Ex-CIA Director: CIA would consider Kushner actions 'espionage'

thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/335398-ex-cia-director-if-kushner-set-up-secure-line-with-russia-cia

Yep, nothing to see here...

But if Trump was some sort of Russian stooge, he would have gone to the NATO meeting, behaved like a buffoonish bully, maybe even shoving the Prime Minister of another country, scolding our allies in an infantile and dishonest manner in his most public speech, all while refusing to back Article Five. Oh, wait....

(05-27-2017 10:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 02:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Another shoe dropped off the centipede - documents indicate that Kushner (during a meeting also attended by Flynn) tried to set up a secure line to communicate with the Kremlin using secure, Russian diplomatic facilities prior to the inauguration. This was likely gleaned from the collection of intelligence from Russian officials, per the WashPo. US officials do not believe this to be fake information that the Russians sometimes try to, in essence, feed to the US.

Quote:
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 Sergey 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...
It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials. But new administrations are generally cautious in their handling of interactions with Moscow, which U.S. intelligence agencies have accused of waging an unprecedented campaign to interfere in last year’s presidential race and help elect Trump.
Obama administration officials say members of the Trump transition team never approached them about arranging a secure communications channel with their Russian contacts, possibly because of concerns about leaks.
The State Department, the White House National Security Council and U.S. intelligence agencies all have the ability to set up secure communications channels with foreign leaders, though doing so for a transition team would be unusual.

So what does this prove?

Exactly what I said it did.

Do you not find t newsworthy that an administration official tried to set up a secure line of communication, outside our own security apparatus, with a foreign entity?

(05-27-2017 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 10:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 02:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Another shoe dropped off the centipede - documents indicate that Kushner (during a meeting also attended by Flynn) tried to set up a secure line to communicate with the Kremlin using secure, Russian diplomatic facilities prior to the inauguration. This was likely gleaned from the collection of intelligence from Russian officials, per the WashPo. US officials do not believe this to be fake information that the Russians sometimes try to, in essence, feed to the US.

Quote:
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 Sergey 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...
It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials. But new administrations are generally cautious in their handling of interactions with Moscow, which U.S. intelligence agencies have accused of waging an unprecedented campaign to interfere in last year’s presidential race and help elect Trump.
Obama administration officials say members of the Trump transition team never approached them about arranging a secure communications channel with their Russian contacts, possibly because of concerns about leaks.
The State Department, the White House National Security Council and U.S. intelligence agencies all have the ability to set up secure communications channels with foreign leaders, though doing so for a transition team would be unusual.

So what does this prove?

Exactly what I said it did.
Do you not find t newsworthy that an administration official tried to set up a secure line of communication, outside our own security apparatus, with a foreign entity?

Not particularly. I would be astonished to find an incoming administration that did not. That would be newsworthy. Reagan obviously had one with Iran in 1980 regarding the release of the hostages. We don't know about others, but I'd place my bets on the side that there have been many more.

I'm pretty amazed at the left's efforts to take what are in all likelihood fairly routine events and weave them into some sort of conspiracy narrative, without any object of the conspiracy having been demonstrated. That's the big difference between this and Watergate, at least so far. Watergate started with an obvious crime--the break-in.

Here we still don't have a crime. Russia hacked the voting machines? Nope, didn't happen, according to investigators. Russia hacked Hillary's server? Probably, but no proof. Russia hacked Podesta's email? Maybe, but there are other alternative explanations that seem equally likely. Let's find a crime that actually happened first. Then let's start following the clues to see where they lead. Here we are trying to make clues out of things that may or may not be clues in order to turn those clues into some kind of crime that may or may not have happened.

I still find it quite amazing that democrats insisted forever that there was no problem with possible security breaches involving classified information on Hillary's non-secure server, but when it's Podesta's emails that's a national crisis. No surer indication of team over country that I can see.

I have this feeling that this is going to end up like Scooter Libby. There isn't going to be any crime, but somebody is going to remember incorrectly and testify that a meeting was on Tuesday instead of Wednesday, and they're going to hammer him/her for perjury.

(05-27-2017 04:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 10:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 02:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Another shoe dropped off the centipede - documents indicate that Kushner (during a meeting also attended by Flynn) tried to set up a secure line to communicate with the Kremlin using secure, Russian diplomatic facilities prior to the inauguration. This was likely gleaned from the collection of intelligence from Russian officials, per the WashPo. US officials do not believe this to be fake information that the Russians sometimes try to, in essence, feed to the US.

Quote:
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 Sergey 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...
It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials. But new administrations are generally cautious in their handling of interactions with Moscow, which U.S. intelligence agencies have accused of waging an unprecedented campaign to interfere in last year’s presidential race and help elect Trump.
Obama administration officials say members of the Trump transition team never approached them about arranging a secure communications channel with their Russian contacts, possibly because of concerns about leaks.
The State Department, the White House National Security Council and U.S. intelligence agencies all have the ability to set up secure communications channels with foreign leaders, though doing so for a transition team would be unusual.

So what does this prove?

Exactly what I said it did.
Do you not find t newsworthy that an administration official tried to set up a secure line of communication, outside our own security apparatus, with a foreign entity?

Not particularly. I would be astonished to find an incoming administration that did not. That would be newsworthy. Reagan obviously had one with Iran in 1980 regarding the release of the hostages. We don't know about others, but I'd place my bets on the side that there have been many more.

I'm pretty amazed at the left's efforts to take what are in all likelihood fairly routine events and weave them into some sort of conspiracy narrative, without any object of the conspiracy having been demonstrated. That's the big difference between this and Watergate, at least so far. Watergate started with an obvious crime--the break-in.

Here we still don't have a crime. Russia hacked the voting machines? Nope, didn't happen, according to investigators. Russia hacked Hillary's server? Probably, but no proof. Russia hacked Podesta's email? Maybe, but there are other alternative explanations that seem equally likely. Let's find a crime that actually happened first. Then let's start following the clues to see where they lead. Here we are trying to make clues out of things that may or may not be clues in order to turn those clues into some kind of crime that may or may not have happened.

I still find it quite amazing that democrats insisted forever that there was no problem with possible security breaches involving classified information on Hillary's non-secure server, but when it's Podesta's emails that's a national crisis. No surer indication of team over country that I can see.

I have this feeling that this is going to end up like Scooter Libby. There isn't going to be any crime, but somebody is going to remember incorrectly and testify that a meeting was on Tuesday instead of Wednesday, and they're going to hammer him/her for perjury.

They will get Flynn for not reporting truthfully. That is probably the list. But it is to the advantage of the DNC to keep this ginned up until after the 2018 elections, when it will fade away. Clearly it resonates with the base,

But we do have a crime - the leaking of classified information. Maybe start there. I am curious to know who this mysterious person is that knows all, tells all.

(05-27-2017 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They will get Flynn for not reporting truthfully. That is probably the list. But it is to the advantage of the DNC to keep this ginned up until after the 2018 elections, when it will fade away. Clearly it resonates with the base,
But we do have a crime - the leaking of classified information. Maybe start there. I am curious to know who this mysterious person is that knows all, tells all.

Flynn probably becomes the Scooter Libby character. I'm guessing he will try to squeal on higher-ups to cut himself some slack, but I don't know that he knows anything. I've never felt really comfortable with him, he strikes me as a bit too sleazy or smarmy. I was disappointed when Trump picked him, and was not sorry to see him go.

I think you have identified the key issue, though. How hard will they go after the leaks, which are in fact criminal? How hard will they pursue the Seth Rich angle, and if they do pursue it, how far will that lead? Based on everything I've seen, nothing has been proved, except that Flynn lied to Pence. Given the lack of evidence of anything, I'm personally inclined to see Rich as the the most likely leak. But that's a guess, and an educated one, not something for which I have proof.

"I'm pretty amazed at the left's efforts to take what are in all likelihood fairly routine events and weave them into some sort of conspiracy narrative, without any object of the conspiracy having been demonstrated"

This is what I have labeled hysteria, but a horse by any other name still smells the same.

(05-27-2017 04:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "I'm pretty amazed at the left's efforts to take what are in all likelihood fairly routine events and weave them into some sort of conspiracy narrative, without any object of the conspiracy having been demonstrated"
This is what I have labeled hysteria, but a horse by any other name still smells the same.

As does what comes out of a horse's butt.

It's more than Flynn lying to Pence. At a minimum you now have Flynn, Kushner, and Sessions lying on disclosure foreign about meetings with Russian officials. You have Sessions potentially lying under oath. You also have Kushner failing to disclose a significant amount of various assets.

And the key concern with the Kushner backchannel revrlation is that the move was done to shield conversations from our own intelligence agencies. Did Reagan use Iranian diplomatic facilities and communication lines, prior to being inaugurated?

"At a minimum you now have Flynn, Kushner, and Sessions lying on disclosure foreign about meetings with Russian officials." - RiceLad15

"Here we still don't have a crime." - Owl69+

There seems to be some cognitive dissonance about what are proven facts.

(05-27-2017 11:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "At a minimum you now have Flynn, Kushner, and Sessions lying on disclosure foreign about meetings with Russian officials." - RiceLad15

"Here we still don't have a crime." - Owl69+

There seems to be some cognitive dissonance about what are proven facts.

Quote: When Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, sought the top-secret security clearance that would give him access to some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets, he was required to disclose all encounters with foreign government officials over the last seven years.

But Mr. Kushner did not mention dozens of contacts with foreign leaders or officials in recent months. They include a December meeting with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, and one with the head of a Russian state-owned bank, Vnesheconombank, arranged at Mr. Kislyak’s behest.

https://www.google.nl/amp/s/mobile.nytim...e.amp.html

(05-27-2017 11:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "At a minimum you now have Flynn, Kushner, and Sessions lying on disclosure foreign about meetings with Russian officials." - RiceLad15
"Here we still don't have a crime." - Owl69+
There seems to be some cognitive dissonance about what are proven facts.

No cognitive dissonance on facts, just disagreement about what constitutes a crime. If there's any crime in lying on a disclosure form, it's perjury. Perjury is a hard crime to prove because it requires a strong showing of intent. Filling out a bunch of forms in a hurry is an environment where lots of innocent mistakes are made. I have seen commentary to the effect that the FBI told them that contacts made in the ordinary course of doing their jobs did not have to be disclosed. I question that. Hell, at this point I question anything that anybody says about anything. They've all lied too much. But if there exists any legitimate basis for misunderstanding over advice given by the FBI or anyone else, you're probably not going to be able to prove intent.

(05-28-2017 01:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 11:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "At a minimum you now have Flynn, Kushner, and Sessions lying on disclosure foreign about meetings with Russian officials." - RiceLad15
"Here we still don't have a crime." - Owl69+
There seems to be some cognitive dissonance about what are proven facts.

No cognitive dissonance on facts, just disagreement about what constitutes a crime. If there's any crime in lying on a disclosure form, it's perjury. Perjury is a hard crime to prove because it requires a strong showing of intent. Filling out a bunch of forms in a hurry is an environment where lots of innocent mistakes are made. I have seen commentary to the effect that the FBI told them that contacts made in the ordinary course of doing their jobs did not have to be disclosed. I question that. Hell, at this point I question anything that anybody says about anything. They've all lied too much. But if there exists any legitimate basis for misunderstanding over advice given by the FBI or anyone else, you're probably not going to be able to prove intent.

I don't think you've seen me state that a crime was committed yet.

However, I do keep pointing out events that constitute what I would call smoke and concerning actions.

Every year, most of us here sign a document under penalty of perjury. It is called the 1040. Every year, millions of us are called to task to explain why this number doesn't match or why something was not included that somebody else reported.

The point is that not being perfect does not constitute a crime, nor does it constitute an effort to cover up the great Collusion Conspiracy. I heard a commentator say that Kushner went back the next day of his own accord to amend his statement. Oh, the smoke!! Cough, cough.

If I had to fill out a form detailing the contacts I have had with Russians over the last 7 years, it would be easy. One. Or maybe two,or possibly three, who's counting? I certainly did not exchange secrets with her. But that's not the question, is it? If instead I had to list all my contacts with foreign nationals, that would be impossible. The Mexicans alone would fill a book.

Lies where one states a falsehood are easy to catch. "I did not have sex with that young woman" for example. Or taking Fluffy McWiggles, your dog, as a dependent on the aforementioned 1040. Not mentioning that you were having dinner with your secretary at her place is a tougher one to nail down.

And in any case, what fire is all this smoke alleged to prove? It still all comes down to an allegation that Trump and the Russians worked together to hurt Clinton's campaign by revealing the truth. Is that a crime? If so, every PAC on both sides in the country is guilty. It only becomes a problem if there was a quid pro quo - if Trump made a deal, say that in return for Putin revealing the truth, the US would do something for Putin. what, so far, has that been? Have sanctions been been yanked? Have we backed off from his proxy, Assad, in Syria? The Tomahawks would seem to say no. have we withdrawn from NATO? Where is the quid pro quo? Nobody has yet come up with a narrative that says all this "smoke" - smoke they are making and blowing - proves anything or what it should prove. If anybody has one, let's hear it. I cannot construct one.

Often the simplest explanation is the best. One explanation is that Putin hated Clinton and wanted to hurt her. (top achievement as SecState - personally alienating the head of a major power). Another is that he wanted to sow discord and polarize the Americans (way to cooperate, Democrats!!).

do not think I am making these arguments because I like Trump. he is not a man I would consider a role model for my grandchildren. I do not like everything he has done or is trying to do. I do like some of the things he has done or is trying to do, but not all by a long stretch. But this howling at every single thing he does or says or is thought to have thought is way over the line. It HAS progressed from shock to witch hunt. And why not? Other than witchcraft or foreign collusion, what could explain this cataclysmic upheaval in the normal order of things? How could Hillary NOT be President? it's just not natural. We have known for eight years she would be the president now, how could she not? Must be a conspiracy.

So, all y'all, stop blowing smoke and tell me the narrative of the fire that you think the smoke indicates.

(05-28-2017 08:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Every year, most of us here sign a document under penalty of perjury. It is called the 1040. Every year, millions of us are called to task to explain why this number doesn't match or why something was not included that somebody else reported.
The point is that not being perfect does not constitute a crime, nor does it constitute an effort to cover up the great Collusion Conspiracy. I heard a commentator say that Kushner went back the next day of his own accord to amend his statement. Oh, the smoke!! Cough, cough.
If I had to fill out a form detailing the contacts I have had with Russians over the last 7 years, it would be easy. One. Or maybe two,or possibly three, who's counting? I certainly did not exchange secrets with her. But that's not the question, is it? If instead I had to list all my contacts with foreign nationals, that would be impossible. The Mexicans alone would fill a book.
Lies where one states a falsehood are easy to catch. "I did not have sex with that young woman" for example. Or taking Fluffy McWiggles, your dog, as a dependent on the aforementioned 1040. Not mentioning that you were having dinner with your secretary at her place is a tougher one to nail down.
And in any case, what fire is all this smoke alleged to prove? It still all comes down to an allegation that Trump and the Russians worked together to hurt Clinton's campaign by revealing the truth. Is that a crime? If so, every PAC on both sides in the country is guilty. It only becomes a problem if there was a quid pro quo - if Trump made a deal, say that in return for Putin revealing the truth, the US would do something for Putin. what, so far, has that been? Have sanctions been been yanked? Have we backed off from his proxy, Assad, in Syria? The Tomahawks would seem to say no. have we withdrawn from NATO? Where is the quid pro quo? Nobody has yet come up with a narrative that says all this "smoke" - smoke they are making and blowing - proves anything or what it should prove. If anybody has one, let's hear it. I cannot construct one.
Often the simplest explanation is the best. One explanation is that Putin hated Clinton and wanted to hurt her. (top achievement as SecState - personally alienating the head of a major power). Another is that he wanted to sow discord and polarize the Americans (way to cooperate, Democrats!!).
do not think I am making these arguments because I like Trump. he is not a man I would consider a role model for my grandchildren. I do not like everything he has done or is trying to do. I do like some of the things he has done or is trying to do, but not all by a long stretch. But this howling at every single thing he does or says or is thought to have thought is way over the line. It HAS progressed from shock to witch hunt. And why not? Other than witchcraft or foreign collusion, what could explain this cataclysmic upheaval in the normal order of things? How could Hillary NOT be President? it's just not natural. We have known for eight years she would be the president now, how could she not? Must be a conspiracy.
So, all y'all, stop blowing smoke and tell me the narrative of the fire that you think the smoke indicates.

Exactly.

People keep trying to compare this to Watergate. But there is a huge difference. There was a crime involved in Watergate from the start--the break-in itself was a crime. All of the subsequent investigation was simply tracking down the reason why the crime occurred.

Here there is not yet a crime. People keep bringing up all these extraneous events and postulating that they could be evidence of a crime--if there was a crime for them to be evidence of. They aren't evidence of anything by themselves, and so far there's no crime for them to evidence.

Presumably, the Democrats think the incoming Administration should sit back and party until January 20, and then start from scratch, while perhaps Trump's team thought it best to hit the ground running.

(05-28-2017 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Presumably, the Democrats think the incoming Administration should sit back and party until January 20, and then start from scratch, while perhaps Trump's team thought it best to hit the ground running.

Not at all. As a lot of articles have explicitly stated, the foundational action (meeting with a ambassador, setting up back channel communications) are fairly routine. It is the circumstance (number of meetings, who was attending meetings, how the meetings were being held, how the meetings were being reported, how the back channel was trying to be set up) that are concerning and suggest that there may be more to the situation than meets the eye.

(05-29-2017 02:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Presumably, the Democrats think the incoming Administration should sit back and party until January 20, and then start from scratch, while perhaps Trump's team thought it best to hit the ground running.

Not at all. As a lot of articles have explicitly stated, the foundational action (meeting with a ambassador, setting up back channel communications) are fairly routine. It is the circumstance (number of meetings, who was attending meetings, how the meetings were being held, how the meetings were being reported, how the back channel was trying to be set up) that are concerning and suggest that there may be more to the situation than meets the eye.

And what do you think the "more" could be? What number of meetings would be appropriate, and what was the actual number? Twelve is OK, but 16 is suspicious?
Is that what you are saying? Who are the people attending meetings that you think should not have been there? Why is their attendance suspicious? What reporting would have been correct? Film at eleven? Sounds like we are just grasping at straws here.

As for the secret back channel, maybe they just felt somebody, not the russians, were listening in to things at their campaign center.

basically, we have an incoming Administration that wanted to change the dynamic in Syria without the interference and leaks that were coming from the current one.


Still waiting on your (or anybody's) narrative of what all the smoke indicates. A narrative starts with something like "Trump met with Putin and they agreed that Putin would damage Hillary's campaign by stealing and publishing nothing but the truth, and in return, Trump promised Putin _________. Putin was glad to take the deal because it was clear that publishing Hillary's emails would boost the slight underdog Trump over the top, and then when Trump was president he would get ______________. Then...."

(05-29-2017 02:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Presumably, the Democrats think the incoming Administration should sit back and party until January 20, and then start from scratch, while perhaps Trump's team thought it best to hit the ground running.

Not at all. As a lot of articles have explicitly stated, the foundational action (meeting with a ambassador, setting up back channel communications) are fairly routine. It is the circumstance (number of meetings, who was attending meetings, how the meetings were being held, how the meetings were being reported, how the back channel was trying to be set up) that are concerning and suggest that there may be more to the situation than meets the eye.

Actually, no, they aren't, and that's exactly the point. Take Jeff Sessions, for example. He had two "meetings" with "Russians" over a six month time frame, one in his office and one a chance encounter at an event, both openly known. That's not how you engage in nefarious activities.

If no other good comes of it, it is refreshing to see leftists act as though the Russians are bad guys. For most of the 20th century, leftists made a great show of insisting that Russians were good guys, and that those who did not have warm fuzzy feelings for the Russian regime were simpletons.

(05-29-2017 08:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 02:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Presumably, the Democrats think the incoming Administration should sit back and party until January 20, and then start from scratch, while perhaps Trump's team thought it best to hit the ground running.

Not at all. As a lot of articles have explicitly stated, the foundational action (meeting with a ambassador, setting up back channel communications) are fairly routine. It is the circumstance (number of meetings, who was attending meetings, how the meetings were being held, how the meetings were being reported, how the back channel was trying to be set up) that are concerning and suggest that there may be more to the situation than meets the eye.

Actually, no, they aren't, and that's exactly the point. Take Jeff Sessions, for example. He had two "meetings" with "Russians" over a six month time frame, one in his office and one a chance encounter at an event, both openly known. That's not how you engage in nefarious activities.

Just because one is incompetent at performing nefarious deeds doesn't make the deeds less nefarious. Just nefarious and stupid.