The Trump Presidency 15

[Skeptic Ginger]

The president can de-classify stuff, but I don't think it can just blurt things out; declassification has to be done in a particular way. (Plus, it should also be noted that while Trump may be able to declassify information, Kushner does not have that authority.)

There was also the side issue that Trump was rumored to have shared Israeli intelligence leading to them declining to partner with the CIA again anytime soon. That was the intelligence Trump leaked in the Oval Office to the Russian Ambassador and Defense Minister, IIRC.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I remember it, but it got overtaken in the firehose of trumpism. Near as I can tell, what's new is that someone is saying MBS is bragging about it.

Nope, that is also old news.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I could be completely wrong here, but I think its The Hunt which is being portrayed by some as librul elites hunt Trump supporters for fun.

Ah, so he's just adding "race" to the long list of descriptive attributes of trumpism: a political philosophy, an unstoppable movement, an alternate reality, a cult of personality, and now it's a race? And it's the elite race at that? Trumpers are gonna love it.

 

[phiwum]

I could be completely wrong here, but I think its The Hunt which is being portrayed by some as librul elites hunt Trump supporters for fun.

Looks like a good guess. I checked out the WP entry. Does Trump think the hunters are supposed to be the good guys?

 

[Segnosaur]

At this point it appears to be an illegal disclosure of classified information.

Now, yes,we do have the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", but the previous poster was suggesting that at the very least such things should get investigated to see if any laws were broken. That sort of investigation is not being done.

I don't think we investigate things to see if a law was broken. We normally have some standard of suspicion that a law was broken and then investigate.

A high places official of a pro Saudi administration did something pro Saudi and completely in line with expectations of what the adminstration supports.

What evidence is there he broke the law?

Are you really going to go down that route?

Admissions by the Saudis that they received classified information? (You know, it was actually mentioned in the earlier linked article)

Sounds like evidence to me. At least probable cause for an investigation. Not really sure why you're claiming its not evidence.

Plus in addition you have:
- Financial links between Kushner and various middle eastern entities friendly with Saudi Arabia, as well as financial links with entities involved the nuclear industry (which are also involved with Saudi Arabia). That suggests a significant conflict of interest.
- Kushner held meetings in secret, with no American diplomatic staff present (suggesting he didn't want whatever he said to be overheard.)
- Kushner's actual security clearance is... questionable, since it was found he had failed to disclose certain information during vetting
- Kushner has been known to use non-government apps for communicating, such as WhatsApp. (Remember the whole Hillary/email thing? Supposedly using non-government infrastructure for communications is bad.)

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...audi-arabia-trump-kushner-mohammed-bin-salman
https://www.thedailybeast.com/embassy-staffers-say-jared-kushner-shut-them-out-of-saudi-meetings
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/21/jared-kushner-saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/23/politics/kushner-whatsapp-concerns/index.html

So, you have Kushner, an individual who probably shouldn't have security clearance (but does), with a reputation for sloppy handling of government communications, engaging in secret meetings with people who can benefit him financially, and afterwards those same people boast how they received classified information, and how Kushner is "in their pocket".

That should be setting off all sorts of red flags.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Are you really going to go down that route?

Admissions by the Saudis that they received classified information? (You know, it was actually mentioned in the earlier linked article)

Sounds like evidence to me. At least probable cause for an investigation. Not really sure why you're claiming its not evidence.

Plus in addition you have:
- Financial links between Kushner and various middle eastern entities friendly with Saudi Arabia, as well as financial links with entities involved the nuclear industry (which are also involved with Saudi Arabia). That suggests a significant conflict of interest.
- Kushner held meetings in secret, with no American diplomatic staff present (suggesting he didn't want whatever he said to be overheard.)
- Kushner's actual security clearance is... questionable, since it was found he had failed to disclose certain information during vetting
- Kushner has been known to use non-government apps for communicating, such as WhatsApp. (Remember the whole Hillary/email thing? Supposedly using non-government infrastructure for communications is bad.)

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...audi-arabia-trump-kushner-mohammed-bin-salman
https://www.thedailybeast.com/embassy-staffers-say-jared-kushner-shut-them-out-of-saudi-meetings
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/21/jared-kushner-saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/23/politics/kushner-whatsapp-concerns/index.html

So, you have Kushner, an individual who probably shouldn't have security clearance (but does), with a reputation for sloppy handling of government communications, engaging in secret meetings with people who can benefit him financially, and afterwards those same people boast how they received classified information, and how Kushner is "in their pocket".

That should be setting off all sorts of red flags.

None of that seems like a problem to suspect a crime has been committed.

ETA: at no point does anyone actually do something for you to suspect a crime has been committed. You have plenty of good reasons why he would want to commit a crime and be capable of it, and you have an action that could be a crime under certain circumstances. You don't have evidence of a crime.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Looks like a good guess. I checked out the WP entry. Does Trump think the hunters are supposed to be the good guys?

Yeah, my read of the synopsis is one of their targets is more than they expected and picks them off one by one. It inverts classic horror by making the "monster" the one you'll be rooting for and the motley crew of adventurers get their comeuppance.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Are you really going to go down that route?

Admissions by the Saudis that they received classified information? (You know, it was actually mentioned in the earlier linked article)

Sounds like evidence to me. At least probable cause for an investigation. Not really sure why you're claiming its not evidence.

Plus in addition you have:
- Financial links between Kushner and various middle eastern entities friendly with Saudi Arabia, as well as financial links with entities involved the nuclear industry (which are also involved with Saudi Arabia). That suggests a significant conflict of interest.
- Kushner held meetings in secret, with no American diplomatic staff present (suggesting he didn't want whatever he said to be overheard.)
- Kushner's actual security clearance is... questionable, since it was found he had failed to disclose certain information during vetting
- Kushner has been known to use non-government apps for communicating, such as WhatsApp. (Remember the whole Hillary/email thing? Supposedly using non-government infrastructure for communications is bad.)

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...audi-arabia-trump-kushner-mohammed-bin-salman
https://www.thedailybeast.com/embassy-staffers-say-jared-kushner-shut-them-out-of-saudi-meetings
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/21/jared-kushner-saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/23/politics/kushner-whatsapp-concerns/index.html

So, you have Kushner, an individual who probably shouldn't have security clearance (but does), with a reputation for sloppy handling of government communications, engaging in secret meetings with people who can benefit him financially, and afterwards those same people boast how they received classified information, and how Kushner is "in their pocket".

That should be setting off all sorts of red flags.

Sure, but trumpism is also a legal principle that says you have to first prove that a crime was committed before you're allowed to open an investigation.

 

[Segnosaur]

Admissions by the Saudis that they received classified information? (You know, it was actually mentioned in the earlier linked article)

Sounds like evidence to me. At least probable cause for an investigation. Not really sure why you're claiming its not evidence.

Plus in addition you have:
- Financial links between Kushner and various middle eastern entities,,,
- Kushner held meetings in secret...
- Kushner's actual security clearance is... questionable...
- Kushner has been known to use non-government apps for communicating.

None of that seems like a problem to suspect a crime has been committed.

Attempt to bob the thread noted.

 

[plague311]

Attempt to bob the thread noted.

Right after I read that reply I was thinking to myself, "Come on Segnosaur, call it!"

Well done *golf clap*

 

[Segnosaur]

Sure, but trumpism is also a legal principle that says you have to first prove that a crime was committed before you're allowed to open an investigation.

Well, unless the person is a Democrat, in which case Investigate away.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Attempt to bob the thread noted.

I disagree with you, and you simply can't handle that someone doesn't see it the same way as you.

 

[Segnosaur]

Right after I read that reply I was thinking to myself, "Come on Segnosaur, call it!"

Well done *golf clap*

Yea.

The thing is, if it were an honest attempt at dealing with the issue, there were things that could be discussed... For example, the possible routes that an investigation could take, and any sort of defenses/mitigating circumstances.

But I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Well, unless the person is a Democrat, in which case Investigate away.

Nope, for Democrats, you can go straight to lock 'em up.

 

[Craig4]

Huh? That isn't what the intel was about.

Kushner visits, has a great time socializing with the Prince. Shortly thereafter the Prince has a number of members of his family put under house arrest, jailed or executed.

The belief is Kushner shared info gathered by the CIA as to who might be the Prince's internal political enemies.

Once again, am I the only one that remembers this?

No. As I recall, Phil Mudd went bat-**** crazy on "The Situation Room" when it came out that Kushner had done this. If anyone ended up dying, Kushner needs to go away for a long time.

 

[quadraginta]

Are you serious?

Has everyone forgotten this: Jared Kushner just got a billion dollar mystery bailout

Kushner hit up a number of governments for that money from China to Qatar (see the link), to no avail until:

Am I the only one that remembers this?

And I don't disagree with any of that. I'm not sure what you think I said that led you to believe I did.

My only point was about the question of legality of Kushner's passing intel. There's a lot of legal cover for him by virtue of his daddy-in-law as far as state secrets are concerned. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's there.

Nothing more than that.

 

[dudalb]

It's clear that Trump's mind is controlled by this shadowy organization:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Media_Research

I expect the head of TV network to be controlled by Nielsen ratings, but not the POTUS.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yea.

The thing is, if it were an honest attempt at dealing with the issue, there were things that could be discussed... For example, the possible routes that an investigation could take, and any sort of defenses/mitigating circumstances.

But I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

An honest discussion begins with the lack of evidence that a crime was even committed. You have a bunch of nice stuff (like a person would be motivated to commit crimes for their benefit), but you don't have something indicating a crime rather than usual scumbaggery.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I disagree with you, and you simply can't handle that someone doesn't see it the same way as you.

Problem is, it's really hard to see how any reasonable person could not be suspicious. This stinks to high heaven.

 

[Segnosaur]

And I don't disagree with any of that. I'm not sure what you think I said that led you to believe I did.

My only point was about the question of legality of Kushner's passing intel. There's a lot of legal cover for him by virtue of his daddy-in-law as far as state secrets are concerned. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's there.

Thing is, even if the Kush claimed "Trump said I could talk to the Saudis", they'd still probably have to provide some documentation explicitly stating that the material (at that point) was declassified.