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

So now Kushner is under investigation. If Kushner is under investigation, you know damn well Ivanka is also going to get looked at. Given that his sons have always worked closely with him, and are now officially in charge, supposedly, of his business empire, I wouldn't be surprised if they also end up coming up as "persons of interest".

Even if Trump did get busted and removed, it wouldn't change the fact that we have shot ourselves in the face. damage has been done, and most of it as irreparable. I don't think people appreciate the level of infiltration and subversion Putin and his people achieved here.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

I don't think people appreciate the level of infiltration and subversion Putin and his people achieved here.

The fact that so many people do not understand how the system is supposed to work is frightening. There are people who are so bought into the cult of personality that they forget we are a nation of laws. Trump once boasted that he could stand on a street corner and shoot people and his supporters would still stay with him. It's worse than that. Now they show that they would praise his marksmanship.

originally posted by: Flatfish

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.

Can't disagree with that - you are right we should never have absolute belief in any anonymous source until evidence is provided.

Where you lean on belief is a matter of opinion and that is of course valid, but that is not what is happening here. These anonymous source leaks are being used to convict in the court of public opinion - not only that, they are being conflated/ changed / exaggerated to create narratives. It's not the leaks themselves that should be dismissed out of hand, rather the false narratives built around them.

originally posted by: tkwasny
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.

Collusion can indeed be illegal depending on what the parties are colluding about.

When planning to commit a crime or to evade justice, colluding is basically the same thing as conspiring and here in the U.S. we have a special law called the RICO Act which is utilized to prosecute such violations.

So just for the sake of accuracy, collusion can just as easily be illegal as legal. It all depends on what the collusion is about.

If Trump and/or his campaign were colluding/conspiring with the Russians for a secret deal that would lift sanctions against Russia in exchange for assistance in getting Trump elected, well that would be illegal.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: tkwasny
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.

Collusion can indeed be illegal depending on what the parties are colluding about.

When planning to commit a crime or to evade justice, colluding is basically the same thing as conspiring and here in the U.S. we have a special law called the RICO Act which is utilized to prosecute such violations.

So just for the sake of accuracy, collusion can just as easily be illegal as legal. It all depends on what the collusion is about.

If Trump and/or his campaign were colluding/conspiring with the Russians for a secret deal that would lift sanctions against Russia in exchange for assistance in getting Trump elected, well that would be illegal.

No it wouldn't be illegal. What it would require is both parties committed a crime. And we can't even show a crime occurred. Me personally I'd love it if Trump got busted hrs an arrogant prick. But I don't think we should make stuff up to get him removed that is sedition. And to me that plays in to the Russians hands far more than these accusations.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: tkwasny
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.

Collusion can indeed be illegal depending on what the parties are colluding about.

When planning to commit a crime or to evade justice, colluding is basically the same thing as conspiring and here in the U.S. we have a special law called the RICO Act which is utilized to prosecute such violations.

So just for the sake of accuracy, collusion can just as easily be illegal as legal. It all depends on what the collusion is about.

If Trump and/or his campaign were colluding/conspiring with the Russians for a secret deal that would lift sanctions against Russia in exchange for assistance in getting Trump elected, well that would be illegal.

No it wouldn't be illegal. What it would require is both parties committed a crime. And we can't even show a crime occurred. Me personally I'd love it if Trump got busted hrs an arrogant prick. But I don't think we should make stuff up to get him removed that is sedition. And to me that plays in to the Russians hands far more than these accusations.

Well I'll be the first to admit that I'm neither a lawyer or a judge, but if what I described isn't illegal, it should be.

And just for the record, I still believe it is.

On the other hand, I doubt that "collusion" will be what takes Trump down.

At this point, I'm betting he goes down for obstruction of justice which he has basically admitted to doing and there doesn't have to be an underlying crime in order to get prosecuted for obstruction.

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster refused to talk about the allegations. But he said that in general, “We have backchannel communication with a number of countries. What that allows you to do is communicate in a discrete manner.”

“I would not be concerned about it,” he added.

originally posted by: gortex

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 ?

I will fully state that whatever happens, will happen. If Trump is guilty of colluding with Russians about the election, before the election, I'll state I was wrong in my thinking and beliefs. (BTW, I feel that way because to date, no evidence exists that points in that direction other than hearsay from anonymous sources.)

I understand Trump has quite a few faults and would rather have had a choice of just about anyone else, but he is the one we had to oppose the criminal. And so far, the left has tried really hard to manufacture stories about how bad he is, instead of just letting him say stupid # and screw up on his own. It's become comical and really sad to see the level of underhandedness the left now not only tolerates, but engages in. The stage that's being set now will be quite scary in a few years, should your side ever find a candidate who isn't a criminal, and is allowed to run for the empire (DNC).

This from 2008 before Obama even won the Presidential election:

The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa. It has been on display since before the beginning of the Obama administration. During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

originally posted by: UKTruth

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster refused to talk about the allegations. But he said that in general, “We have backchannel communication with a number of countries. What that allows you to do is communicate in a discrete manner.”

“I would not be concerned about it,” he added.

And.....How many of those back channel communications are transmitted exclusively through the communications networks of foreign embassies?

If what has been alleged turns out to be true, this is definitely something worthy of concern.

If true, either they were attempting to commit espionage or they are literally dumber than a box of rocks. ("They" being Trump and his administration.)

Either scenario is worrisome.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster refused to talk about the allegations. But he said that in general, “We have backchannel communication with a number of countries. What that allows you to do is communicate in a discrete manner.”

“I would not be concerned about it,” he added.

And.....How many of those back channel communications are transmitted exclusively through the communications networks of foreign embassies?

If what has been alleged turns out to be true, this is definitely something worthy of concern.

If true, either they were attempting to commit espionage or they are literally dumber than a box of rocks. ("They" being Trump and his administration.)

Either scenario is worrisome.

I'd imagine the nature of a back channel to a foreign country is to keep it from the official networks, no?

There is nothing at all out of the ordinary here. Now whether it should be done at all is another matter, but it is, and being outraged now about things that happen routinely just because it is Trump in the Oval Office seems a bit disingenuous.

a reply to: network dude




" It's become comical and really sad to see the level of underhandedness the left now not only tolerates, but engages in."

exactly how I feel about the right and the email "scandal", pizzagate, birther crap.

ya, y'all were real lambs about all that. good lord.

and, underhandedness. please... remember "lock her up"?

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: network dude




" It's become comical and really sad to see the level of underhandedness the left now not only tolerates, but engages in."

exactly how I feel about the right and the email "scandal", pizzagate, birther crap.

ya, y'all were real lambs about all that. good lord.

and, underhandedness. please... remember "lock her up"?

E-mail scandal? that was proven to be 100% correct. so with that I say "lock her up", and I have no issues saying that with regard to my previous post.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster refused to talk about the allegations. But he said that in general, “We have backchannel communication with a number of countries. What that allows you to do is communicate in a discrete manner.”

“I would not be concerned about it,” he added.

And.....How many of those back channel communications are transmitted exclusively through the communications networks of foreign embassies?

If what has been alleged turns out to be true, this is definitely something worthy of concern.

If true, either they were attempting to commit espionage or they are literally dumber than a box of rocks. ("They" being Trump and his administration.)

Either scenario is worrisome.

I'd imagine the nature of a back channel to a foreign country is to keep it from the official networks, no?

There is nothing at all out of the ordinary here. Now whether it should be done at all is another matter, but it is, and being outraged now about things that happen routinely just because it is Trump in the Oval Office seems a bit disingenuous.

Talk about disingenuous! How about your assertion that "there is nothing at all out of the ordinary here?"

If that's not a disingenuous statement & position, then show us where back channel communications have ever existed between U.S. and foreign officials that exclusively utilized the communications network of an adversarial foreign embassy.

It's definitely out of the ordinary.

I like how all the ATS Monday morning QBs pretend to know how the higher government machinations really works. Guess what all you Trump haters, absolutely nothing will come of this Jared Kushner episode.

Asked about reports that Donald Trump's son-in-law had tried to set up a secret channel of communication with Russia before the president took office, U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said that so-called "back-channeling" was normal.

"We have back-channel communications with any number of individual (countries). So generally speaking, about back-channel communications, what that allows you to do is communicate in a discreet manner," McMaster said.

www.reuters.com...

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster refused to talk about the allegations. But he said that in general, “We have backchannel communication with a number of countries. What that allows you to do is communicate in a discrete manner.”

“I would not be concerned about it,” he added.

And.....How many of those back channel communications are transmitted exclusively through the communications networks of foreign embassies?

If what has been alleged turns out to be true, this is definitely something worthy of concern.

If true, either they were attempting to commit espionage or they are literally dumber than a box of rocks. ("They" being Trump and his administration.)

Either scenario is worrisome.

I'd imagine the nature of a back channel to a foreign country is to keep it from the official networks, no?

There is nothing at all out of the ordinary here. Now whether it should be done at all is another matter, but it is, and being outraged now about things that happen routinely just because it is Trump in the Oval Office seems a bit disingenuous.

Talk about disingenuous! How about your assertion that "there is nothing at all out of the ordinary here?"

If that's not a disingenuous statement & position, then show us where back channel communications have ever existed between U.S. and foreign officials that exclusively utilized the communications network of an adversarial foreign embassy.

It's definitely out of the ordinary.

Because it makes perfect sense that the official networks would not be used for a back channel. What exactly is strange about using the Russian Embassy????

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster refused to talk about the allegations. But he said that in general, “We have backchannel communication with a number of countries. What that allows you to do is communicate in a discrete manner.”

“I would not be concerned about it,” he added.

And.....How many of those back channel communications are transmitted exclusively through the communications networks of foreign embassies?

If what has been alleged turns out to be true, this is definitely something worthy of concern.

If true, either they were attempting to commit espionage or they are literally dumber than a box of rocks. ("They" being Trump and his administration.)

Either scenario is worrisome.

I'd imagine the nature of a back channel to a foreign country is to keep it from the official networks, no?

There is nothing at all out of the ordinary here. Now whether it should be done at all is another matter, but it is, and being outraged now about things that happen routinely just because it is Trump in the Oval Office seems a bit disingenuous.

Talk about disingenuous! How about your assertion that "there is nothing at all out of the ordinary here?"

If that's not a disingenuous statement & position, then show us where back channel communications have ever existed between U.S. and foreign officials that exclusively utilized the communications network of an adversarial foreign embassy.

It's definitely out of the ordinary.

Because it makes perfect sense that the official networks would not be used for a back channel. What exactly is strange about using the Russian Embassy????

You seem to have overlooked that Kushner wasn't a government official and had no legal right to ask the Russian embassy for a damn thing.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster refused to talk about the allegations. But he said that in general, “We have backchannel communication with a number of countries. What that allows you to do is communicate in a discrete manner.”

“I would not be concerned about it,” he added.

And.....How many of those back channel communications are transmitted exclusively through the communications networks of foreign embassies?

If what has been alleged turns out to be true, this is definitely something worthy of concern.

If true, either they were attempting to commit espionage or they are literally dumber than a box of rocks. ("They" being Trump and his administration.)

Either scenario is worrisome.

I'd imagine the nature of a back channel to a foreign country is to keep it from the official networks, no?

There is nothing at all out of the ordinary here. Now whether it should be done at all is another matter, but it is, and being outraged now about things that happen routinely just because it is Trump in the Oval Office seems a bit disingenuous.

Talk about disingenuous! How about your assertion that "there is nothing at all out of the ordinary here?"

If that's not a disingenuous statement & position, then show us where back channel communications have ever existed between U.S. and foreign officials that exclusively utilized the communications network of an adversarial foreign embassy.

It's definitely out of the ordinary.

Because it makes perfect sense that the official networks would not be used for a back channel. What exactly is strange about using the Russian Embassy????

You seem to have overlooked that Kushner wasn't a government official and had no legal right to ask the Russian embassy for a damn thing.

Yes he did - he was on the landing team for the incoming administration.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster refused to talk about the allegations. But he said that in general, “We have backchannel communication with a number of countries. What that allows you to do is communicate in a discrete manner.”

“I would not be concerned about it,” he added.

And.....How many of those back channel communications are transmitted exclusively through the communications networks of foreign embassies?

If what has been alleged turns out to be true, this is definitely something worthy of concern.

If true, either they were attempting to commit espionage or they are literally dumber than a box of rocks. ("They" being Trump and his administration.)

Either scenario is worrisome.

I'd imagine the nature of a back channel to a foreign country is to keep it from the official networks, no?

There is nothing at all out of the ordinary here. Now whether it should be done at all is another matter, but it is, and being outraged now about things that happen routinely just because it is Trump in the Oval Office seems a bit disingenuous.

Talk about disingenuous! How about your assertion that "there is nothing at all out of the ordinary here?"

If that's not a disingenuous statement & position, then show us where back channel communications have ever existed between U.S. and foreign officials that exclusively utilized the communications network of an adversarial foreign embassy.

It's definitely out of the ordinary.

Because it makes perfect sense that the official networks would not be used for a back channel. What exactly is strange about using the Russian Embassy????

You seem to have overlooked that Kushner wasn't a government official and had no legal right to ask the Russian embassy for a damn thing.

Yes he did - he was on the landing team for the incoming administration.

Funny I always thought the educational system in England was better than Americas but you learn something everyday. The only person that was government was Trump when he became President elect. No legal positions were given to anyone until after he was inaugurated as President because he had no right to give government jobs until then. Until that time they are just plain citizens hoping dimwit will give them a job in the government. Do you understand how it works now?

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster refused to talk about the allegations. But he said that in general, “We have backchannel communication with a number of countries. What that allows you to do is communicate in a discrete manner.”

“I would not be concerned about it,” he added.

And.....How many of those back channel communications are transmitted exclusively through the communications networks of foreign embassies?

If what has been alleged turns out to be true, this is definitely something worthy of concern.

If true, either they were attempting to commit espionage or they are literally dumber than a box of rocks. ("They" being Trump and his administration.)

Either scenario is worrisome.

I'd imagine the nature of a back channel to a foreign country is to keep it from the official networks, no?

There is nothing at all out of the ordinary here. Now whether it should be done at all is another matter, but it is, and being outraged now about things that happen routinely just because it is Trump in the Oval Office seems a bit disingenuous.

Talk about disingenuous! How about your assertion that "there is nothing at all out of the ordinary here?"

If that's not a disingenuous statement & position, then show us where back channel communications have ever existed between U.S. and foreign officials that exclusively utilized the communications network of an adversarial foreign embassy.

It's definitely out of the ordinary.

Because it makes perfect sense that the official networks would not be used for a back channel. What exactly is strange about using the Russian Embassy????

You seem to have overlooked that Kushner wasn't a government official and had no legal right to ask the Russian embassy for a damn thing.

Yes he did - he was on the landing team for the incoming administration.

Funny I always thought the educational system in England was better than Americas but you learn something everyday. The only person that was government was Trump when he became President elect. No legal positions were given to anyone until after he was inaugurated as President because he had no right to give government jobs until then. Until that time they are just plain citizens hoping dimwit will give them a job in the government. Do you understand how it works now?

Ah, your standard line... Given your constant demonstrations that you have no idea how your own govt works, I'll leave that line of attack alone. You do plenty already to underline it.

As I stated quite clearly, Kushner was a key figure in the President's transition team. Your argument that only Trump was govt is spurious. Did you expect only Trump to be working on the transition?? Or do you think that foreign policy and communications are off limits for a transition? Only an idiot would think that leaks from the outgoing govt would not lead the incoming administration to seek ways of ensuring confidential information was kept confidential during the transitional process. Are you an idiot?

As McMaster pointed out, there is nothing unusual here - or maybe he doesn't know what he is talking about either? Maybe you should call him to pass on your intimate knowledge of how things are supposed to work so he can be set straight