Jared Kushner now a focus in Russia investigation

[Jacque67 7,328]

19 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Classic defense attorney move. My rebuttal to the defense attorney is "who is hauling"? There are just unanswered questions and Jareds attorney has confirmed  that he agreed to cooperate. The question is what is this secure back channel communication about? There could be a perfectly good explanation on how it was in the interest of the US.

Ha ha old Dershowitz has an affinity with criminals.

Kushner lied twice on his FSB 86...pushed by Donny?

wanted covert channel with an adversary using their facilities and equipment.. But no big deal according to kelly...

burning down the house

[yuna628 9,646]

46 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

Ha ha old Dershowitz has an affinity with criminals.

Kushner lied twice on his FSB 86...pushed by Donny?

wanted covert channel with an adversary using their facilities and equipment.. But no big deal according to kelly...

burning down the house

Dershowitz does indeed. While he's a smart guy, he's also misunderstood and used as a pundit to push agendas he may or may not agree with. At the same time, one can't overlook his ability to shill for the right price and connections.

[Dashinka 24,109]

2 hours ago, ccneat said:

Classic defense attorney move. My rebuttal to the defense attorney is "who is hauling"? There are just unanswered questions and Jareds attorney has confirmed  that he agreed to cooperate. The question is what is this secure back channel communication about? There could be a perfectly good explanation on how it was in the interest of the US.

If this back channel was actually created would any explanation suffice for the MDL?  

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

58 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

If this back channel was actually created would any explanation suffice for the MDL?  

What? If there was a back channel created and  there is not a good reason given for circumventing the security , military and intelligence aparatus of our government,  that would be treason. Don't you agree?

Edited May 28, 2017 by ccneat

[IAMX 3,055]

3 minutes ago, ccneat said:

What? If there was a back channel created and  there is not a good reason given for circumventing the security , military and intelligence aparatus of our government,  that would be treason. Don't you agree?

If it was treason why was the left utterly silent about Obama's back channels with Iran? Why was this not news at that? Where was the MSM? Nowhere.

 

Just the media diverting people's attention from real issues and the left gladly taking the bait because it appeals to their irrational Trump hatred.

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 minutes ago, IAMX said:

If it was treason why was the left utterly silent about Obama's back channels with Iran? Why was this not news at that? Where was the MSM? Nowhere.

 

Just the media diverting people's attention from real issues and the left gladly taking the bait because it appeals to their irrational Trump hatred.

 

 

I that a yes or no to the question?

 

 

If there was a back channel created and  there is not a good reason given for circumventing the security , military and intelligence aparatus of our government,  that would be treason. Don't you agree?

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, ccneat said:

I that a yes or no to the question?

 

 

If there was a back channel created and  there is not a good reason given for circumventing the security , military and intelligence aparatus of our government,  that would be treason. Don't you agree?

Nah. Wasn't treason when Obama did it, isn't treason here either. You're making a big deal out of normal things. 

 

The thought that any American is bound to some ambiguous apparatus of whatever some branch of federal government wants is simply a joke. If there's conspiracy to commit a crime, that's another story, but merely talking to people? lol.

 

It's really funny how things that are no big deal to the left when they occur under a Democratic President suddenly turn into treason when it's a Republican. Take a chill pill. Everything will be okay.

Edited May 28, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Nah. Wasn't treason when Obama did it, isn't treason here either. You're making a big deal out of normal things. 

 

The thought that any American is bound to some ambiguous apparatus of whatever some branch of federal government wants is simply a joke. If there's conspiracy to commit a crime, that's another story, but merely talking to people? lol.

 

It's really funny how things that are no big deal to the left when they occur under a Democratic President suddenly turn into treason when it's a Republican. Take a chill pill. Everything will be okay.

Not sure what your evidence is of a back channel with Obama, what form it took or how this was hidden from intelligence  but

If Obama used Iranian secure equipment to avoid scrutiny of us intelligence then he would need to answer for it.  But hey, lets hear what the young man has to say for himself. We are all ears.

 

And the answer to the question would be yes, it is treason.  But I am not really sure where your loyalties lie, your posts seem to say outside of america.

 

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

37 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Not sure what your evidence is of a back channel with Obama, what form it took or how this was hidden from intelligence  but

If Obama used Iranian secure equipment to avoid scrutiny of us intelligence then he would need to answer for it.  But hey, lets hear what the young man has to say for himself. We are all ears.

 

And the answer to the question would be yes, it is treason.  But I am not really sure where your loyalties lie, your posts seem to say outside of america.

 

 

 

McCarthyist tactics,  how cute. 

[Tahoma 2,291]

Kushner: "Please don't pull my security clearance!  When I was filling out those pesky security-clearance forms, I completely forgot about that time I asked the Russian Ambassador if I could set up a cloak and dagger operation through their consulate."

[Dashinka 24,109]

2 hours ago, ccneat said:

Not sure what your evidence is of a back channel with Obama, what form it took or how this was hidden from intelligence  but

If Obama used Iranian secure equipment to avoid scrutiny of us intelligence then he would need to answer for it.  But hey, lets hear what the young man has to say for himself. We are all ears.

 

And the answer to the question would be yes, it is treason.  But I am not really sure where your loyalties lie, your posts seem to say outside of america.

 

 

 

I posted it on the last page.  I realize it is based on actual confirmation by a known person instead of anonymous sources which is hard to fathom for the MDL.  Here it is again.  As the story opines, they did not think it was a crime or treason, or whatever when Obama did it, and it isn't one now if it is ever confirmed unlike the Obama back channel.

 

http://libertyunyielding.com/2017/05/27/obama-submarined-bush-back-channel-iran-new-kushner-theme-isnt-even/

 

The only real purpose of recalling this Obama gambit from 2008 is to highlight the hypocrisy of Democrats in 2017, bewailing the suggestion that Jared Kushner, a member of Trump’s transition team, wanted to open a back channel to Russian contacts in December 2016.

 

Why is that the only real purpose?  Largely because the two cases are different in important ways.  Partly because in neither case is there evidence of a prosecutable offense.  But if you want to argue for these back-channel-opening capers as prosecutable offenses, Obama’s was worse.  And that’s partly because there is credible evidence that it actually happened.

In mid-2008, the George W. Bush administration surprised “hawkish” critics by conducting talks with representatives of the Iranian regime, the first time such contacts had been made at a senior level.  The vehicle for this move was the on-again, off-again forum of “six-party (P5+1) talks” with Iran, anchored by the EU-3 and focused on deterrence of Iran’s nuclearization program.

The talks were in “on-again” mode at the time, with a serious expectation of substantive engagement with the Iranian regime.  It was for this reason, against the urging of Bush’s critics on the right, that U.S. Ambassador William J. Burns, deputy secretary of state and coming off a tour as the ambassador to Russia, was sent as the U.S. representative to the talks.  At that point, Burns was the highest-ranking U.S. official ever to attend such a negotiation.

After the watershed meeting in Switzerland in July 2008, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the media with some disgust that Iran wasn’t serious about negotiating.  The Iranian posture wasn’t just a lack of seriousness.  It was described at the time as an apparent change of heart.

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, Tahoma said:

Kushner: "Please don't pull my security clearance!  When I was filling out those pesky security-clearance forms, I completely forgot about that time I asked the Russian Ambassador if I could set up a cloak and dagger operation through their consulate."

With his myriad of phone conversations, asking Kysliak to set up a secure electronic channel on the Russian premise

[Tahoma 2,291]

59 minutes ago, ccneat said:

With his myriad of phone conversations, asking Kysliak to set up a secure electronic channel on the Russian premise

Kushner: "Stuff like that happens every day.  Anyone can see why I forgot to mention that minor detail."

[Tahoma 2,291]

Obama: "I don't know why Kushner needed to talk to Putin instead of the Ambassador Kysliak.  It must have been pretty important.  It would have been much easier for me in 2008 if there had been an Iranian Ambassador to the United States when I wanted to talk to the Iranians.  But hey, at least I disclosed my contacts on my security-clearance form!"

[Tahoma 2,291]

1 minute ago, Tahoma said:

Obama: "I don't know why Kushner needed to talk to Putin instead of the Ambassador Kysliak.  It must have been pretty important.  It would have been much easier for me in 2008 if there had been an Iranian Ambassador to the United States when I wanted to talk to the Iranians.  But hey, at least I disclosed my contacts on my security-clearance form!"

Kushner: "Do you think Kysliak talks to Putin?  Maybe I should have just talked to Kysliak.  By the way, it's amazing that you remembered to add those little details about the Iranians on your security-clearance form."