Meet Beck Dorey-Stein. She had been a White House stenographer for five years (2012-2017). She decided to quit because President Trump didn’t respect stenographers, and didn’t use them as he was supposed to.
I guess a pathological liar’s arch-enemy is a tape recorder.
So Trump avoided them whenever he could.
A White House stenographer says she resigned over the Trump administration's lack of respect for her office after President Trump reduced the roles of the White House position.
Beck Dorey-Stein, who worked as a stenographer for the White House during the second half of the Obama administration, told CNN's New Day on Wednesday that Trump's refusal to allow stenographers in the room for meetings and interviews with some journalists crossed a line.
"I quit because I couldn't be proud of where I worked anymore," Dorey-Stein said. "I felt like President Trump was lying to the American people, and also ... not even trying to tell the truth. He wasn't even going the extra mile to have the stenographers in the room"
[...]
"Mr. Trump likes to call anyone who disagrees with him 'fake news.' But if he’s really the victim of so much inaccurate reporting, why is he so averse to having the facts recorded and transcribed?"
Secret conversations?
Like in Helsinki?
Dorey-Stein has a new book out called “From the Corner of the Oval: A Memoir”
It’s getting great reviews. Go show her some love.
Here’s a bit more from her own Op-Ed in the NY-Times:
I Was a White House Stenographer.
Trump Wasn’t a Fan.
By Beck Dorey-Stein
Ms. Dorey-Stein was a White House stenographer from 2012 to 2017.
On Friday, at a news conference with Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain a reporter asked President Trump about disparaging comments he had made about her to The Sun newspaper. He denied ever having said them and declared that recordings of the interview would vindicate him. “We record when we deal with reporters,” he said. “We solve a lot of problems with the good old recording instrument.”
Do we?
President Trump did criticize Theresa May to The Sun. We know because it was recorded.
It’s clear that White House stenographers do not serve his administration, but rather his adversary: the truth.
Friday, Jul 20, 2018 · 1:25:19 PM +00:00
·
AlyoshaKaramazov
My wife was previously a Translator-Interperator.
There are a few significant points she highlights:
- Translation is scholarly and usually subject to review and correction/improvement before release, particularly in instances of formal documents requiring certification or notarization. such as legal documents or credentials. Such translators are generally certified in a similar process as a notary.
- Translations usually include a disclaimer stating the original language has precedence, and both are presented as a set.
- Interpretation is live and aims to relay the essence of the discussion, including to the extent possible, relaying the meaning of idiomatic figures of speech
- Interpretation depends upon a higher mastery of both languages to ensure the interpreter has a clear understanding of the source and can faithfully translate it
- Translators and interpreters have a professional obligation to act as honest brokers and faithfully represent what has been said, asking questions where there is a doubt about the meaning
- Silumtainious translators generally have a responsibility to act as the witness to work done by their opposite numbers, i.e, A-B against B-A, just as doctors render professional second opinions in good faith
She has a strong opinion Dems should NOT subpoena the interpreter and her written notes because:
- Unlike translation where a working record of source and translation is complete, translation is live and the translator is focused on listening and interpreting in the moment, and will not have the precise, accurate recall of a note-taker or stenographer. For that reason, it is customary in legal or diplomatic situations to have a designated note-taker if the discussion is not recorded.
- The interpreter’s extemporaneous notes are typically fragmentary and interpretive, used only as an aid to translation and by no means the equivalent of notes taken by a stenographer or note-taker. For that reason, they may be misleading and/or misused.
It’s her opinion, that if the interpreter must testify, it be done verbally with access to notes but not rely on the notes as evidence.
But her main point is this: the process of Trump’s meetings is the problem and trying to go back to the interpreter to fix that problem puts the responsibility on the wrong party, and that the solution should be to insist future meetings follow proper protocol.
She wonders, has Trump already violated laws to preserve public records?