Jared Kushner

[KipIngram]

I think, given the amount of smoke, there's a fire somewhere... or a few.

 

Yes, that was my point. There's certainly enough possibility of a fire or few that we should take a good hard look.

[StringJunky]

 

Yes, that was my point. There's certainly enough possibility of a fire or few that we should take a good hard look.

I hope there are mitigation plans in place by the civil service, or whatever you call your guys who directly manage the wheels of government.

[KipIngram]

Yeah, me too. I don't know exactly what swath of the government the phrase "civil service" applies to, but I take your meaning. To me that's exactly why such a communication channel does need to be known about by other parts of the government. I'm a huge fan of "checks and balances," regardless of whether the guy in the White House is "my guy" or "the other side's guy." I'm not into choosing from day to day what the limitations on the President should be depending on whether I like him or not.

 

Shortly after the election I read an editorial someone wrote imploring President Obama to "dismantle the intelligence state" before it could fall into Trump's hands. It was pretty clear that person was just fine with the government monitoring our every move while Obama was in office, but not fine with it when Trump was in office. Personally, I had never been fine with it, regardless of who was in office. But I sure do see a lot of that sort of hypocrisy.

[iNow]

This isn't a back channel in the normal sense. There, two high level representatives of each government connect informally to test the waters on a sensitive topic, generally to see if moving forward with more formal talks is appropriate. Here, there was an attempt made to circumvent US intelligence by directly using Russian intelligence techniques and facilities. Not the same thing. Not a "back channel."

 

https://www.vox.com/2017/5/26/15703668/kushner-secret-russia-communication

Kushner not only asked Kislyak to set up a line of communication with Moscow, but specifically suggested “using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring” by the American government.

 

The idea of discussions between Russia and the incoming administration seems innocent enough on its own terms, but the apparent effort to set up a line of communications that would be concealed from the American government suggests something more sinister.

(...)

after the meeting with Mr. Kislyak, Mr. Kushner had a separate meeting with Sergey Gorkov, a Russian banker with close links to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. (...) At the time, Kushner had already spent months trying to arrange fresh financing for a troubled building his family owns, 666 Fifth Avenue.

 

After one of those meetings, Kislyak arranged a meeting between Kushner and Sergey Gorkov, the powerful chief executive of a major Russian bank, Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB.

(...)

Kushner was perhaps interested in a dialogue about lifting American sanctions on Russian financial institutions and, in exchange, securing investment from those institutions in his family’s troubled real estate deals.

[StringJunky]

Shortly after the election I read an editorial someone wrote imploring President Obama to "dismantle the intelligence state" before it could fall into Trump's hands. It was pretty clear that person was just fine with the government monitoring our every move while Obama was in office, but not fine with it when Trump was in office. Personally, I had never been fine with it, regardless of who was in office. But I sure do see a lot of that sort of hypocrisy.

Yes, that's a terrible attitude. Presidents should succeed or fail with the same instruments at hand.

[Delta1212]

Yeah, me too. I don't know exactly what swath of the government the phrase "civil service" applies to, but I take your meaning. To me that's exactly why such a communication channel does need to be known about by other parts of the government. I'm a huge fan of "checks and balances," regardless of whether the guy in the White House is "my guy" or "the other side's guy." I'm not into choosing from day to day what the limitations on the President should be depending on whether I like him or not.

 

Shortly after the election I read an editorial someone wrote imploring President Obama to "dismantle the intelligence state" before it could fall into Trump's hands. It was pretty clear that person was just fine with the government monitoring our every move while Obama was in office, but not fine with it when Trump was in office. Personally, I had never been fine with it, regardless of who was in office. But I sure do see a lot of that sort of hypocrisy.

I don't think it is hypocritical to trust different people with different levels of power.

 

It does betray a certain degree of short-sightedness, though.

[KipIngram]

I don't think it is hypocritical to trust different people with different levels of power.

 

It does betray a certain degree of short-sightedness, though.

 

Well, maybe I didn't convey my thought clearly. This was more about "having a different set of rules" based on which end of the political spectrum held power. I certainly understand how that appeals to one's desire to see his/her own agenda achieved, but it's not a very good way to advocate having the government actually run.

 

I'll go with your phrasing - "short sighted" is fine. Whenever you decide what you think of a government capability, you better think about a time when that capability is in the hands of people you don't support.