to get 'better' refugees from anywhere, and you're still taking thousands.

The only issue is that these people tried to get into Australia by boat without a visa, and Australia will not make an exception to our policy on that, no matter how worthy the person of help is in any other way.

Under international law a genuine refugee is able to apply for asylum in a safe country. They are not supposed to be able to cherry pick what country that is.

[Mollypitcher1]

Neither do I. Not his style. ANYTHING from the WAPO is not worth reading.

[naturalman1975]

Turnbull has certainly not leaked this call. It has utterly ruined what was probably his only hope for good publicity this year - a speech and press conference he did yesterday that was supposed to 'rehabilitate' him in the eyes of the voters. And if President Trump does, in the end, refuse to take the Australian refugees - after Turnbull told Australians he had agreed - then Turnbull is totally finished. I doubt he'd be Prime Minister by May if that happens.

He's also been one of the only world leaders not to come out and criticise President Trump over his executive orders, and the Australian government has backed America over the issue.

We remain one of your closest allies.

Turnbull himself is pretty far left. I've no real time for him, he's just better than actually having a Labor Prime Minister.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Trump isn’t going g to speak like that to a world leader. This is more fake news.

[Meet the New Boss]

If Australia insists, then I have no doubt President Trump will honor the deal.

But who ARE these people? Are they Muslims?

It is not possible in principle to “vet” Muslims, because it is not possible to predict in advance which ones will decide to take the Koran seriously.

Second, the whole idea of vetting presupposes the existence of comprehensive, bona fide information about the individual’s life history. It’s a fantasy to pretend this information exists as to Syria or most of the countries in this world.

[naturalman1975]

But who ARE these people? Are they Muslims?

No. Or, at least, almost certainly not. We haven't been told for certain because under Australia's laws and constitution, officially speaking, asylum seekers and refugees are not classified by religion and if it was publically admitted that in this case that was happening, our activist High Court would be likely to get involved and 'discover' some new human right that lets them into the country (it has a history of doing that which is why the people are on off-shore islands now - after the High Court 'discovered' they had special 'rights' that applied the instant they set foot in Australia), but while Muslims do make up the largest group of asylum seekers coming to Australia, there is a significant minority who are not Muslim (quite a few are actually Middle Eastern Christians fleeing Muslim persecution) and the numbers involved in this case, coupled with what we know from unofficial sources about the makeup of refugees makes it look like Australia is keeping all the Muslims and sending the Christians).

[mikeIII]

Yes - the high level leak is yet another problem. Wouldn’t be surprised if there is a traitor in the WH. Trump extends the benefit of doubt to all until proven otherwise.

[Meet the New Boss]

Okay, thanks for the info.

[virgil]

More gas lighting.

[DoughtyOne]

My take as well.

[kvanbrunt2]

Not that this is true, but there is always a chance that some of the former scum left some bugs, computer virus code or similar things in place so they could eavesdrop. I would scan the hell out of the place and throw away all the computers and phones.>>>. there was an article about all new computer systems put in place at the wh after just before o left. I thot or may have posted at the time that they should all be carted away and replaced. now is the time.

[phoneman08]

There is some truth in this story. Trump just tweeted he’s looking over this refugee deal with Australia.

No doubt Trump was ticked off that Australia insisted a deal was a deal. As he should be.

How stupid could Obama be? He agreed to take these people from the other side of the world so THEY wouldn’t have to breach their own immigration policy.

[Empireoftheatom48]

FUBEZOS