OBAMA WAS ALREADY PRESIDENT WHEN HE SAID THAT!!! HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIE RE-ELECTION, NOT HIS INITIAL ELECTION.
Confirmed: Obama had back channel communication with Russia
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
OBAMA WAS ALREADY PRESIDENT WHEN HE SAID THAT!!! HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIE RE-ELECTION, NOT HIS INITIAL ELECTION.
Agree to disagree. It was my understanding we (Kushner) wanted to set up a back channel away from the eyes and ears of the US IC, but didn't mind the Russians seeing it. Call me a lib, but I trust American intel to have my back over the Russians. I know, I know. Crazy talk.
^^^^^THIS^^^^
It's the same thing, just the person on one side is hated by one side, and the person on the other side is adored by that side.
That's the only difference.
Why was Obama hiding this from the American people? Why not just tell the American people he wanted special relations and flexibility with Putin? Why mock Romney about Russia during the debate?
Obama telling the American people one thing and then privately telling the Russians something else? Smacks of complete dishonesty to me.
You logic makes no sense. Both sides are participating in the discussion. Both sides will tape the discussion. Who cares what technology is used in this circumstance.
Please tell me the benefit of using American technology over Russian technology in this instance?
I am clearly citing the intel leaks as a reason to keep any conversation Trump wants to remain private thus cutting out our intel groups. After all, Trump's conversations have already been leaked.
Moreover, you have no idea what story is true regarding Kisylak and Kushner. None. Reporting has been all over the board and we know that so many media reports have been totally wrong.
Leftys think 100% of what the media has reported about Trump is all true. They believe he "stole" the election, colluded with Russians to do it, and lied about it to try and cover it up.
Reality says the investigators know Trump was never a target, Dems also know and there is no evidence of any collusion, and Libs know not one vote was changed as a result of Russian's attempts to influence the election. Hillary lost because she was a lousy candidate with a lousy unwanted message.
Yet here we are talking about all of this nonsense as if it's all true and it's just a matter of time before it all comes out.
The Left believes all of this, and the media keeps telling them it's OK to think that because they keep reporting it. They won't let the meme go.
Delusional reality based on lies.
This backchannel story was nothing more than to try and further foment questions regarding "collusion". There was nothing illegal or wrong in any instance of a back channel being set up. One of the dumbest stories I've read re: The Collusion angle.
Back channels BY DEFINITION are communications outside the conventional channels of communication between governments. Transition administrations have DIRECT contact with foreign governments, and MOST are careful that those conversations do not create conflicts between the outgoing and incoming administration's communications. Back channels ARENT NEEDED until the administration is making decisions that effect global political issues.
Where have all the damaging leaks come from? Come on. Open your eyes. They have been leaking like a sieve.
Demonstrably false. Back channels are needed for new administrations, even during transitions. This is not new. Transition teams are always talking with foreign leaders. We do it all the time in the U.S. We talk with future Prime Ministers, Presidents, Kings, etc. It has been done for ages.
And there you go. Debate isn't going the way you want.....just move the debate somewhere that makes you win.
The above post has no relevance to the thread Chico. None.
Those aren't BACK CHANNELS! Those are direct contacts, establishing relationships and ties between leaders. In back channel communications, the leaders DO NOT SPEAK TO ONE ANOTHER! They are used to send communications without the appearance of communication.
It's directly relevant. If Trump was overheard telling this to a Russian, libs like you would crucify him. You would claim he was lying about his Russian connections and relationships. Obama mocked Romney about Russia and then turns around and says he will be much more flexible?
Medvedev was serving as a back channel for Obama.
No, back channels are ways to communicate without being surveilled. Did Obama establish any back channels during his transition? Did Bush? Did Clinton?
The Roosevelt administration
Back-channel lines of communication with Russia have not only been used before -- they were in some ways the birthplace of the two countries’ relationship. Back-channel negotiations were used to establish diplomatic relations under the Franklin D. Roosevelt presidency in 1933, Moss said.
During World War II, the Roosevelt administration and Winston Churchillused FDR’s associate Harry Hopkins as a non-official negotiator with the fledgling communist nation. Hopkins “transmitted diplomatic messages that bypassed the State Department with the Soviets,” Moss said.
The Kennedy administration
A series of documents related to Robert Kennedy’s role in his brother’s administration indicate that he had a significant role in foreign policy and particularly the Cuban missile crisis, despite his official role as U.S. Attorney General.
Robert Kennedy’s role as an intermediary between the White House and the Soviets eventually helped sidestep the two countries’ use of nuclear weapons through a public U.S. pledge not to invade Cuba if the Soviet Union pulled out their missiles along with a private promise to remove U.S. missiles in Italy and Turkey.
There is “some irony” in this scenario, Moss said, “because there were anti-nepotism laws enacted after that.”
The Nixon administration
The Nixon White House kept the State Department out of the loop on their negotiations with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold Warbecause it “suited his idea of centralizing power in the White House,” Moss said.
Over the course of his presidency, Nixon worked to achieve détente -- the relaxing of tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union -- largely through a back-channel diplomatic relationship between Henry Kissinger and Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin because he was wary of press leaks and distrustful of traditional channels of diplomacy.
In 1971 Nixon said of his own White House: “There have been more back-channel games played in this administration than any in history because we couldn’t trust the goddamned State Department."
Nixon’s affinity for back-channel communications also contributed to several other major foreign policy achievements of his administration, Moss said.
He employed Kenneth Rush, one of his former law school professors and then-ambassador to West Germany, to synchronize negotiations on the Quadripartite Access Agreement on Berlin with the Kissinger-Dobrynin Channel, outside of the purview of the State Department.
The “opening of China” to the United States in 1972 following a historic presidential visit remains one of the Nixon administration’s claims to fame. Contacts with Chinese leadership -- and eventually the fostering of a diplomatic relationship with China -- were made possible with the help of Pakistan’s ruler and military dictator Yahya Khan, who delivered messages back and forth between the powers.
Even before coming into office, Nixon’s campaign staff secretly communicated with South Vietnam to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson’s 1968 peace talks. In his book “Richard Nixon: The Life,” John A. Farrell reported that notes from Nixon’s closest aide, H.R. Haldeman, indicated that the campaign staff encouraged South Vietnam not to come to the negotiating table.
The Obama administration
In March 2013, the Obama administration opened up a back channel with Iran, and subsequently held several secret meetings. When the Iran Nuclear deal was brokered, Obama said the back-channel conversations were instrumental in negotiating the deal, according to the Associated Press.
Obama also approved secret negotiations with Iran in 2014 that were used to negotiate for the freedom of Americans held captive there.
As a sitting President.....or when he was in unofficial capacity during transition?
Doesn't matter. You libs would be going insane if Trump were overheard saying that. But giving you the benefit, lets assume Trump said that as President. Are you suggesting libs wouldn't be going crazy?
We are discussing Trump/Russia collusion and back channels. Obama had a back channel with Medvedev. He likely had other back channels. He lied about Russia to the American people (more flexibility after the election). He mocked Romney on Russia, protecting Russia.
That's not really a response to all of the flak he takes when he posts something trying to be factual or explain facts to you folks on the Left who think all evil began with Trump.
It's OK to disagree with his take on things (no offense to you Op2 because you do often at least try to bring your facts to the table) but when Pax puts up something like this to refute all of the hand wringing that I've read in this thread and today over Jared's supposedly clandestine "Russian back channels", why not either thank him for the information or post what's wrong with it?
Just making a joke about what else he could be doing with his time when he obviously chooses to spend it informing you folks is not a response to what he brings to the table! I've seen several posts today just like this...simple name calling after Pax shoots out something fact based to counter some hypocritical or emotional charge from a Leftist.
What was incorrect about what he posted? Why are Trump's alleged "back channels" so much more damaging or unique than all of those others he posted, including Obama's?
I posted on here the other day the reason you all resort to the name calling and snooty remarks about Pax is because none of you can deal with what he puts in your face, and you just get frustrated at that and lash out when he sits most of you down and shuts some of you up with stone cold hard facts.
Something some of you on the Left just cannot handle.
He was raging about how Obama did the back channel thing before he was POTUS too when he got caught on mic talking to the Russian. I noted that that wasn't before Obama was elected but while he was already POTUS and Obama was referring to his re-election.
After twice having to point that out to him, WVPATX then suddenly changed to the old standard "If a GOP POTUS got caught on mic telling the Russians he'd change after the election the GOP POTUS would catch hell from the Dems."
It's so clear that not only does WVPATX post a cajillion times a day but every single one with the one and only goal of promoting a particular political POV regardless of the facts or the issue. And yes, no doubt plenty of people on the Left do the same, although I don't see anyone on this website nearly as egregious as WVPATX.
First of all in sheer volume WVPATX leads the pack by a mile and secondly most people when shown to be wrong about something will at least back off a bit in the form of not posting so much in the thread in question afterwards. But not WVPATX. For him the pedal is to the metal no matter what.
This is our lives. It's pointless to waste it on something like constantly and blindly defending ANY politician. It's disrespectful to the people that put so much time and effort in raising us.
OK Op2 I do understand you why you think so many get upset with Pax, and I can't argue against what you said at least as far as how often he posts.
But if his complaint was about Obama's "back channels" while he was a candidate why is that false?
Yes, you are correct he was also POTUS, but tell me Op2 how did he know he was going to be re-elected?
What was he promising "more flexibility" on? Why was his public persona essentially dismissive of Russia's influence (he mocked Romney for saying during a debate that Russia was our biggest enemy) yet he was promising them "more flexibility" in his back channels?
I think that's what Pax was pointing out as hypocrisy, especially among the Left and apologists for Obama's back channels who are now ready to bring Trump up on "treason" charges for his Son-in-law Jared's allegedly "dangerous" back channels to Russia.
Pax in my opinion was simply pointing out these common forms of communication with Foreign nations are nothing new regardless of Administration, and I have yet to see someone post where he is wrong about that?
Some of you on the Left are saying he had no right to set up any back channels as a candidate but even if he did before he was elected, he still had no real authority as a candidate any more than Obama had when he was running for re-election correct?
Yes he (Obama) was President, but again how did he know he could make any promises of "more flexibility" after the election? Was he "colluding" with the Russians to seal his victory?
Apparently, no one on the Left cared...at least not as much as they are apoplectic over Trump's back channels.
Pax is pointing out the obvious double standard and the Left hates it because they can't factually refute it.