Confirmed: Obama had back channel communication with Russia

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
And remember, Obama was the one that told Medvedev on a live mic that he would have more flexibility for Vlad after the election. If Trump had been caught saying this, the Dems would be howling on the news media every night. I thought back channels are illegal or are they only illegal when the GOP establishes them? So hard to tell these days.

CONFIRMED: Obama Had His Own ‘Back Channel’ To Moscow


MICHAEL BASTASCH


8:49 AM 06/13/2017


The Obama administration had a “back channel” to communicate with Russian officials, according to a new report detailing Moscow’s efforts to delegitimize the U.S. presidential election results.

The news comes after Trump White House aide Jared Kushner was criticized for allegedly trying to open a back channel line of communications with Russian officials during the transition last year.

Former intelligence officials called Kushner’s alleged back channel “dangerous,” but now Bloomberg reports the Obama administration had its own back channel to Moscow.

The White House contacted the Kremlin on what Bloomberg described as a “modern-day red phone” after Russian operatives tried to infiltrate software and databases used by state election officials.

The scope and sophistication so concerned Obama administration officials that they took an unprecedented step — complaining directly to Moscow over a modern-day “red phone.” In October, two of the people said, the White House contacted the Kremlin on the back channel to offer detailed documents of what it said was Russia’s role in election meddling and to warn that the attacks risked setting off a broader conflict.

The “red phone” wasn’t literally a phone, but a secure messaging channel for ” urgent messages and documents,” according to Bloomberg. NBC News first reported on the red phone in December, noting the red phone has existed in various forms for the last 50 years or so.

In fact, the Obama administration said the red phone communications must have worked to keep Moscow from launching cyber attacks against election systems.

“Look at the results,” one Obama administration official told NBC in December. “There was nothing done on Election Day, so it must have worked.”

But that may have not been the case.

Bloomberg reported:

The White House provided evidence gathered on Russia’s hacking efforts and reasons why the U.S. considered it dangerously aggressive. Russia responded by asking for more information and providing assurances that it would look into the matter even as the hacking continued, according to the two people familiar with the response.

“Last year, as we detected intrusions into websites managed by election officials around the country, the administration worked relentlessly to protect our election infrastructure,” said Eric Schultz, a spokesman for former President Barack Obama. “Given that our election systems are so decentralized, that effort meant working with Democratic and Republican election administrators from all across the country to bolster their cyber defenses.”

Bloomberg reported the cyber attacks “paint a worrisome picture for future elections” since the “newest portrayal of potentially deep vulnerabilities in the U.S.’s patchwork of voting technologies comes less than a week after former FBI Director James Comey warned Congress that Moscow isn’t done meddling.”

“They’re coming after America,” Comey recently told congressional investigators. “They will be back.”
 

op2

Senior
Mar 16, 2014
11,184
565
103
Back channels are common are they not? Between administrations? Not candidates?

Yes, every administration has a back channel and when a new administration comes in it uses the back channel in existence. I'm sure W had one (inherited from Clinton) and when Obama came in he assume W's back channel. Then when Trump comes in he assumes Obama's back channel. The problem with what Kushner did was that first of all he wasn't anything at the time other than Trump's son-in-law and secondly even if he set up a back channel it would be different than the one set up for the POTUS to use.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Back channels are common are they not? Between administrations? Not candidates?

The media claimed that Kushner was attempting to set up a back channel to Russia. Obama claimed he would be very flexible with Vlad after his reelection. Why would a back channel be inappropriate during the transition? Trump was elected President and he may very well want to have communications with world leaders that are not leaked or surveilled. Remember, Obama had Merkel's phone calls surveilled.

Moreover, the Kushner back channel story has fallen apart. Again, if Trump told Medvedev what Obama told Medvedev, the media would be going crazy. It was Romney that claimed that Russia was our greatest geo-political threat and Obama that mocked Romney for that comment. It was Obama and Hillary on the Russian reset. It was Obama that allowed Russia back into the Middle East through Syria.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Yes, every administration has a back channel and when a new administration comes in it uses the back channel in existence. I'm sure W had one (inherited from Clinton) and when Obama came in he assume W's back channel. Then when Trump comes in he assumes Obama's back channel. The problem with what Kushner did was that first of all he wasn't anything at the time other than Trump's son-in-law and secondly even if he set up a back channel it would be different than the one set up for the POTUS to use.

A distinction without a difference. Moreover, what has happened to the Kushner back channel story? It has died. Why? Lack of evidence? Not a real story? Inquiring minds want to know.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
Yes, every administration has a back channel and when a new administration comes in it uses the back channel in existence. I'm sure W had one (inherited from Clinton) and when Obama came in he assume W's back channel. Then when Trump comes in he assumes Obama's back channel. The problem with what Kushner did was that first of all he wasn't anything at the time other than Trump's son-in-law and secondly even if he set up a back channel it would be different than the one set up for the POTUS to use.
AND it was right after sanctions were implemented by the sitting administration
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
A distinction without a difference. Moreover, what has happened to the Kushner back channel story? It has died. Why? Lack of evidence? Not a real story? Inquiring minds want to know.
Sometimes.....you're just a.....douche
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Sometimes.....you're just a.....douche

Name calling once again Boom. And you claim to be an understanding, empathetic, compassionate liberal. I posted a true statement and you come back with this?

I hope you are a far better teacher than you demonstrate on this board.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
The media claimed that Kushner was attempting to set up a back channel to Russia. Obama claimed he would be very flexible with Vlad after his reelection. Why would a back channel be inappropriate during the transition? Trump was elected President and he may very well want to have communications with world leaders that are not leaked or surveilled. Remember, Obama had Merkel's phone calls surveilled.

Moreover, the Kushner back channel story has fallen apart.

You answered your own question.

And he "forgot" to disclose his meeting with Kislyak when he applied for his security clearance.

Oops!

That part of the investigation hasn't gone away, sweetie. Kushner is still in the cross hairs.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,006
1,931
113
Name calling once again Boom. And you claim to be an understanding, empathetic, compassionate liberal. I posted a true statement and you come back with this?

I hope you are a far better teacher than you demonstrate on this board.

Busted.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,006
1,931
113
You answered your own question.

And he "forgot" to disclose his meeting with Kislyak when he applied for his security clearance.

Oops!

That part of the investigation hasn't gone away, sweetie. Kushner is still in the cross hairs.

So countryroads89 is boomer cute? Does he know you have 9 inches?

(it's an androgynous question because it works either way....if you're a Man or a Woman?)
 
Last edited:

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Kushner want to set up the back channel away from the American IC and using Russian infrastructure? I thought that was the rub. Of course we have back channels. Haven't you guys seen any Jack Ryan movies?
 

Brushy Bill

Hall of Famer
Mar 31, 2009
52,649
102,623
113
So the Trump CAMPAIGN had a back channel set up to get instructions/orders from Moscow, but then after the election the Trump TRANSITION team needed to set up a new back channel to get instructions/orders. Seems legit to me.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Kushner want to set up the back channel away from the American IC and using Russian infrastructure? I thought that was the rub. Of course we have back channels. Haven't you guys seen any Jack Ryan movies?

Yes, he wanted to use the Russian Consulate and use Russian equipment....prior to January 20th.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,006
1,931
113
So the Trump CAMPAIGN had a back channel set up to get instructions/orders from Moscow, but then after the election the Trump TRANSITION team needed to set up a new back channel to get instructions/orders. Seems legit to me.

Makes perfect senseo_O
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
You answered your own question.

And he "forgot" to disclose his meeting with Kislyak when he applied for his security clearance.

Oops!

That part of the investigation hasn't gone away, sweetie. Kushner is still in the cross hairs.

Crosshairs for not disclosing that discussion? Kushner is not in the news. My guess is that there is nothing there or the Dems would be going wild. This is over.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Yes, he wanted to use the Russian Consulate and use Russian equipment....prior to January 20th.

And that is a crime (if it is true)? More importantly, two completely different stories have been reported. The first is that Kushner requested the back channel. The second is that the Kisylak requested the back channel. So many incorrect media reports. Which is true?
 

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
And that is a crime (if it is true)? More importantly, two completely different stories have been reported. The first is that Kushner requested the back channel. The second is that the Kisylak requested the back channel. So many incorrect media reports. Which is true?
It's sad that a crime is now the threshold. Legally speaking....I don't know. But I would like to know if anyone in the WH is/did set up a backchannel to Russia away from the US IC, using Russian equipment, etc. Crime or no crime
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
Name calling once again Boom. And you claim to be an understanding, empathetic, compassionate liberal. I posted a true statement and you come back with this?

I hope you are a far better teacher than you demonstrate on this board.
You start a thread "confirming" Obama had a back channel with Russia. For what point? To "confirm" that the Kushner story was nothing, but your point is irrelevant. People point out to you that the comparisons are not accurate, and your point is foolish. You go and start replying "distinction without a difference".....and use the ridiculous phrase "inquiring minds want to know". Yes, sometimes you're a douche. I teach my students to look out for douches.....I think I'll print this thread to use as an example next time.

If the Kushner back channel story is irrelevant and foolish, why are we trying to compare the action that the son-in-law to the President elect took prior to his father-in-law being sworn in to the actions of a sitting administration? Douchey
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,006
1,931
113
Crosshairs for not disclosing that discussion? Kushner is not in the news. My guess is that there is nothing there or the Dems would be going wild. This is over.

I thought that last week about the "collusion" or "obstruction" meme after Comey's testimony.

It took 'em a few days to come up with some new anti-Trump sh*t, and they sure dug up some more sh*t didn't they?

Here we are a week later, still talking about "collusion" and "obstruction" and still not one morsel of evidence supporting either the charge or the investigation to date.

We have a special counsel who's supposed to be independent investigating a non existent event looking for fictional evidence with a politically biased staff and we're supposed to somehow believe they won't find anything?

 
Last edited:

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,006
1,931
113
You start a thread "confirming" Obama had a back channel with Russia. For what point? To "confirm" that the Kushner story was nothing, but your point is irrelevant. People point out to you that the comparisons are not accurate, and your point is foolish. You go and start replying "distinction without a difference".....and use the ridiculous phrase "inquiring minds want to know". Yes, sometimes you're a douche. I teach my students to look out for douches.....I think I'll print this thread to use as an example next time.

If the Kushner back channel story is irrelevant and foolish, why are we trying to compare the action that the son-in-law to the President elect took prior to his father-in-law being sworn in to the actions of a sitting administration? Douchey

Why are back channels to Russians no problem under one Administration and impeachable offenses under another one?

Russian back channels are either OK or treasonous. It matters who actually does them and when?

That's "douchey" if we're comparing apples to apples.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
It's sad that a crime is now the threshold. Legally speaking....I don't know. But I would like to know if anyone in the WH is/did set up a backchannel to Russia away from the US IC, using Russian equipment, etc. Crime or no crime

Back channels have been used for years. The purpose is to avoid surveillance. I could give a rat's *** who technology is used as long as surveillance is avoided. Remember all the leaks coming out of US intel? There is a cost to pay when you cannot be trusted.
 

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
Back channels have been used for years. The purpose is to avoid surveillance. I could give a rat's *** who technology is used as long as surveillance is avoided. Remember all the leaks coming out of US intel? There is a cost to pay when you cannot be trusted.
Again, not the back channel but how the back channel is set up. You think Russia wouldn't be collecting all of the information on their systems? Give me a break.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
You start a thread "confirming" Obama had a back channel with Russia. For what point? To "confirm" that the Kushner story was nothing, but your point is irrelevant. People point out to you that the comparisons are not accurate, and your point is foolish. You go and start replying "distinction without a difference".....and use the ridiculous phrase "inquiring minds want to know". Yes, sometimes you're a douche. I teach my students to look out for douches.....I think I'll print this thread to use as an example next time.

If the Kushner back channel story is irrelevant and foolish, why are we trying to compare the action that the son-in-law to the President elect took prior to his father-in-law being sworn in to the actions of a sitting administration? Douchey

People point out that the comparison is not accurate and I disagree and you go off on me? I think the comparison is highly accurate and not foolish. You disagree, fine. But then you make the ridiculous post.

How do you know when Obama set up the back channel? His discussion with Medvedev was during the election, right? He was not even elected yet. But you completely ignore this because it doesn't fit your narrative.

And is there anything wrong with setting up a back channel during the transition? If so, show me. Prove it. You claim I am a douche for pointing out these issues? Again, I surely hope you are a better teacher than a poster or your kids are in deep trouble.
 

op2

Senior
Mar 16, 2014
11,184
565
103
Back channels have been used for years. The purpose is to avoid surveillance. I could give a rat's *** who technology is used as long as surveillance is avoided. Remember all the leaks coming out of US intel? There is a cost to pay when you cannot be trusted.

Yeah, it's important that surveillance be avoided, thus we'll leave the chore to that noted expert in clandestine international relations Jared Kushner.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
You can't be this dumb.

Show me why it matters? What is the difference? The U.S. intel agencies are leaking live sieves. They have proven they can't be trusted. I wouldn't' use their technology either.

Now, the NSA is refusing to turn over data on how many Americans were illegally surveilled, even after promising to do so.
 

op2

Senior
Mar 16, 2014
11,184
565
103
People point out that the comparison is not accurate and I disagree and you go off on me? I think the comparison is highly accurate and not foolish. You disagree, fine. But then you make the ridiculous post.

How do you know when Obama set up the back channel? His discussion with Medvedev was during the election, right? He was not even elected yet. But you completely ignore this because it doesn't fit your narrative.

And is there anything wrong with setting up a back channel during the transition? If so, show me. Prove it. You claim I am a douche for pointing out these issues? Again, I surely hope you are a better teacher than a poster or your kids are in deep trouble.

Obama's remarks to the Russian guy was when he was POTUS. He was saying he would be more free to do stuff after he was re-elected.

And yes, there's something wrong with setting up a back channel during the election because you're a private citizen during the election and a back channel already exists. If Trump wanted to communicate with the Russians via a back channel before he was POTUS he should have contacted the White House about it.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Yeah, it's important that surveillance be avoided, thus we'll leave the chore to that noted expert in clandestine international relations Jared Kushner.

You have no idea who started that discussion. Kisylak or Kushner. And Kushner was a conduit for information. He was not making the decision. Foolish post even for you.
 

op2

Senior
Mar 16, 2014
11,184
565
103
You have no idea who started that discussion. Kisylak or Kushner. And Kushner was a conduit for information. He was not making the decision. Foolish post even for you.

It doesn't make any difference who started the discussion.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Again, not the back channel but how the back channel is set up. You think Russia wouldn't be collecting all of the information on their systems? Give me a break.

Sure, but they have it anyway since the conversations will be recorded on both sides. After all, we are talking to the Russians on this back channel, right? So they know the entire substance of the conversation anyway since they are part of the conversation. Your logic eludes me.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
People point out that the comparison is not accurate and I disagree and you go off on me? I think the comparison is highly accurate and not foolish. You disagree, fine. But then you make the ridiculous post.

How do you know when Obama set up the back channel? His discussion with Medvedev was during the election, right? He was not even elected yet. But you completely ignore this because it doesn't fit your narrative.

And is there anything wrong with setting up a back channel during the transition? If so, show me. Prove it. You claim I am a douche for pointing out these issues? Again, I surely hope you are a better teacher than a poster or your kids are in deep trouble.
Administrations have "back channels" with most governments. It's needed when perception of working with that government openly should be avoided due to potential damage to alliances or other global political concerns. I imagine Trump has back channels with manyvat this point. My problem with the timing of Kushner has to do with 2 governments installed at one time. Until the sitting administration gives way to the elected administration, using back channels for communication with foreign states can undermine the sitting administration's weight on issues such as......ummmm.....sanctions.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
It doesn't make any difference who started the discussion.

Sure it does. If it didn't why did the NY Times make such a big deal of it? They claimed Kushner started the conversation as an attempt to show Trump collusion. Come on.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Administrations have "back channels" with most governments. It's needed when perception of working with that government openly should be avoided due to potential damage to alliances or other global political concerns. I imagine Trump has back channels with manyvat this point. My problem with the timing of Kushner has to do with 2 governments installed at one time. Until the sitting administration gives way to the elected administration, using back channels for communication with foreign states can undermine the sitting administration's weight on issues such as......ummmm.....sanctions.

Wrong. All transition teams have conversations with foreign leaders/governments. ALL. What back channels did Obama have? When were they established? Why did Obama tell Medvedev he would have more FLEXIBILITY AFTER THE ELECTION? What was he hiding? This kind of stuff goes both ways. You absolve Obama and indict Trump. Obama desperately wanted relations with Russia, the reset after all.
 

op2

Senior
Mar 16, 2014
11,184
565
103
Sure it does. If it didn't why did the NY Times make such a big deal of it? They claimed Kushner started the conversation as an attempt to show Trump collusion. Come on.

Common sense tells you Kushner shouldn't be a part of a backc channel to Russia before Trump is even in office and via a back channel that isn't used by the US government. Who started the back channel, Kushner or the Russians, is beside the point.