It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Here is the worst part about this Russian back channel from the Washington Post.

"Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate — a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team."

You can't make this stuff up. The more information that comes out about this unholy union between Trump and Russia, the more ludicrous and brazenly stupid the Trump administration looks.


I am sure he was taken aback by the fact the Trump team were effectively admitting they could not trust their own intelligence community. That lack of trust has certainly proven to be well founded given all the leaks since December.




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex

time will tell if that suspicion is borne out .


But one thing is for certain, no matter what proves true or false, your side will not give up on the Russia narrative. It's your new "Christianity".



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: jordan77
Why would you need a secret channel to discuss strategy in Syria?


To avoid leakers passing information to the press that could get American and ally servicemen killed.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




It's the President's job to communicate.

There needs to be scrutiny of those communications , a secret channel avoids scrutiny by definition.
There's no problem with talking to Russia as long as those conversions are in the open and above board.



I doubt there is anything unusual about the Executive Branch, or one transitioning, setting up their communication channels.

A secret channel would circumvent checks and balances , secret is the problem here.



The difference is you are SEEING more of the behind the scenes activity and outlets like WaPo are just cherry picking to support a narrative.

That remains to be seen , I hope no collusion is found because the fallout , if it's true , will be great and incredibly dangerous for all of us.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Gee, I wonder why they can't trust their own IC? Maybe it's because they discovered that Trump was in the process of undermining our democratic elections.......just maybe.



originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Here is the worst part about this Russian back channel from the Washington Post.

"Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate — a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team."

You can't make this stuff up. The more information that comes out about this unholy union between Trump and Russia, the more ludicrous and brazenly stupid the Trump administration looks.


I am sure he was taken aback by the fact the Trump team were effectively admitting they could not trust their own intelligence community. That lack of trust has certainly proven to be well founded given all the leaks since December.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: gortex

time will tell if that suspicion is borne out .


But one thing is for certain, no matter what proves true or false, your side will not give up on the Russia narrative. It's your new "Christianity".

I'm not the one supporting a Messiah regardless of their quirks and foibles , if the administration is cleared that's fine with me can you say the same if he is found to have colluded with Russia ?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha

Gee, I wonder why they can't trust their own IC? Maybe it's because they discovered that Trump was in the process of undermining our democratic elections.......just maybe.



originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Here is the worst part about this Russian back channel from the Washington Post.

"Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate — a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team."

You can't make this stuff up. The more information that comes out about this unholy union between Trump and Russia, the more ludicrous and brazenly stupid the Trump administration looks.


I am sure he was taken aback by the fact the Trump team were effectively admitting they could not trust their own intelligence community. That lack of trust has certainly proven to be well founded given all the leaks since December.


Maybe - or maybe people appointed by Obama are affected by the election loss in the same way as liberals on this site and around America and have lost all perspective and are leaking information selectively to damage their own country.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth




It's the President's job to communicate.

There needs to be scrutiny of those communications , a secret channel avoids scrutiny by definition.
There's no problem with talking to Russia as long as those conversions are in the open and above board.



I doubt there is anything unusual about the Executive Branch, or one transitioning, setting up their communication channels.

A secret channel would circumvent checks and balances , secret is the problem here.



The difference is you are SEEING more of the behind the scenes activity and outlets like WaPo are just cherry picking to support a narrative.

That remains to be seen , I hope no collusion is found because the fallout , if it's true , will be great and incredibly dangerous for all of us.






What? Scrutiny by who? Are you saying the IC should be spying on the President? Wow. If they are then that is THE huge story.

Secrecy is part of govt, which is why there is classification - the President controls that secrecy. That is part of his job! If he wants something to be secret he can immediately classify it, and also declassify what he wants. If he sees some people are not able to follow his rules on classification then he can certainly make other arrangements to protect secret communications. If he wanted to talk about troop movements with Russia in Syria, then ANY lack of trust that the IC would not leak information to the press would quite rightly lead him to protect that information in other ways.


edit on 27/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




What? Scrutiny by who?

The US government.



Secrecy is part of govt, which is why there is classification - the President controls that secrecy.

Secrecy from the government is not part of government.
The President is head of state not an autocrat.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth




What? Scrutiny by who?

The US government.



Secrecy is part of govt, which is why there is classification - the President controls that secrecy.

Secrecy from the government is not part of government.
The President is head of state not an autocrat.


You are wrong. Secrecy IS part of govt which is why there is an entire classification protocol. You may not want it to be, but that is not the reality.

The US govt has no authority to spy on the head of the Executive branch.

It sounds to me like you want the Govt to work in a different way to which it has throughout history just because you don't like Trump. Worse, you want the President's powers stripped, just because you don't like Trump.
edit on 27/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth


Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation
en.wikipedia.org...


This is as it states and has nothing to do with spying on the President's phone calls or determining how he can communicate with foreign officials.
Do better.
edit on 27/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Here is the worst part about this Russian back channel from the Washington Post.

"Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate — a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team."

You can't make this stuff up. The more information that comes out about this unholy union between Trump and Russia, the more ludicrous and brazenly stupid the Trump administration looks.


I am sure he was taken aback by the fact the Trump team were effectively admitting they could not trust their own intelligence community. That lack of trust has certainly proven to be well founded given all the leaks since December.


Pretty odd statement right there... Trump was unable to trust his own IC, his own country, so he needed to establish secret communications with Russia... after they helped him win the election... ?? That doesn't trip any red flags for you?

Don't you think we should have answers to why Trump team committed themselves to such secrecy with Russia?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SeekingAlpha


"Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate — a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team."


HUGE red flag, if true.

"Hey Russia, let's go to your place and create secret communication channels back to your homeland, cause it wouldn't be smart to do it in our own house."

My god the willful ignorance is astounding.

But let the spin continue.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
All of you people who insist on propagating the false premise that everything given anonymously is fake or without merit, are in for a rude awakening.

For starters, how many of you anonymous source deniers are using your real identity as your avatar/screen name here on ATS?

If you're not, why should we believe anything you say?

Now put yourself in the shoes of a whistleblower who has dirt on a vindictive, narcissistic authoritarian, with no concept of ethical behavior and who occupies the most powerful position on the planet.

Would you really feel safe openly ratting that guy out without hiding your identity?

We all know what happens to people who oppose Putin in that fashion and so far, Trump seems to have nothing but praise for Putin's "strong leadership" skills.

Just remember this; The anonymous source known as Deep Throat, who exposed the Watergate scandal that culminated in several criminal prosecutions and the resignation of President Nixon for nothing other than "obstruction of justice," remained anonymous for 31 yrs after Nixon's resignation.

Not only that, but he turned out to be a guy named Mark Felt who was none other than the Associate Director of FBI at the time he was feeding information to Bob Woodward.

Wikileaks uses anonymous sources exclusively and when it comes to the content of the leak, they have a 100% accuracy record. But.....look what happened to Manning after his ID was revealed.....and knowing his name is not what made his information accurate.

So as it turns out, anonymous sources can indeed be quite credible at times and to use that anonymity as the foundation for an ad hominem argument that "all unnamed sources are unreliable," is a pretty lame strategy to say the least.

From what I've been reading here on ATS, it's beginning to appear that for many of you Trump supporters out there......"If the perpetrator's autographed diary isn't found documenting the crime step by step, or if the accused doesn't give a full confession, then no crime occurred."

Well, I'd like to wish you good luck with that strategy but truth is, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.

But not to worry, because I'm also sure that you'll also find a way to convince yourself that the whole thing some form of "winning."

edit on 27-5-2017 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
All of you people who insist on propagating the false premise that everything given anonymously is fake or without merit, are in for a rude awakening.

For starters, how many of you anonymous source deniers are using your real identity as your avatar/screen name here on ATS? If you're not, why should we believe anything you say?

Now put yourself in the shoes of a whistleblower who has dirt on a vindictive, narcissistic authoritarian, with no concept of ethical behavior and who occupies the most powerful position on the planet.

Would you really feel safe openly ratting that guy out without hiding your identity?

We all know what happens to people who oppose Putin in that fashion and so far, Trump seems to have nothing but praise for Putin's "strong leadership" skills.

Just remember this; The anonymous source known as Deep Throat, who exposed the Watergate scandal that culminated in several criminal prosecutions and the resignation of President Nixon for nothing other than "obstruction of justice, remained anonymous for 31 yrs after Nixon's resignation.

Not only that, but he turned out to be a guy named Mark Felt who was none other than the Associate Director of FBI at the time he was feeding information to Bob Woodward.

Wikileaks uses anonymous sources exclusively and when it comes to the content of the leak, they have a 100% accuracy record. But.....look what happened to Manning after his ID was revealed.....and knowing his name is not what made his information accurate.

So as it turns out, anonymous sources can indeed be quite credible at times and to use that anonymity as the foundation of for an ad hominem argument that all unnamed sources are unreliable, is a pretty weak & lame strategy to say the least.

From what I've been reading here on ATS, it's beginning to appear that for many of you Trump supporters out there......"If the perpetrator's autographed diary isn't found documenting the crime step by step, or if the accused doesn't give a full confession, then no infraction occurred."

Well, I'd like to wish you good luck with that strategy but truth is, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.




So because anonymous sources want to protect their identity then their word should be evidence?
That is lame.
Nixon was not forced out of office because of anonymous information - the information was verified that he destroyed evidence and he also actually did refuse a subpoena. Anonymous source information should never be believed until it is verified. simple.

As for this site, would you believe it if I told you that I had evidence that Obama is not American and his presidency was a fraud?
edit on 27/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
So because anonymous sources want to protect their identity then their word should be evidence?

That's a leap.


would you believe it if I told you that I had evidence that Obama is not American and his presidency was a fraud?

If you had an open FBI investigation going with lots of other evidence to support it, and enough confidence by the media to report your claim, some might think it worth listening to.

lol... but relying solely on a random guys quote on a suspect site as this... No... you'd have better luck with fringe right wing media.

edit on 27-5-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Here is the worst part about this Russian back channel from the Washington Post.

"Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate — a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team."

You can't make this stuff up. The more information that comes out about this unholy union between Trump and Russia, the more ludicrous and brazenly stupid the Trump administration looks.


I am sure he was taken aback by the fact the Trump team were effectively admitting they could not trust their own intelligence community. That lack of trust has certainly proven to be well founded given all the leaks since December.


Pretty odd statement right there... Trump was unable to trust his own IC, his own country, so he needed to establish secret communications with Russia... after they helped him win the election... ?? That doesn't trip any red flags for you?

Don't you think we should have answers to why Trump team committed themselves to such secrecy with Russia?


It might raise red flags if there was any evidence they helped him win the election.
The fact is he was right not to trust his own IC. They have leaked like a sieve for months.

pssst... there is nothing unusual about secret communications between govts.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



So because anonymous sources want to protect their identity then their word should be evidence?


The reporters know who their sources are, and their level of credibility. Just because they don't tell you who their sources are, that doesn't mean that, after putting theirs and their media outlet's reputation on the line reporting the info, rather than the source, that we should summarily discount it.



As for this site, would you believe it if I told you that I had evidence that Obama is not American and his presidency was a fraud?


You are not a credible source.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Here is the worst part about this Russian back channel from the Washington Post.

"Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate — a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team."

You can't make this stuff up. The more information that comes out about this unholy union between Trump and Russia, the more ludicrous and brazenly stupid the Trump administration looks.


I am sure he was taken aback by the fact the Trump team were effectively admitting they could not trust their own intelligence community. That lack of trust has certainly proven to be well founded given all the leaks since December.


Pretty odd statement right there... Trump was unable to trust his own IC, his own country, so he needed to establish secret communications with Russia... after they helped him win the election... ?? That doesn't trip any red flags for you?

Don't you think we should have answers to why Trump team committed themselves to such secrecy with Russia?


pssst... there is nothing unusual about secret communications between govts.


It's not between governments. It's between Trump's team and Russia-- to exclude the U.S. Government.

SO this is a normal thing for a member of incoming admin to work with Russia to get a secret communications channel with them, using Russian communications gear-- to evade monitoring by their own country? lol nothing unusual? hahaha...
edit on 27-5-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join