Exclusive: Trump son-in-law had undisclosed contacts with Russian envoy - sources

[heybruce]

On the subject of back channels and Trump being obviously unqualified to be President:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-world-leaders-call-maybe-cellphone-010108194.html

 

Talking with world leaders on an unsecured mobile phone using a number that has been shared with other world leaders (and their security services) is wrong in far too many ways to describe here.

[selftaopath]

4 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

I think it is highly commendable that someone has the integrity to stand up patriotically for their country whilst so many around them seem to want to give the USA and her allies on a plate to Vladimir Putin.

 

I remember before going out on a particular mission in the Gulf War, we were in a big pre mission briefing and working with the US Marine air assets and before we left the meeting to commence the mission everyone was feeling gung ho and psyched up and amongst a few 'war cries' the Marines gave someone shouted  " For God, Country and Corps". We were told we may take heavy casualties and those guys were happy, knowing they may not come back to die for God, COUNTRY and Corps, in that order.  What have we now come to when people will so easily squander the core values of men who are willing to die for their country for political and personal gain, and in the case of Trump administration followers - for nothing, no gain whatsoever and no reason. What Trump and the Republicans have become will be like a bloodstain on the constitution and the US flag for decades and when the deeds of Trump and his close circle are finally and truthfully unveiled, Trump followers will feel sick and embarrassed that they threw their patriotism in the sewer.

Thank you. I wonder how many of the current POTUS (can't stand typing his name) defenders would admit putting party above country? Anyone? My bet..... more pick party.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, selftaopath said:

Thank you. I wonder how many of the current POTUS (can't stand typing his name) defenders would admit putting party above country? Anyone? My bet..... more pick party.

Yes, it is hard to stomach using his name. Another acceptable alternative that many are using is to just refer to 45. This is commonly done in the U.S. to refer to specific presidents. He's the 45th POTUS. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

 

 

But since you bring up the subject of qualifications, what makes Trump qualified to be President, other than the electoral college victory?  He has spent decades marketing the name Trump, and he has marketed his way into the White House.  However before and since becoming President he has done nothing to demonstrate he is qualified for the job.

 

 

 

No qualifications are required to be president, which is a good thing in a democracy, isn't it? Don't want the autocrats or the royalists or the technocrats running the place.

If there were any qualifications required, just what would they be, and who should say what they are?

 

[iReason]

 

[heybruce]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No qualifications are required to be president, which is a good thing in a democracy, isn't it? Don't want the autocrats or the royalists or the technocrats running the place.

If there were any qualifications required, just what would they be, and who should say what they are?

 

There are constitutional qualifications, such as being a natural born US citizen and 35 or older, but as Trump demonstrates, these qualifications are minimal.

 

This is obviously not sufficient, as the autocrat-wannabe currently in office demonstrates.  I'm not sure why you are opposed to a technocrat, a person knowledgeable about government, in the office.  The ideal solution is for voters to be aware that the job is one of immense power, complexity and consequences, and requires someone who knows how government and the modern world works.  However many voters seem to treat the Presidential election as a reality show just for entertainment, and others are simply gullible fools who fall for feel-good slogans ("Make America Great Again!", what does that mean?  When did it stop being great?  How will Trump make it great?   All obvious questions that go unanswered).

 

I would like, at a minimum, for what were once traditional standards of ethics and transparency to become legally mandated requirements for office.  Presidents should make tax returns and other financial details publicly available and should put their holdings in blind trusts.  That alone would keep out people like Trump.

[mtls2005]

US politics have now deteriorated to the extent that a federal judge blocked Trump's latest immigration halt, not on the content or intent of the ACTUAL edict, but because the judge didn't like what Trump had been saying in the election campaign.

 

 

Wow. The complete lack of understanding of the branches of our government, checks and balances, and the Constitution is staggering.

 

The Muslim Ban Executive Order is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional, and frankly, un-American.

 

Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

 

Wherever you are sourcing your "news" I'd suggest some alternatives.

[FritsSikkink]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

This morning I had the unfortunate experience of watching some so called expert pontificate on BBC as to why Trump was so bad. It was so ludicrous and obvious that the BBC are just as much in the "hate Trump" camp as MSNBC and all the other biased media.

By their partisan attacks on Trump, even the BBC have surrendered any pretense that they are a responsible news organisation, without any attempt to provide truthful and unbiased reporting.

The sad thing is that most of the people watching the BBC probably believe it.

Sad to see that even the once mighty BBC reduced to the status of a red top scandal rag.

If there is unbiased reporting the Trump supporters shout "fake news" again as they refuse to accept the facts. 

[FritsSikkink]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No qualifications are required to be president, which is a good thing in a democracy, isn't it? Don't want the autocrats or the royalists or the technocrats running the place.

If there were any qualifications required, just what would they be, and who should say what they are?

 

[Si Thea01]

39 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

If there is unbiased reporting the Trump supporters shout "fake news" again as they refuse to accept the facts. 

Is that right.  Try watching CNN, Trumps private lawyer is being quoted by them as refusing to front up to the senate and are placing a strong emphasis on this yet he has agreed to front should he be subpoenaed.  So is that factual or is it false and misleading reporting by a totally biased media outlet.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Si Thea01

[iReason]

18 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Try watching CNN, Trumps private lawyer is being quoted by them as refusing to front up to the senate and are placing a strong emphasis on this yet he has agreed to front should he be subpoenaed.

" should he be subpoenaed"

 

Apparently, this is what they will have to do.

What's to hide?

 

Trump personal attorney declines congressional Russia probe request

 

"President Donald Trump’s longtime personal attorney has turned down a request to be interviewed and provide documents in the congressional probe into Russian interference into the 2016 election."

 

"Michael Cohen, who worked at the Trump Organization until January and remains the president’s private counsel, confirmed Tuesday he would not cooperate with congressional inquiries as they examine contacts between Trump’s circle of aides and Russian officials."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/30/michael-cohen-decline-congressional-russia-investigation-238945

[boomerangutang]

Cohen and Trump's other lawyers are going to try every trick in the book, and then some. 

 

                                If they were a soccer team, they would put 13 men on the pitch, they would wear uniforms the same color as the opposing team, they would have someone throw a firecracker on one end of the field as a diversion, they would spray mace in the opposing goalie's face, they would bribe the ref, ......anything and everything to win/objuscate, no matter how foul.

[FritsSikkink]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

Is that right.  Try watching CNN, Trumps private lawyer is being quoted by them as refusing to front up to the senate and are placing a strong emphasis on this yet he has agreed to front should he be subpoenaed.  So is that factual or is it false and misleading reporting by a totally biased media outlet.

No it is you not understanding what has been said.

[jcsmith]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

US politics have now deteriorated to the extent that a federal judge blocked Trump's latest immigration halt, not on the content or intent of the ACTUAL edict, but because the judge didn't like what Trump had been saying in the election campaign.

This is a misrepresentation of that decision. Trump is now trying to say that this isn't a muslim ban when during the election, after the election, and when he first rolled it out he and his staff referred to it as such. Changing some wording and trying to say that it isn't a muslim ban simply doesn't fly when he and his staff said the opposite so many times before it was overturned.

[boomerangutang]

We've been told for months, that Kushner would appear to testify before the House Intel Committee.  It's annoying how slow investigations go in D.C.   I realize it's Republican politicians, including Trump and his minions who are intentionally slowing things, but come on - Democrats need to shift into a higher gear and get things moving.  Now we're hearing again that Kushner will testify.  It's like hearing from the self-appointed Thai junta that they will allow elections.   Yea, maybe sometime in the future, but that could be when your baby daughter is a grandmother.

[iReason]

The crumbling of the House of Cards explained:

 

 

[Si Thea01]

8 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

No it is you not understanding what has been said.

And what is it that I just don't understand, "O Wise One?"  Don't sell yourself short by not explaining yourself but then maybe you are unable to.

[selftaopath]

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

On the subject of back channels and Trump being obviously unqualified to be President:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-world-leaders-call-maybe-cellphone-010108194.html

 

Talking with world leaders on an unsecured mobile phone using a number that has been shared with other world leaders (and their security services) is wrong in far too many ways to describe here.

I guess the guy in the WH wants to make it easier for his bromancer Putin to listen in. It would eliminate some of what he's been doing so far to inform Russia of all things American and allies. 

[Si Thea01]

10 hours ago, iReason said:

" should he be subpoenaed"

 

Apparently, this is what they will have to do.

What's to hide?

 

Trump personal attorney declines congressional Russia probe request

 

"President Donald Trump’s longtime personal attorney has turned down a request to be interviewed and provide documents in the congressional probe into Russian interference into the 2016 election."

 

"Michael Cohen, who worked at the Trump Organization until January and remains the president’s private counsel, confirmed Tuesday he would not cooperate with congressional inquiries as they examine contacts between Trump’s circle of aides and Russian officials."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/30/michael-cohen-decline-congressional-russia-investigation-238945

 

I see, having problems listing the latest report on this matter. Be truthful and do not post misleading information, as this is what you are doing by listing the following and putting a link to a biased print media report:

 

Trump personal attorney declines congressional Russia probe request. 

 

If you put the whole version forward then it would help your credibility, of which clearly you have none and actually, by doing, you're highlighting your bias and cannot be taken seriously or even trusted to be honest in your responses.  Here is an excerpt of what he told CNN and they are now finally reporting.

 

"I declined the invitation to participate, as the request was poorly phrased, overly broad and not capable of being answered," Cohen told CNN Tuesday, adding that he considered it a "total fishing expedition."  They have yet to produce one single piece of credible evidence that would corroborate the Russia narrative," Cohen said. He called the investigation a "rush to judgment."

 

Cohen told CNN Tuesday that if Congress issues a subpoena to him, he will testify.

"I have not been subpoenaed to testify. If I am subpoenaed to testify I will comply -- and gladly -- as I have nothing to hide," Cohen said. "There is no shred of evidence that implicates me."

[selftaopath]

10 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Cohen and Trump's other lawyers are going to try every trick in the book, and then some. 

 

                                If they were a soccer team, they would put 13 men on the pitch, they would wear uniforms the same color as the opposing team, they would have someone throw a firecracker on one end of the field as a diversion, they would spray mace in the opposing goalie's face, they would bribe the ref, ......anything and everything to win/objuscate, no matter how foul.

That sounds like something 45's party has done/would do. They have little or no morality/integrity. They put party above country so they can ingratiate themselves and their backers. They boast of being "god fearing" buy lie lie lie. 

[mtls2005]

He's too pretty for prison.

 

Desperate for funds to prop up his failing real estate empire (very poor idea to buy 666 Fifth Ave. in 2007) he just did what his father-in-law did. Get money from Russian oligarchs. Unfortunately, this similarly compromised what little integrity he had, and put him in the clutches of Putin. He did a stupid thing, then he did some really stupid sh*t. He's not the brightest chap, and just swam into the deep end before realizing he forgot his flotation device.

 

 

[Credo]

I have no doubt that Kushner was involved in some back door dealings with Russia.   I am not convinced that he was doing so for nefarious reasons.   He is overall a reasonable and steady person in the administration and I hope that he doesn't get booted out.   

 

I don't like Kushner all that much, but compared to many in the administration, he is a bright and shining star.   

 

He could weather this storm if he is honest and straightforward with congress and the investigators.   

[boomerangutang]

18 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

He's too pretty for prison.

Desperate for funds to prop up his failing real estate empire (very poor idea to buy 666 Fifth Ave. in 2007) he just did what his father-in-law did. Get money from Russian oligarchs. Unfortunately, this similarly compromised what little integrity he had, and put him in the clutches of Putin. He did a stupid thing, then he did some really stupid sh*t. He's not the brightest chap, and just swam into the deep end before realizing he forgot his flotation device.

                               Oh, but he's handsome, and his wife is pretty.  They look like models for the tiny figurines at the top of multi-tiered wedding cakes.  How can anyone want them put in prison?

 

                          Seriously folks, Kushner and, to a lesser extent Ivanka, were swimming in polluted Russian water - even before Trump's campaign.   Mainstream media is flailing around, and keeps asking; "Why?" "What was discussed?" etc.    Here's what it was about:  MONEY, .....AND LOTS OF IT.

 

                          It's not against the law for a private citizen to discuss money with Russians.  However, it is against the law to lie on security forms (which all of Trump's inner circle have done) and to seek private channels to Russian leaders USING RUSSIAN BACK-CHANNELS.  If anyone in the FBI, CIA, NSA had individually asked for that, he/she would be charged with treason.  

 

                           Note: usually, at least two corroborating sources are needed to substantiate a story in a major newspaper.  The article in the Wash Post said it was not based on US gov't sources.  It then had to be either Russian sources or another country(s)'.   Keith Olbermann opines that Flynn himself (who was at the fateful meeting) was a corroborating source for Kushner's illegal actions.  Part of the proof for that is:  Flynn hasn't been mentioned for weeks by FBI/CIA.  That would indicate that Flynn is following-up on his claim that he had some very interesting info re; the investigations.  In other words, if Flynn is cooperating behind closed doors, the intel services wouldn't be hounding him publicly, as they are with Kushner.

 

 

 

 

[Ramen087]

Hearsay is not equal to facts, and Olberman is known to be impulsive and inaccurate, a ranter who cannot keep a steady job in journalism.  Crikey, even Al Gore booted his butt out.

 

 

[FritsSikkink]

5 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

And what is it that I just don't understand, "O Wise One?"  Don't sell yourself short by not explaining yourself but then maybe you are unable to.

"Trumps private lawyer is being quoted by them as refusing to front up to the senate" yet = He doesn't want to give them info if they ask him.

 

"he has agreed to front should he be subpoenaed."  = He will give them info but only if they come with court papers.

 

Two different things so I don't see the false or misleading part

 

[Si Thea01]

17 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

"Trumps private lawyer is being quoted by them as refusing to front up to the senate" yet = He doesn't want to give them info if they ask him.

 

"he has agreed to front should he be subpoenaed."  = He will give them info but only if they come with court papers.

 

Two different things so I don't see the false or misleading part

 

If you put out only part of the story, which portrays him in a negative light, anyone reading it and not checking the facts could very well accept what you have written and linked to as being factual, which it isn't.

 

By half reporting and your question, "What has he got to hide" suggests he may be acting in a nefarious manner, which he isn't, therefore leading to your version being false and misleading.  My opinion.

 

If you do not have an agenda, then why not put the whole story and not the portion you have selected?  I know, it's like so many others, just pick the negative part and who cares if it's fair and balanced or makes out that he has been up to no good.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

 

I would like, at a minimum, for what were once traditional standards of ethics and transparency to become legally mandated requirements for office.  Presidents should make tax returns and other financial details publicly available and should put their holdings in blind trusts.  That alone would keep out people like Trump.

traditional standards of ethics

Seriously?

In my lifetime we have had womanisers, war mongers, war criminals , liars and incompetents as president. Are those the traditional standards you support?

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

traditional standards of ethics

Seriously?

In my lifetime we have had womanisers, war mongers, war criminals , liars and incompetents as president. Are those the traditional standards you support?

Yes, traditional standards of ethics which had presidential candidates release tax returns, and President-elects put their financial interests in blind trusts.

 

In our lifetimes we've never had the kinds of crony capitalism and kleptocrats that are making a mockery of democracy in places like Russia.  At least not until now.  Laws dictating transparency and making it difficult to engage in conflicts of interest (selling out the country's interests for personal gain) are essential for good governance. 

 

Your list of derogatory terms is interesting, Trump is clearly by three of the five.  Whether he becomes a war monger or war criminal remains to be seen.

 

BTW:  Lying is often part of statecraft, and many great leaders were also womanizers (Catherine the Great of Russia is thought to have been a, um, manizer?).

[selftaopath]

On 5/31/2017 at 9:25 PM, jcsmith said:

This is a misrepresentation of that decision. Trump is now trying to say that this isn't a muslim ban when during the election, after the election, and when he first rolled it out he and his staff referred to it as such. Changing some wording and trying to say that it isn't a muslim ban simply doesn't fly when he and his staff said the opposite so many times before it was overturned.

Didn't 45 also say the U.S. was under threat to an immediate attach by terrorists? I remember him mouthing the urgency is necessary to stop  "immigrants" from entering U.S. b/c of the threat?  His MH is daunting.

[Skywalker69]

5 hours ago, selftaopath said:

Didn't 45 also say the U.S. was under threat to an immediate attach by terrorists? I remember him mouthing the urgency is necessary to stop  "immigrants" from entering U.S. b/c of the threat?  His MH is daunting.