The Washington Post has published a blockbuster story just now:
Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.
Ambassador Sergei Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, son-in-law and confidant to then-President-elect Trump, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.
The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser.
Wow. That pretty much nails it, I think. This is treason, pure and simple.
The only reason to have a backdoor channel to prevent U.S. surveillance for the reason of committing crimes. Reuters is reporting that
Theory: they were working hard on lifting sanctions for some sort of deal. Kushner was secretly meeting with Sislyak BEFORE the election.
Seth Abramson, who has become my go-to guy on Russia stuff, says Trump was in on the “secret” meeting in Trump tower where they entered in the backdoor.
He also remarked that things are moving so fast we’re getting breaking news during breaking new.
The noose is tightening and it’s around the neck of Kushner and Trump.
Impeach the traitor !
Speak truth to power.
” When those in power invent their own facts it can mark the beginning of the end of civilization.” Hillary Clinton at Wellesley College on 5/26/17
Here’s how the NYT reported the story today:
“: Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, spoke in December with Russia’s ambassador to the United States about establishing a secret communications channel between the Trump transition team and Moscow to discuss strategy in Syria and other policy issues, according to three people with knowledge of the discussion.”
Syria, my ass. The traitors met with the Russians to sell out their country !
I don’t necessarily believe the New York Times and its sources more than I believe you and Mark Bail. But I don’t necessarily believe you and Mark more than the New York Times. But either you or the Times is wrong.
It’s time to wake up and get real, people.
” He is a man free of morals. As has been demonstrated hundreds of times he is a liar, a racist and a cheat. I feel ashamed to use these words, as sharp and loud as they are. But if they apply to anyone, they apply to Trump. And one of the media’s tasks is to continue telling things as they are. Trump has to be removed from the White House. Quickly. He is a danger to the world. ”
Der Spiegel op-ed
Anti-Anti-Russia on the left is the same as anti-anti-Trump on the right. It ends up enabling Russia and Trump. This is the biggest threat to our country and has been for quite sometime. You don’t need to topple towers to topple a government with cyber warfare. And the clearly succeeded beyond their wildest expectations in disrupting our process. An independent investigation will get to the bottom of this, and so far it seems to be targeting Kushner as a person of interest and a middle man between the Kremlin and the White House.
@bob-gardner: The Washington Post broke the story, not the Times. The point of the story is that they wanted to avoid monitoring from our own government. The subject of their conversations is, in my view, immaterial.
Why are you directing this at me? Fred and Mark are the ones making claims about why Kushner wanted a back channel.
The reason for the back channel is not immaterial–it’s crucial. That is, unless you think all the previous back channels set up in other administrations were treasonous, too.
Let’s follow the evidence–“ruat caelum”.
That’s exactly my point. There is a range of possibilities. It’s crucial, not immaterial as Tom suggests, to find out more about this back channel.
The meeting in question in early December of 2016, after Mr. Trump was elected and WELL before anyone in that meeting was anything except a citizen.
The WAPO story made it clear that Mr. Kushner and Mr. Flynn wanted a way for the transition team to have a secure and unmonitored channel with the Kremlin — the transition team wanted to avoid surveillance by the NSA and CIA.
I’m sorry, but there IS NO possible justification for this. They were private citizens, not public officials.
This was treason.
@ Bob Gardner: “Why are you directing this at me?” Because you are the one attempting to create a false dichotomy (“But either you or the Times is wrong.”).
Lots of people seem to assume that the old rules apply. Aha! Smoking Gun! Closing noose!
I’m not saying that they don’t and of course they ought to. But what we are seeing is the struggle to see whether or not they do, and the outcome is not a foregone conclusion.
This is the part that terrifies me. Until enough of Trumps own supporters in Congress and the country at large turn on him-nothing will change. The Montana election results and special prosecutor appointment take a ton of pressure off the Republican caucus.
If the old rules applied, there were several moments at which the Trump campaign would have crashed and burned.
Bob’s been as good as Fox News on this topic. I don’t know if he’s personally got a problem with me, or he’s just another idiot lefty finding common cause with the Right and Mother Russia, or the same kind of idiot lefty who can’t stomach the intelligence community or law enforcement.
The utter stupidity of his comment is in citing a quote from the New York Times He’s making an ad hominem criticism of me and the topic saying that he trusts the New York Times before me. (Not that the NYT is always right).
The only necessary line in his quote is the phrase: “according to three people with knowledge of the discussion.” And who would those people be? Not law enforcement. Not security officials. Not people familiar with the investigation.
Those people were quoted in Politico:
And, of course, Dick Durbin should be dismissed as a partisan hack:
https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin/status/868275313561620480
Maybe you could rewrite that second paragraph so I know what I am being accused of. Try breathing into a paper bag first.
Maybe you could try not being a D-bag, but I guess it’s too late.
It’s not either I’m right, or the NYT is right. The NYT can’t be right or wrong because they are merely reporting what three unnamed sources said. Those three unnamed sources could be right, and I could be wrong. But not the New York Times which offers no opinion of events.
The NYT’s attribution is interesting: “according to three people with knowledge of the discussion.” Ethical attribution of anonymous sources requires that the reporter be as specific as possible about their source. That’s why we often read, “people familiar with the investigation” or “current or former national security officials.” The NYT couldn’t get that specific, but they checked with three sources.
So who would be familiar with Kushner’s conversation? Kushner partisans. Are they definitely the source? No. But I think that’s the case because
1) there is no legitimate reason to set up communication unmonitored by the United States, absolutely none
2) there is no reason for Trump to being conducting foreign policy prior to taking office; in fact, it’s somewhat illegal
3) Trump has no Syrian policy; Kushner has no national security policy experience; there’s nothing of substance they could discuss
4) secure channels already exist between the White House and the Kremlin
5) Kushner met with Sislyak who is widely regarded as a spymaster
6) Nine days before the inauguration, Erick Prince met with Russian contacts in the Seychelles looking to set up a backchannel for Trump. What was the rush?
Why would the NYT cite Kushner supporters or people in the Trump Administration? Balance.
Backchannels are a two-way street, but both sides don’t have to be unmonitored. We might want a contact with, say, Vladimir Putin, without GRU or FSB listening in, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want our IC listening in.
This post by electoral-vote.com bears reading in full:
Private citizens (which is what Mr. Kushner and Mr. Flynn were when this discussion took place) do not seek private channels with the Kremlin.
No matter how many turns the spinning Trump administrations turn, there is no way to make this anything but treason.