this is the most idiotic conclusion ever. you sure kick up a lot of dust
Sure. Sources report that Jared Kushner attempted to set up communications with Moscow using their encryption to shield the US government from observation - meaning that Russian intelligence would be privy to the conversations, but not US intelligence. Instead of a unified "that didn't happen," the White House has both official and anonymous sources claim:
1) It was to discuss peace in Syria
2) Back channels with foreign governments are perfectly normal, so there's nothing wrong with this.
3) The Obama administration wasn't trustworthy, so shielding communications from them makes sense.
But this isn't evidence that it probably happened, right? Dubious apologetics for a deeply wrong act are just being tossed out there for the heck of it.
EAllusion wrote: Sure. Sources report that Jared Kushner attempted to set up communications with Moscow using their encryption to shield the US government from observation - meaning that Russian intelligence would be privy to the conversations, but not US intelligence. Instead of a unified "that didn't happen," the White House has both official and anonymous sources claim:
1) It was to discuss peace in Syria
2) Back channels with foreign governments are perfectly normal, so there's nothing wrong with this.
3) The Obama administration wasn't trustworthy, so shielding communications from them makes sense.
But this isn't evidence that it probably happened, right? Dubious apologetics for a deeply wrong act are just being tossed out there for the heck of it.
again, how this translates to "solid evidence that general outline is true" escapes those of us who are not hysteria driven and emotionally invested in all things anti-Trump. You constantly insist that you know the "real meaning", but all you know is speculation and weird liberal conspiracy theories.....your nose must be sore from being led around by it so much.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
EAllusion wrote: Sure. Sources report that Jared Kushner attempted to set up communications with Moscow using their encryption to shield the US government from observation - meaning that Russian intelligence would be privy to the conversations, but not US intelligence. Instead of a unified "that didn't happen," the White House has both official and anonymous sources claim:
1) It was to discuss peace in Syria
2) Back channels with foreign governments are perfectly normal, so there's nothing wrong with this.
3) The Obama administration wasn't trustworthy, so shielding communications from them makes sense.
But this isn't evidence that it probably happened, right? Dubious apologetics for a deeply wrong act are just being tossed out there for the heck of it.
again, how this translates to "solid evidence that general outline is true" escapes those of us who are not hysteria driven and emotionally invested in all things anti-Trump. You constantly insist that you know the "real meaning", but all you know is speculation and weird liberal conspiracy theories.....your nose must be sore from being led around by it so much.
I'm sorry basic logic escapes you. When someone is accused of a deeply wrong act and they respond to that accusation, not by denying it, but by trying to explain why the behavior is justified, that is generally good evidence the accusation is true.
Let's translate this into something that would fit in with your deeply hypocritical, unhinged from reality worldview.
You believe that the Clinton's had Vince Foster murdered. What if the Clintons responded to this accusation by saying, "Well, Vince Foster deserved to die. The president technically has the authority to eliminate national security threats, and there's reason to think Vince Foster was a national security threat."
EAllusion wrote: I'm sorry basic logic escapes you. When someone is accused of a deeply wrong act and they respond to that accusation, not by denying it, but by trying to explain why the behavior is justified, that is generally good evidence the accusation is true.
Um, that is not "basic logic" it is basic "supposition"...i am sorry that basic definitions escape you. See the "basic logic" in your claim is actually a basic logic flaw. Justifying behavior is not proof of guilt. Say that I walk in on you, holding a smoking gun. Guy on floor shot dead. No one else around for miles. I proclaim "Murder!". Then you explain, "this guy broke into this room and tried to kill me". According to your "logic" your non-denial excuse is solid evidence that you are still a murderer. case closed electric chair
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
EAllusion wrote: I'm sorry basic logic escapes you. When someone is accused of a deeply wrong act and they respond to that accusation, not by denying it, but by trying to explain why the behavior is justified, that is generally good evidence the accusation is true.
Um, that is not "basic logic" it is basic "supposition"...i am sorry that basic definitions escape you. See the "basic logic" in your claim is actually a basic logic flaw. Justifying behavior is not proof of guilt. Say that I walk in on you, holding a smoking gun. Guy on floor shot dead. No one else around for miles. I proclaim "Murder!". Then you explain, "this guy broke into this room and tried to kill me". According to your "logic" your non-denial excuse is solid evidence that you are still a murderer. case closed electric chair
That example doesn't involve justifying murder. It involves offering an explanation for what happened that is mutually exclusive with murder and functions as a denial.
If you want to make your example actually work, the explanation would have to be, "He was sleeping with my wife! I have diplomatic immunity! Other people have done this too!"
In which case, yeah, that would be pretty good evidence that the accusation is true.
We could reform your analogy into one that actually works. If the accusation was that I shot the person, and I responded to that accusation with, "this guy broke into the room and tried to kill me" that does provide solid evidence the accusation is true. That would analogize to the Kushner situation well.
Nobody in any presidential cabinet has ever set up a secret channel with a foreign country before. It's the first time any president has ever done this as the mainstream media covered extensively during the Obama administration during the Iran deal, Cuba, etc.
“There were mothers who took this [Rodney King LA riots] as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”
This liberal would be about socializing . . . uh, umm. . . . Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.
Maxine Waters wrote:Nobody in any presidential cabinet has ever set up a secret channel with a foreign country before. It's the first time any president has ever done this as the mainstream media covered extensively during the Obama administration during the Iran deal, Cuba, etc.
Do you have some examples of secret channels set up with a hostile foreign power designed to keep the US government out? Normally back channels are set up with the aid of US intelligence, not with the intent to lock them out, but keep a hostile foreign intelligence service in. I can think of only one other example and it isn't a flattering comparison.
Of that no doubt large list you will be providing, how many involved secret communications with a county who intefered in an election to the benefit of the party attempting to establish the clandestine line?
He's conflating back channel in the normal sense of separate mode of communication with this instance of a secret attempt to speak with Moscow hidden from US intelligence and law enforcement.
Flatter his racism a little and he'll defend being a traitor to the country. When your a star, he lets you do it.