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

Talk about selective outrage by members on here. Obama wan'st president yet either when he was back channeling. The Trump hatred is rampant here.

OBAMA’S SECRET COMMUNICATIONS WITH MULLAHS UNDERMINED AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

The Democrats are trying to make a scandal out of the fact that one or more people associated with the Trump presidential campaign had telephone conversations with one or more representatives of the Russian government prior to Trump’s inauguration. Is there anything wrong with that? Not as far as we know. The CIA/NSA leakers have declined to say anything about the content of the conversations, so they must have been benign. Let’s release the tapes and eliminate all doubt, and then let’s fire the leakers and, if appropriate, send them to prison. But in the meantime, let’s not forget an infinitely bigger scandal: in 2008, while he was running for the presidency, Barack Obama deliberately undermined American foreign policy by secretly encouraging Iran’s mullahs to hold out until he became president, because he would be easier to deal with than President George Bush. I wrote about the Obama scandal here:“HOW BARACK OBAMA UNDERCUT BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN.” Check out the original post for links. Here it is: In 2008, the Bush administration, along with the “six powers,” was negotiating with Iran concerning that country’s nuclear arms program. The Bush administration’s objective was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. On July 20, 2008, the New York Times headlined: “Nuclear Talks With Iran End in a Deadlock.” What caused the talks to founder? The Times explained:

www.powerlineblog.com...

originally posted by: UnBreakable
Talk about selective outrage by members on here. Obama wan'st president yet either when he was back channeling. The Trump hatred is rampant here.

OBAMA’S SECRET COMMUNICATIONS WITH MULLAHS UNDERMINED AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

The Democrats are trying to make a scandal out of the fact that one or more people associated with the Trump presidential campaign had telephone conversations with one or more representatives of the Russian government prior to Trump’s inauguration. Is there anything wrong with that? Not as far as we know. The CIA/NSA leakers have declined to say anything about the content of the conversations, so they must have been benign. Let’s release the tapes and eliminate all doubt, and then let’s fire the leakers and, if appropriate, send them to prison. But in the meantime, let’s not forget an infinitely bigger scandal: in 2008, while he was running for the presidency, Barack Obama deliberately undermined American foreign policy by secretly encouraging Iran’s mullahs to hold out until he became president, because he would be easier to deal with than President George Bush. I wrote about the Obama scandal here:“HOW BARACK OBAMA UNDERCUT BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN.” Check out the original post for links. Here it is: In 2008, the Bush administration, along with the “six powers,” was negotiating with Iran concerning that country’s nuclear arms program. The Bush administration’s objective was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. On July 20, 2008, the New York Times headlined: “Nuclear Talks With Iran End in a Deadlock.” What caused the talks to founder? The Times explained:

www.powerlineblog.com...

Yep - as Mcmaster said - nothing unusual.
It is very telling that all these leaks are benign and have to be dressed up as something terrible. There must be nothing incriminating to leak at all.

a reply to: spiritualzombiemore click bait. we already have a direct line to the kremlin only sitting leaders have access to it

a reply to: spiritualzombie
oh yeah about that obama started this crap because his b got creamed in the election trust me if there was any truth to these alegations it would have been blasted to the rafters before trump took office. once he in office any crime he did before taking his oath he is immune from till he leaves office that is something the media doesn't want you to know. but there was no crime committed else they would have nabbed him before he took power.

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????

It's strange that you can't provide a single example of it ever happening that way before, yet you somehow think it's perfectly normal.

You repeating that it's normal ain't gonna cut it. I'm still waiting for an example of it ever being done that way before. Just one......ever....

a reply to: UKTruth

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.

Prove me wrong.

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.

These people have to vetted before getting their jobs or didn't you know that either. Guess when the vetting happens? Sure isn't before Trump became President.

Are you an idiot?

No but you sure fit the description. Admit it you're really not from the UK you're just another knuckledragging southerner giving your support to your failed orange messiah.

originally posted by: Flatfish

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????

It's strange that you can't provide a single example of it ever happening that way before, yet you somehow think it's perfectly normal.

You repeating that it's normal ain't gonna cut it. I'm still waiting for an example of it ever being done that way before. Just one......ever....

How did Reagan make the deal for the hostages before the election?

NY Times?

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: UKTruth

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.

Prove me wrong.

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.

These people have to vetted before getting their jobs or didn't you know that either. Guess when the vetting happens? Sure isn't before Trump became President.

Are you an idiot?

No but you sure fit the description. Admit it you're really not from the UK you're just another knuckledragging southerner giving your support to your failed orange messiah.

The transition team members have been well documented. The fact remains they were doing the job they were supposed to do. I can see your argument has broken down into 'orange messiah' references. Good. Underlines again that you don't know what you are talking about.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Flatfish

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????

It's strange that you can't provide a single example of it ever happening that way before, yet you somehow think it's perfectly normal.

You repeating that it's normal ain't gonna cut it. I'm still waiting for an example of it ever being done that way before. Just one......ever....

How did Reagan make the deal for the hostages before the election?

NY Times?

I don't know exactly how Reagan did that, do you?

What do you want to bet he didn't do it by communicating with Iranian leadership through discrete back channel communications networks inside the Iranian Embassy?

Especially seeing how the Iranian embassy in the U.S. was vacant at the time.

If he did it anything like the way he orchestrated the Iran/Contra fiasco, I wouldn't want any part of it.

Reagan & Ollie North are lucky they didn't end up being cell mates after pulling off that gig.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Flatfish

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????

It's strange that you can't provide a single example of it ever happening that way before, yet you somehow think it's perfectly normal.

You repeating that it's normal ain't gonna cut it. I'm still waiting for an example of it ever being done that way before. Just one......ever....

How did Reagan make the deal for the hostages before the election?

NY Times?

Through the same nation that shipped the missiles for him Israel.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: UKTruth

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.

Prove me wrong.

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.

These people have to vetted before getting their jobs or didn't you know that either. Guess when the vetting happens? Sure isn't before Trump became President.

Are you an idiot?

No but you sure fit the description. Admit it you're really not from the UK you're just another knuckledragging southerner giving your support to your failed orange messiah.

The transition team members have been well documented. The fact remains they were doing the job they were supposed to do. I can see your argument has broken down into 'orange messiah' references. Good. Underlines again that you don't know what you are talking about.

If the transition team were so well documented as you put it, how the hell did Michael Flynn get to be national security adviser?

The man is an undeclared agent of a foreign government who lied to the FBI when questioned about his conversations with Sergei Kislyak regarding sanctions and who is currently pleading the 5th and begging for immunity. (and probably singing like a canary to the FBI as we speak.)

Sounds like they vetted the s#*t out him alright.

a reply to: UKTruth
Again your limited intellect cannot tell the difference of when I am talking about Donnie and when I'm talking about you. They are not vetted so they no place speaking for the government no matter how well they are documented when they are working on the election. The knucledragging comment to you was actually a compliment simply because most of the Trump supporters haven't reached the knucledragging stage yet. So guess what? You're gifted when compared to the rest congratulations!

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: UKTruth
Again your limited intellect cannot tell the difference of when I am talking about Donnie and when I'm talking about you. They are not vetted so they no place speaking for the government no matter how well they are documented when they are working on the election. The knucledragging comment to you was actually a compliment simply because most of the Trump supporters haven't reached the knucledragging stage yet. So guess what? You're gifted when compared to the rest congratulations!

I see, so in your 'informed' world the transition team are just dragged in off the street and get access to govt depts. for the transition, with no vetting and no authorisations... how very enlightening. You really must pass on your sources of knowledge so we can all learn

The Cuban Missile Crisis would have ended very differently if Kennedy didn't have a Back Chanel for communications with the Russians in 1962. Some things aren't for publication.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: UKTruth

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.

Prove me wrong.

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.

These people have to vetted before getting their jobs or didn't you know that either. Guess when the vetting happens? Sure isn't before Trump became President.

Are you an idiot?

No but you sure fit the description. Admit it you're really not from the UK you're just another knuckledragging southerner giving your support to your failed orange messiah.

The transition team members have been well documented. The fact remains they were doing the job they were supposed to do. I can see your argument has broken down into 'orange messiah' references. Good. Underlines again that you don't know what you are talking about.

If the transition team were so well documented as you put it, how the hell did Michael Flynn get to be national security adviser?

The man is an undeclared agent of a foreign government who lied to the FBI when questioned about his conversations with Sergei Kislyak regarding sanctions and who is currently pleading the 5th and begging for immunity. (and probably singing like a canary to the FBI as we speak.)

Sounds like they vetted the s#*t out him alright.

Both Flynn and Kushner had security clearances by the first week of December.
You may remember the liberal crying about nepotism in mid November when it was first reported the WH were seeking clearance to allow Kushner to get involved. At the time Flynn already had clearance (in fact Flynn was in intelligence briefings with Trump)

So, nothing unusual at all about what they were doing. General Kelly has also come forward now to join McMaster in saying there is nothing unusual.

Whether the vetting process for that clearance was thorough enough is irrelevant - they were cleared.

originally posted by: DJW001
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.

This is a good example why, even though I can't stand Trump, his hard core cult following is often worse. The enablers. His energy source. Trump is like a fat, screaming, loud, spoiled, obnoxious 4 year old in a restaurant running around screaming, throwing food, plates, harassing other patrons, tripping waiting staff, while his stupid doting family sits and watches him, encouraging him and praising him and telling him what a good boy he is and rewarding him with cookies and sodas for every destructive tantrum. And then when one of the other patrons or employees of the restaurant demand the unruly brat be brought under control or removed from the restaurant, they start screaming and insulting and berating the customers and staff and threatening lawsuits and physical violence if they dare scold their little unruly angel.

In this scenario, I must ask a few questions:

1.Who and where is the restaurant manager and owner?
2. Why haven't these people been ordered to leave and banned from ever returning?
3. Has anyone called the cops to get over here and possibly de-escalate the situation?
4. If the cops have been called, what the hell is taking so damn long, because at this rate, the whole damned restaurant is going to go up in flames.

"Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin". Yup...a completely legal and intelligent decision that empowers the USA and our ability to deal with international problems.

So...what the hell is the problem?

*sigh*

I'm normally a democrat, but trump is not being treated fairly. He's learning on the job, which is something you don't want in a president.
Him and his teams' communications with Russian diplomats is nothing out of the ordinary.

If you listen to the liberal media, you'd think the sky is falling like it's the end of the world.

And now the crooked intelligence and Jewish billionaires are going after fox news in a big way. They are the last source of conservative media on cable television.

I would choose nepotism over the liberal cabal.
I thought trump was going to shake up washington. The only thing I fault him for is the proposed tax plan, but that came from republican congressmen.

originally posted by: Mousygretchen
And now the crooked intelligence and Jewish billionaires are going after fox news in a big way. They are the last source of conservative media on cable television.

Yuppers...trust them Jewish billionaires, eh?