- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret channel with Kremlin
Posted on 5/26/17 at 9:46 pm to Rakim
Posted on 5/26/17 at 9:46 pm to Rakim
quote:
Backchannel
Why, because Kush and Trump both knew they were being monitored by their political enemies. Also, I remember Kennedy did the same thing during Cold War of course they killed him for it.
Back channel isn't even a big deal, I remember them reporting that Blackstone was the one helping to establish the back channel between trump and kremlin. Wasn't a big deal
0
Posted on 5/26/17 at 9:49 pm to dpd901
quote:Well, if true, they'd be pretty tremendous, I think
Also top story on Foxnews.com
No sure what the legal ramifications would be even if true.
Kushner could get nailed for a felony (not disclosing his meetings on his security forms, when the pattern of his meetings makes it pretty clear that they are not things he'd easily forget)
Flynn could get nailed, but maybe he'll roll on Kushner if he was present for this alleged meeting
Trump would be in trouble because if this stuff is true, the argument that he committed obstruction of justice looks pretty strong. He'd definitely have motive if he was trying to protect his son-in-law
With that said, it will be a long time before any of this comes to pass. Even if this is true, this will be a long investigation, I think.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 9:55 pm to a want
Suppose this is true and we actually did set up a secure back channel to communicate with Russia, what is the "big picture" problem here? Wouldn't that make both sides cooperating with eachother and possibly lead to a stronger partnership between the two countries? If you can get on the good side of one of your biggest enemies, really one of the only ones that can even threaten you, is that a bad thing?
I know it's *gasp* Russia and we're supposed to just hate that they even exist on this earth, but wouldn't both sides benefit and be almost unstoppable allied up? I've just never understood hating Russia because we're supposed to, Cold War aside. We have enough on our plate dealing with N. Korea, ISIS, the ME, Syria, etc. - so much so that the Russians are waaaay down the list on active threats to the US and appear to be just fine with that themselves. Both countries have grown and advanced military tech exponentially via the healthy rivalry between the two, which doesn't have to end with a friendly relationship.
"Collusion" or not, I see this as the presidency that ends the Russia stigma in the US and leads us in to a mutual-respect-but-still-a-bit-of-a-friendly-rivalry era with them.
I know it's *gasp* Russia and we're supposed to just hate that they even exist on this earth, but wouldn't both sides benefit and be almost unstoppable allied up? I've just never understood hating Russia because we're supposed to, Cold War aside. We have enough on our plate dealing with N. Korea, ISIS, the ME, Syria, etc. - so much so that the Russians are waaaay down the list on active threats to the US and appear to be just fine with that themselves. Both countries have grown and advanced military tech exponentially via the healthy rivalry between the two, which doesn't have to end with a friendly relationship.
"Collusion" or not, I see this as the presidency that ends the Russia stigma in the US and leads us in to a mutual-respect-but-still-a-bit-of-a-friendly-rivalry era with them.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 9:55 pm to AUstar
quote:You're leaving out some possibilities.
Anyone care to explain how these leakers not only know about the meeting but know what was said at the meeting? This was a face-to-face meeting at Trump Tower. There's only 3 explanations:
1) Flynn or someone high-up in Trump's team is talking
2) The Russians are making this story up for lolz
3) The CIA had Trump Tower bugged -- not just the phone lines, but had physical microphones in Trump Tower.
From the article you're quoting:
quote:It's possible that this story was pieced together through multiple sources. First, we know that Kislyak's communications were being intercepted. If he discussed the meeting through any intercepted channel, then the intelligence community would have learned about what was said.
American intelligence agencies first learned about the discussion several months ago, according to a senior American official who had been briefed on intelligence reports. It is unclear whether they learned from intercepted Russian communications or other means.
Furthermore, since the FBI has been investigation this Russia stuff for months, who knows who they've been interviewing? They may have records from the Trump transition that show who met who and when.
All that stuff combined could give them a clear picture of what happened in that meeting.
edit: oh, and the Washington Post article says that they know the content of the meeting from Kislyak's communications they intercepted, so there's that.
This post was edited on 5/26/17 at 9:59 pm
Posted on 5/26/17 at 9:57 pm to RazorBroncs
quote:Because what they did was not normal at all. Transition teams have plenty of resources to set up secure back channel communications with foreign governments using official channels. They don't need to go to a foreign ambassador and ask to use the communications equipment they have in their embassy. That's really shady.
Suppose this is true and we actually did set up a secure back channel to communicate with Russia, what is the "big picture" problem here? Wouldn't that make both sides cooperating with eachother and possibly lead to a stronger partnership between the two countries? If you can get on the good side of one of your biggest enemies, really one of the only ones that can even threaten you, is that a bad thing?
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:03 pm to DerkaDerka
quote:
Any evidence to support that ad-hominem?
Sure. The actual news and the response of this board. What's also funny is that to many it was "fake" until Fox reported it, despite the NYT and WaPost having a far more accurate track record.
#traitors #Trumpcucks
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:06 pm to a want
Bezos Post is batting below the Mendoza line with the truth...so
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:08 pm to micromac
What I think is funny is that all these stories about Russia, that people on this board have been denying for months now, are just being confirmed again and again when each new story comes out. Eventually, they're going to have to admit to themselves that it was all true and that they were wrong the entire time.
I wonder if they'll ever stop and reflect on what it means about all the lies they're being told by right wing media.
I wonder if they'll ever stop and reflect on what it means about all the lies they're being told by right wing media.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:09 pm to a want
drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip,.......
please, never end. if laughter keeps me alive, i want the trumkin/ruskie defenders to keep pulling answers out of their asses for at least another year!
the truskies are defending espionage by trump.
the truskies are defending russian attacking the U.S.A!
and, this is MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND. a holiday to celebrate the brave u.s. soldiers who gave their lives for a free america.
fuk it, yall are all scum!
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:14 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Because what they did was not normal at all. Transition teams have plenty of resources to set up secure back channel communications with foreign governments using official channels. They don't need to go to a foreign ambassador and ask to use the communications equipment they have in their embassy. That's really shady.
Trump had been briefed by Mike Rogers at Trump Tower by this time. He also had access to daily intel briefings (as president-elect). He KNEW about this Russia stuff and how the Obama IC was spying on his campaign. Thus, doesn't it make sense that if he knew Obama was hostile to Russia (because Obama blamed them for Hillary's loss) that it might be wise to use secure communications that the IC couldn't monitor?
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:15 pm to a want
quote:
Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate —
Why is he shocked? It's Russia pulling the strings, remember?
Kush should have sent a confidant with a tape instead like Trump did. Remember that one?
Get a life, a want. fricking clown.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:19 pm to a want
The Russia aledged meddling in the election may not even matter in the end in regards to taking down this the administration. More likely obstruction of justice will be what takes Trump down.
Michael Moore's statement on 11/13/16 becomes more relevant each and every day
Michael Moore's statement on 11/13/16 becomes more relevant each and every day
quote:
“Here’s what’s going to happen, this is why we’re not going to have to suffer through four years of Donald J Trump, because he has no ideology except the ideology of Donald J Trump,” he said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Friday. “And when you have a narcissist like that, who’s so narcissistic where it’s all about him, he will, maybe unintentionally, break laws. He will break laws because he’s only thinking about what’s best for him.”
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:20 pm to micromac
quote:
Sure. The actual news and the response of this board. What's also funny is that to many it was "fake" until Fox reported it, despite the NYT and WaPost having a far more accurate track recor
So where is the evidence that the administration is full of traitors? That his followers are all uneducated?
"The actual news" doesn't have a very good track record as of late. Maybe you should wait and see how this one pans out before attacking the intelligence of people you do not know.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:34 pm to DerkaDerka
quote:
So where is the evidence that the administration is full of traitors? That his followers are all uneducated?
This all stems from the Clinton campaign's insistence that the dnc hacks were done by Russians. Wikileaks, publisher of the info, says that is not true.
Since then, the msm has published hundreds of reports of collusion with Russia. None have stuck. Some are so eye rolling that they wouldn't even make a spy novel. One of the "Russians!" biggest champions was outted as a troll this week.
Every week of Trump's presidency, butthurt progs like a want post articles about Russia being in bed with trump. Every time, it's game over. Yet here we are. Trump is traveling the world as POTUS while the left looks at child porn.
This post was edited on 5/26/17 at 10:36 pm
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:35 pm to beastieboys
Obstruction you say? Which federal obstruction code, specifically, do you think will be the one to do it? There are over 20. Which one do you think trump violated? What are its elements? Are there defenses? I assume you know the answer to all of this and wouldn't just be regurgitating talking points you have heard...right?
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:37 pm to blackjackjackson
You must have missed the part of the report that says there is zero evidence of collusion or knowledge of collusion by trump. I wonder why you and a want skip that part. Could live be disingenuous? Say it isn't so.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:42 pm to AUstar
quote:
Trump had been briefed by Mike Rogers at Trump Tower by this time. He also had access to daily intel briefings (as president-elect). He KNEW about this Russia stuff and how the Obama IC was spying on his campaign. Thus, doesn't it make sense that if he knew Obama was hostile to Russia (because Obama blamed them for Hillary's loss) that it might be wise to use secure communications that the IC couldn't monitor?
Exactly and at this point they were trying to backchannel without FP bureaucracy intervening. It was naive to say the least but understandable considering they were being spied on?
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:45 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:Man the IC really has the redass if they're leaking the fact that they could hear Kislyak phoning home (there's no way he's not doing that over an encrypted line)
Washington Post article says that they know the content of the meeting from Kislyak's communications they intercepted, so there's that.
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:45 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:same as Breitbart I assume
How many times do they need to get it wrong before we can start ignoring them?
Posted on 5/26/17 at 10:57 pm to micromac
quote:
Fox reported it, despite the NYT and WaPost having a far more accurate track record.
No offense, but if you are stuck thinking about Fox News vs the rest of msm, then it is high time to broaden your horizons. Nobody should be watching any of that drivel.
Parading NYT and WaPo makes me think you are trolling. If so, well done.
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News