@pppucci:

@Frederick:

@Matie:

What what? He uses Jared's back channel? This thread is getting racier all the time

About that channel allegation.. it seems to me that there SHOULD be back channels to communicate with other governments without having the communications made public.  Of course that can sort of be done through ambassadors, but that has big problems too.
Here is one example that I can think of at the moment:  In Iran, they have elected leaders.. HOWEVER, the elected leader is actually a puppet.  The non-elected religious leader is the true power, and the elected leader governs with the permission of the religious nut leader.  It's very much like a King who has governors.  The governor is the one operating the government, but must answer to the King.  Likewise, it is virtually impossible to have a rational, meaningful communication with another leader when it is done in public or the leader is not able to speak freely.
In the case of Jared Kushner, it was the Russian ambassador who was suggesting a back channel.  Yes, a back channel was discussed, but it wasn't Jared that initiated it.

As for leaders initiating sneaky back channel deals with Russia… watch this: 
Youtube Video

And don't forget Slippery Hillary's deal with Russia.. which benefit herself.. in which she sold Russian 20% of the USA uranium reserves!  In exchange, the Clinton foundation got $31 million and a pledge for another $100 million!!!   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHiuGbwvDww
LOCK HER UP!

No one is arguing that back channels are an essential and appropriate part of international diplomacy.  Most even grant that it was appropriate for Jared to lay the groundwork for one with the Russians.  However, considering using Russian facilities to hide the communications from the American national security apparatus borders on treason.

The Hilary allegation is old news.  She is not president and her political career is over.  Move on.

Hillary is not old news until this nonsense about the 2016 election is put to rest.  It sure isn't put to rest now is it?  Oh wait, I forgot.. according to moonbat rules, the left can attack all they like about anything going back to the "big bang", but nobody else can refer to anything to counter their attacks.

Apparently it was the Russian ambassador that came up with the idea for the back channel.. so whatever the plan was.. is not Jared's fault and certainly not Trump's fault.  Also, since this back-channel was never implemented, nor were even any plans made - it is completely baseless and irrelevant.  The world has not yet gotten to the point of prosecuting ideas.

Lastly, I fail to see why the act of communicating with another country is treason.  Again.. an examples of treason are Hillary selling Russia 20% of the uranium in the USA to Russia in exchange for $131 million paid to the Clinton Foundation… Or Obama giving hundreds of billion$ to Iran - in exchange for.. well.. we got NOTHING in return for that apparently.

First the legitimacy of the 2016 election has been put to rest.  No one has ever suggested that the Russians were able to change vote tallies.  They just tried to screw with us and our thinking.
Second, how are you so sure the use of Russian facilities was the ambassador's idea? Jared should have known better. And how are you so sure it was never implemented?  Are you a Russian spy?
Third, the Clinton foundation is not the Clinton Personal Wallet.  I admit some family members get salaries and they fly around the world on private jets, but the vast majority of the money goes to pay for HIV drugs for poor children.
Fourth, the billions for Iran was always their money, we just released it from sequester.

@pppucci:

@Frederick:

@Matie:

What what? He uses Jared's back channel? This thread is getting racier all the time

About that channel allegation.. it seems to me that there SHOULD be back channels to communicate with other governments without having the communications made public.  Of course that can sort of be done through ambassadors, but that has big problems too.
Here is one example that I can think of at the moment:  In Iran, they have elected leaders.. HOWEVER, the elected leader is actually a puppet.  The non-elected religious leader is the true power, and the elected leader governs with the permission of the religious nut leader.  It's very much like a King who has governors.  The governor is the one operating the government, but must answer to the King.  Likewise, it is virtually impossible to have a rational, meaningful communication with another leader when it is done in public or the leader is not able to speak freely.
In the case of Jared Kushner, it was the Russian ambassador who was suggesting a back channel.  Yes, a back channel was discussed, but it wasn't Jared that initiated it.

As for leaders initiating sneaky back channel deals with Russia… watch this: 
Youtube Video

And don't forget Slippery Hillary's deal with Russia.. which benefit herself.. in which she sold Russian 20% of the USA uranium reserves!  In exchange, the Clinton foundation got $31 million and a pledge for another $100 million!!!   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHiuGbwvDww
LOCK HER UP!

No one is arguing that back channels are an essential and appropriate part of international diplomacy.  Most even grant that it was appropriate for Jared to lay the groundwork for one with the Russians.  However, considering using Russian facilities to hide the communications from the American national security apparatus borders on treason.

The Hilary allegation is old news.  She is not president and her political career is over.  Move on.

Hillary is not old news until this nonsense about the 2016 election is put to rest.  It sure isn't put to rest now is it?  Oh wait, I forgot.. according to moonbat rules, the left can attack all they like about anything going back to the "big bang", but nobody else can refer to anything to counter their attacks.

Apparently it was the Russian ambassador that came up with the idea for the back channel.. so whatever the plan was.. is not Jared's fault and certainly not Trump's fault.  Also, since this back-channel was never implemented, nor were even any plans made - it is completely baseless and irrelevant.  The world has not yet gotten to the point of prosecuting ideas.

Lastly, I fail to see why the act of communicating with another country is treason.  Again.. an examples of treason are Hillary selling Russia 20% of the uranium in the USA to Russia in exchange for $131 million paid to the Clinton Foundation… Or Obama giving hundreds of billion$ to Iran - in exchange for.. well.. we got NOTHING in return for that apparently.

First the legitimacy of the 2016 election has been put to rest.  No one has ever suggested that the Russians were able to change vote tallies.  They just tried to screw with us and our thinking.
Second, how are you so sure the use of Russian facilities was the ambassador's idea? Jared should have known better. And how are you so sure it was never implemented?

@Frederick:

@Matie:

What what? He uses Jared's back channel? This thread is getting racier all the time

About that channel allegation.. it seems to me that there SHOULD be back channels to communicate with other governments without having the communications made public.  Of course that can sort of be done through ambassadors, but that has big problems too.
Here is one example that I can think of at the moment:  In Iran, they have elected leaders.. HOWEVER, the elected leader is actually a puppet.  The non-elected religious leader is the true power, and the elected leader governs with the permission of the religious nut leader.  It's very much like a King who has governors.  The governor is the one operating the government, but must answer to the King.  Likewise, it is virtually impossible to have a rational, meaningful communication with another leader when it is done in public or the leader is not able to speak freely.
In the case of Jared Kushner, it was the Russian ambassador who was suggesting a back channel.  Yes, a back channel was discussed, but it wasn't Jared that initiated it.

As for leaders initiating sneaky back channel deals with Russia… watch this: 
Youtube Video

And don't forget Slippery Hillary's deal with Russia.. which benefit herself.. in which she sold Russian 20% of the USA uranium reserves!  In exchange, the Clinton foundation got $31 million and a pledge for another $100 million!!!   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHiuGbwvDww
LOCK HER UP!

No one is arguing that back channels are an essential and appropriate part of international diplomacy.  Most even grant that it was appropriate for Jared to lay the groundwork for one with the Russians.  However, considering using Russian facilities to hide the communications from the American national security apparatus borders on treason.

The Hilary allegation is old news.  She is not president and her political career is over.  Move on.

Hillary is not old news until this nonsense about the 2016 election is put to rest.  It sure isn't put to rest now is it?  Oh wait, I forgot.. according to moonbat rules, the left can attack all they like about anything going back to the "big bang", but nobody else can refer to anything to counter their attacks.

Apparently it was the Russian ambassador that came up with the idea for the back channel.. so whatever the plan was.. is not Jared's fault and certainly not Trump's fault.  Also, since this back-channel was never implemented, nor were even any plans made - it is completely baseless and irrelevant.  The world has not yet gotten to the point of prosecuting ideas.

Lastly, I fail to see why the act of communicating with another country is treason.  Again.. an examples of treason are Hillary selling Russia 20% of the uranium in the USA to Russia in exchange for $131 million paid to the Clinton Foundation… Or Obama giving hundreds of billion$ to Iran - in exchange for.. well.. we got NOTHING in return for that apparently.

@Matie:

What what? He uses Jared's back channel? This thread is getting racier all the time

About that channel allegation.. it seems to me that there SHOULD be back channels to communicate with other governments without having the communications made public.  Of course that can sort of be done through ambassadors, but that has big problems too.
Here is one example that I can think of at the moment:  In Iran, they have elected leaders.. HOWEVER, the elected leader is actually a puppet.  The non-elected religious leader is the true power, and the elected leader governs with the permission of the religious nut leader.  It's very much like a King who has governors.  The governor is the one operating the government, but must answer to the King.  Likewise, it is virtually impossible to have a rational, meaningful communication with another leader when it is done in public or the leader is not able to speak freely.
In the case of Jared Kushner, it was the Russian ambassador who was suggesting a back channel.  Yes, a back channel was discussed, but it wasn't Jared that initiated it.

As for leaders initiating sneaky back channel deals with Russia… watch this: 
Youtube Video

And don't forget Slippery Hillary's deal with Russia.. which benefit herself.. in which she sold Russian 20% of the USA uranium reserves!  In exchange, the Clinton foundation got $31 million and a pledge for another $100 million!!!   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHiuGbwvDww
LOCK HER UP!

No one is arguing that back channels are an essential and appropriate part of international diplomacy.  Most even grant that it was appropriate for Jared to lay the groundwork for one with the Russians.  However, considering using Russian facilities to hide the communications from the American national security apparatus borders on treason.

The Hilary allegation is old news.  She is not president and her political career is over.  Move on.

What what? He uses Jared's back channel? This thread is getting racier all the time

About that channel allegation.. it seems to me that there SHOULD be back channels to communicate with other governments without having the communications made public.  Of course that can sort of be done through ambassadors, but that has big problems too.
Here is one example that I can think of at the moment:  In Iran, they have elected leaders.. HOWEVER, the elected leader is actually a puppet.  The non-elected religious leader is the true power, and the elected leader governs with the permission of the religious nut leader.  It's very much like a King who has governors.  The governor is the one operating the government, but must answer to the King.  Likewise, it is virtually impossible to have a rational, meaningful communication with another leader when it is done in public or the leader is not able to speak freely.
In the case of Jared Kushner, it was the Russian ambassador who was suggesting a back channel.  Yes, a back channel was discussed, but it wasn't Jared that initiated it.

As for leaders initiating sneaky back channel deals with Russia… watch this: 
Youtube Video

And don't forget Slippery Hillary's deal with Russia.. which benefit herself.. in which she sold Russian 20% of the USA uranium reserves!  In exchange, the Clinton foundation got $31 million and a pledge for another $100 million!!! 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHiuGbwvDww
LOCK HER UP!

And listen to the silence… so Raphjd... care to comment? Something about idiots?

I have a story about idiots.. a person who makes a new account 3 months ago for the sole purpose of posting comments in the forum.. and has only used that account to transfer 3 gigs.  That's a pretty stupid, bold and risky move.

This thread is severely misleading because that act wasn't introduced into Congress until after the "covfefe" mess. #45 posted the tweet on May 31, 2017 and the act was introduced on June 12, 2017. So, you're arguing that the president tweeted about something that did not exist at the time?

And listen to the silence… so Raphjd... care to comment? Something about idiots?

It was code to the Russians.  This isn't even the first time.  Spicer did this twice already.

Doubt it.  When Trump wants to communicate 'with the Russians, he just uses Jared's back-channel at the Russian Embassy.

@pppucci:

@royalcrown89:

This thread is severely misleading because that act wasn't introduced into Congress until after the "covfefe" mess. #45 posted the tweet on May 31, 2017 and the act was introduced on June 12, 2017. So, you're arguing that the president tweeted about something that did not exist at the time?

Apparently so.  But facts never stopped them before.

It's the democraps confusing things.   It was explained that the meaning of COVFEFE was in inside joke amongst Trump's closest staff.

Frederick's biggest problem is that he believes everything Sean Spicer says is true.  Even Spicey was making a joke. :laugh:

@royalcrown89:

This thread is severely misleading because that act wasn't introduced into Congress until after the "covfefe" mess. #45 posted the tweet on May 31, 2017 and the act was introduced on June 12, 2017. So, you're arguing that the president tweeted about something that did not exist at the time?

Apparently so.  But facts never stopped them before.

It's the democraps confusing things.  It was explained that the meaning of COVFEFE was in inside joke amongst Trump's closest staff.
What is absurd is that some moron congressman thought it would be cute to introduce a bill using that word as an acronym.  The Congress should not be used to play silly little games.  There are already laws which cover what that "COVFEFE" act does.  It doesn't take much to archive comments that are at most 140 characters in length.  The moonbats will probably create some agency that has an annual budget of $10 million just to archive Trump's tweets.

This thread is severely misleading because that act wasn't introduced into Congress until after the "covfefe" mess. #45 posted the tweet on May 31, 2017 and the act was introduced on June 12, 2017. So, you're arguing that the president tweeted about something that did not exist at the time?

Apparently so.  But facts never stopped them before.

He was probably drunk or stoned at the time

It has been reported he doesn't drink. I doubt he smokes pot– if he did, he would be a lot mellower.  ;D

You guys are missing the point.  At the time of the COVFEFE tweet, it was just a typo.  The bill was introduced after that…as a joke.... Stop implying it had any meaning at all when the President typed it.  He probably just dozed off and accidentally hit send.  No biggie.

Didn't Sean Spicer say that "Only the president and a few people know what it means" during a press conference?

Reporters burst into laughter as Sean Spicer insists Trump didn't misspell 'covfefe' tweet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dStts1kFrNU

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/06/14/news-in-brief-hollywood-fights-piracy-covfefe-not-a-typo/

Sky News reports that the Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement (COVFEFE) bill was written up to ensure that presidential tweets aren’t deleted.

Democratic congressman Mike Quigley who introduced the bill, and gave it the rather tongue-in-cheek title, said: “In order to maintain public trust in government, elected officials must answer for what they do and say; this includes 140-character tweets.”

He added, “If the President is going to take to social media to make sudden public policy proclamations, we must ensure that these statements are documented and preserved for future reference.”

It appears that liberals are the idiots, since they didn't know about a bill written by one of their own.    OR, did you guys know and still use it against Trump hoping no one wold fine out the truth?

Obviously, democrap Mike Quigley knew what COVFEFE was, and yet he chose not to reveal it's meaning.

However, COVFEFE is real and liberals claimed he is a idiot who's making up words.

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/06/14/news-in-brief-hollywood-fights-piracy-covfefe-not-a-typo/

Sky News reports that the Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement (COVFEFE) bill was written up to ensure that presidential tweets aren’t deleted.

Democratic congressman Mike Quigley who introduced the bill, and gave it the rather tongue-in-cheek title, said: “In order to maintain public trust in government, elected officials must answer for what they do and say; this includes 140-character tweets.”

He added, “If the President is going to take to social media to make sudden public policy proclamations, we must ensure that these statements are documented and preserved for future reference.”

It appears that liberals are the idiots, since they didn't know about a bill written by one of their own.    OR, did you guys know and still use it against Trump hoping no one wold fine out the truth?

Not sure what your point is.  The bill is basically a joke, since all presidential communications, including his tweets are covered by the more comprehensive Presidential Records Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Over_Various_Feeds_Electronically_for_Engagement_Act