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: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

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.


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...


Back channels are not uncommon. Can you advise on the previous transitions and whether anything similar happened? Can you even advise on this one, and whether other countries had back channels set up? How do you know it's not normal?
edit on 27/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


You said it's not usual, so back that up. Also, I'd like to clarify that this isn't secret communications between governments. Trump wasn't even in office yet.

This is secret communications between Trump's team and Russian government, in an effort to exclude the U.S. Government. Big difference, buddy.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth


You said it's not usual, so back that up. Also, I'd like to clarify that this isn't secret communications between governments. Trump wasn't even in office yet.

This is secret communications between Trump's team and Russian government, in an effort to exclude the U.S. Government. Big difference, buddy.



Trump was the President Elect - and had already set up his landing teams, including those dealing with state dept communications. Kusher was on that team. This was known back in November 2016, right after the election.

The links to govts. using back channels are provided above.

Is there a rule / law that transition teams are not allowed to set up their communications with foreign govts?
edit on 27/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Considering that the Washington Post has one verifiable leaker already on the inside... potentially more than one considering how much "love" there is for the new POTUS on the inside.

Also the feds are bound to have their own sources. In turn the feds are also going to leak what they want to the media. Alphabet boys love to use the media to put pressure on targets they think need more public scrutiny but can't do so themselves. In cases like this they would happily use the media to flush out some more information and increase the pressure on the administration in this case. It's more common than you would think and the G Men are better at it than most.

Flatfish is right. Anonymous sources should never be written off out of hand simply because they're anonymous.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnonyMason
a reply to: UKTruth

Anonymous sources should never be written off out of hand simply because they're anonymous.

Hey, it's all Fake News...till it ain't!



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?


Now did I say that all anonymous sources are credible? No, I didn't.

What I said is that "many anonymous sources are indeed credible."

If you think it wasn't an anonymous source that took down Nixon, you have another "think" coming.

Of course the information provided by Deep Throat was verified.

Who would convict or impeach based on unverified information? That would pretty silly, now wouldn't it?

The publishers of the information are the ones responsible for vetting or verifying the information, at least to the point that they'd bet their organization's reputation on it's validity, prior to publication.

Just keep in mind that it isn't the verification of the information that makes it true, the verification just makes the information actionable. As in prosecutable.

With respect to believing your assertions regarding Obama's citizenship and/or presidency........No, I wouldn't believe you.

Surprised? Well, don't be. I just don't view you as a credible or "verifiable" source and I definitely wouldn't bet my reputation on you.

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

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



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth


You said it's not usual, so back that up. Also, I'd like to clarify that this isn't secret communications between governments. Trump wasn't even in office yet.

This is secret communications between Trump's team and Russian government, in an effort to exclude the U.S. Government. Big difference, buddy.



Is there a rule / law that transition teams are not allowed to set up their communications with foreign govts?


Communications, sure... that's normal. Secret communications channel using foreign govt equipment in an effort to evade U.S. intelligence. That's a bit suspect. FBI seems to think so anyway....



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth


You said it's not usual, so back that up. Also, I'd like to clarify that this isn't secret communications between governments. Trump wasn't even in office yet.

This is secret communications between Trump's team and Russian government, in an effort to exclude the U.S. Government. Big difference, buddy.



Is there a rule / law that transition teams are not allowed to set up their communications with foreign govts?


Communications, sure... that's normal. Secret communications channel using foreign govt equipment in an effort to evade U.S. intelligence. That's a bit suspect. FBI seems to think so anyway....


The US govt routinely uses foreign equipment.

Secret communications are nothing unusual.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?


Now did I say that all anonymous sources are credible? No, I didn't.

What I said is that "many anonymous sources are indeed credible."

If you think it wasn't an anonymous source that took down Nixon, you have another "think" coming.

Of course the information provided by Deep Throat was verified.

Who would convict or impeach based on unverified information? That would pretty silly, now wouldn't it?

The publishers of the information are the ones responsible for vetting or verifying the information, at least to the point that they'd bet their organization's reputation on it's validity, prior to publication.

Just keep in mind that it isn't the verification of the information that makes it true, the verification just makes the information actionable. As in prosecutable.

With respect to believing your assertions regarding Obama's citizenship and/or presidency........No, I wouldn't believe you.

Surprised? Well, don't be. I just don't view you as a credible or "verifiable" source and I definitely wouldn't bet my reputation on you.


It was anonymous source that led to further investigation on Nixon, but what took him down was evidence he tampered with evidence and that he refused a subpeona for evidence.

If not all anonymous sources can be believed, which ones should we choose to believe?



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Take a look at DC Leaks and Wikileaks.

Now imagine that the media and the feds have access to as many sources willing to leak them information that's been published on both of those outlets. Probably more considering the current state of things in DC.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?


Now did I say that all anonymous sources are credible? No, I didn't.

What I said is that "many anonymous sources are indeed credible."

If you think it wasn't an anonymous source that took down Nixon, you have another "think" coming.

Of course the information provided by Deep Throat was verified.

Who would convict or impeach based on unverified information? That would pretty silly, now wouldn't it?

The publishers of the information are the ones responsible for vetting or verifying the information, at least to the point that they'd bet their organization's reputation on it's validity, prior to publication.

Just keep in mind that it isn't the verification of the information that makes it true, the verification just makes the information actionable. As in prosecutable.

With respect to believing your assertions regarding Obama's citizenship and/or presidency........No, I wouldn't believe you.

Surprised? Well, don't be. I just don't view you as a credible or "verifiable" source and I definitely wouldn't bet my reputation on you.


It was anonymous source that led to further investigation on Nixon, but what took him down was evidence he tampered with evidence and that he refused a subpeona for evidence.

If not all anonymous sources can be believed, which ones should we choose to believe?


With respect to Nixon; Tampering with evidence, when it's deliberately done to cover up a crime, is also known as "obstruction of justice" which is what I said to begin with.

When it comes to anonymous sources, we don't believe any of them with absolution until they've been verified.

Now whether or not they seem plausible to you is a matter of which news media do you trust to vet their sources and what is their track record in this respect. That and exercising a little common sense.

Right now, I'm leaning towards these leaks being more truthful than not.


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



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth


You said it's not usual, so back that up. Also, I'd like to clarify that this isn't secret communications between governments. Trump wasn't even in office yet.

This is secret communications between Trump's team and Russian government, in an effort to exclude the U.S. Government. Big difference, buddy.



Is there a rule / law that transition teams are not allowed to set up their communications with foreign govts?


Communications, sure... that's normal. Secret communications channel using foreign govt equipment in an effort to evade U.S. intelligence. That's a bit suspect. FBI seems to think so anyway....


The US govt routinely uses foreign equipment.

Secret communications are nothing unusual.


This was not govt to govt. It was Trump's team having secret communications with Russia, using equipment and methods to evade U.S. government. Basically the incoming admin acting as a secret foreign agent.

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



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Even little kids are smart enough to see what is really going on.


Well mentally they are on the same level as the average Trump supporter. And as usual the Trumpets cannot refute the claims.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Even little kids are smart enough to see what is really going on.


Well mentally they are on the same level as the average Trump supporter. And as usual the Trumpets cannot refute the claims.

So children and Trump supporters use critical thinking?
Sounds about right.
Perhaps you should try it sometime buster...
edit on 27-5-2017 by JAY1980 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: UKTruth


You said it's not usual, so back that up. Also, I'd like to clarify that this isn't secret communications between governments. Trump wasn't even in office yet.

This is secret communications between Trump's team and Russian government, in an effort to exclude the U.S. Government. Big difference, buddy.



Is there a rule / law that transition teams are not allowed to set up their communications with foreign govts?


Communications, sure... that's normal. Secret communications channel using foreign govt equipment in an effort to evade U.S. intelligence. That's a bit suspect. FBI seems to think so anyway....


The US govt routinely uses foreign equipment.

Secret communications are nothing unusual.


This was not govt to govt. It was Trump's team having secret communications with Russia, using equipment and methods to evade U.S. government. Basically the incoming admin acting as a secret foreign agent.


I would say this is what you get when you give somebody so woefully unqualified such responsibility. But Flynn was sitting right there when Kushner threw this idea on the table.

There really is no good explanation for wanting to use secure Russian facilities to establish secret communications in order to evade US intelligence. It's espionage is what it is.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Oh crap.

Now there are confirmed reports of a secret back channel to Tehran!




The Omani ‘back channel’ to Iran and the secrecy surrounding the nuclear deal

www.washingtonpost.com... -e9bc84a2c8e4_story.html?utm_term=.156a7dcda8af

edit on 28-5-2017 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Collusion definition:

A secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement.

Collusion is not a crime but it may be focused around the committing of a crime. It can be considered an extenuating or mitigating factor when the trial about some crime is being prosecuted.

Opening lines of government to government communications away from public scrutiny is also not a crime. There are many such links between nearly every government with nearly every other government, always has been. Destroying any records of those communications, if any were kept, if they were of official business is a crime.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Gee, who do you think told Trump he was being wire tapped??

That's right, the russians!




posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Oh crap.

Now there are confirmed reports of a secret back channel to Tehran!




The Omani ‘back channel’ to Iran and the secrecy surrounding the nuclear deal

www.washingtonpost.com... -e9bc84a2c8e4_story.html?utm_term=.156a7dcda8af



Is that as bad as a russian back channel?

Is that how they made the details for the ransom deal?

If you like your nukes, you can keep your nukes.

Back to the op, so the russian ambassador tells moscow he wants a secret back channel?

So moscow leaked that to someone?




posted on May, 28 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance


Why would the Trump team need to set up a communications channel if they were already colluding with Russia?


Because previously they were communicating individually, and now they need to communicate as a team?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join