y Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin

Dude, you're sniffing too much glue!

 

IOW, you are wisely dropping the absurd "collusion" charge that the DP insiders dropped weeks ago. That is smart.

But you attach yourself to the equally absurd "obstruction of justice" Fake News. It is also rather obvious nonsense that can have no impact on Trump's support.

“Despite the low overall level of support for the move, Trump's approval rating was essentially unchanged from the last NBC/WSJ poll.” CNN, Poll: Comey's firing gets low approval; Trump's support unmoved,” By Eli Watkins, Mon May 15, 2017.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/14/politics/nbc-wsj-poll/

I never have to dissect "Fake News" - I rely on embarrassed DP officials like Morell, Clapper, and Brennan to do that for me.

 

And you are someone who is tied to a straight jacket unable to mount a counter rebuttal to why Kushner's actions wouldn't constitute espionage.

 

Proven? I was unaware we had seen any evidence of this obstruction yet.

Can you kindly post some?

 

No! I'm not your babysitter. I already have posted it. Start looking!

 

Ive seen lots of accusations, not a single piece of evidence though.

 

Too bad for you. Looks like you'll be staying in the dark.

 

As will you.

 

Not quite! I've got my info in order. You having to ask me for it, tells me you are the one in the dark.

 

Does anybody really think that Kushner acted on his own.

somehow a swath of Trump cabinet has been pull up on suspicions but no one has made the connection that there is a central party here? Donald Trump...

Why is no one investigating Trump himself and Election Rigging?

 

There is nothing more than innuendo though. No proof.

 

"Proven? I was unaware we had seen any evidence of this obstruction yet.

Can you kindly post some?"

" And now there is nothing but innuendo. No proof " So, I take it you didn't know, while asking me to post evidence of obstruction of justice before you did know? The lies never seem to stop with you people do they? You folks are so easy.

 

"I never said that you did" bwk. What are you talking about?

And why would anyone have to "prove" the negative with respect to empty unsupported charges of "obstruction of justice"? You need to wean yourself from your Fake News dependency.

 

It goes without saying that Trump was the spear head of this Kislyak, Flynn, Kushner, meeting. The three of them didn't just up and decide to have this meeting on their own to concoct this scheme to create this secret channel of communications to the Kremlin, and to keep that intelligence secret from the rest of our intelligence community.

 

You must have your head buried deep in Trump's keister to not see it.

The fact that he fired the man in charge of investigation to put an end to the whole Russia thing is textbook obstruction of justice.

They're investigating Trump's campaign. By extension, that includes Trump himself.

 

"IOW, you are wisely dropping the absurd "collusion" charge that the DP insiders dropped weeks ago. That is smart. " This is what you said. I never said I was "wisely dropping the absurd collusion charge". That's your lie.
You are incapable of debating the facts of this topic. Telling me these are "unsupported charges of obstruction of justice and fake news" just tells me a whole lot about what you don't know. Not what you do know

 

Why would any President want to share the contents of secret diplomatic communications with all of our 17 intelligence agencies? Think.

 

Again, for the left twits:

Homeland Security chief says back-channel talks with Russia would be 'normal...and acceptable'

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly came to the defense of Jared Kushner, saying it would be “both normal… and acceptable” to seek back-channel communications with Russia, but that if those communications used Russian equipment, that "would be considered to be … somewhat compromised.”

President Trump[/a], talked with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December, prior to Trump's taking office, about establishing a back channel for communications about Syria and other policy matters, sources told ABC News.

Kelly told “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz on Sunday that with countries such as Russia that are not allies of the U.S., any means of communication “is a good thing.”

All communications gathered through a back channel would be “shared across the government, so it’s not a bad thing to have multiple communication lines" with any country, Kelly said.

Raddatz pressed Kelly about whether it would be OK for these back-channel communications to be conducted using Russian diplomatic facilities, as, according to the Washington Post, Kushner sought.

Kelly continued to insist that any line of communication “to a country like Russia is a good thing," but he said "using their equipment, you know, that ... would be considered to be, you know, kind of somewhat compromised."


https://www.yahoo.com/gma/homeland-...ks-russia-193205873--abc-news-topstories.html

 

I thought you were finally dropping it. I apologize for thinking that you had "wisely" abandoned the collusion nonsense.

So, given that you discount all of the US intelligence and police agency heads who have publicly rejected the collusion meme I have to ask: 1. why do you have so little confidence in them?
And 2. Why would you expect any President to share all his secret diplomatic communications with any of them?

 

The same man that investigated based on documents he knew were fake? Is that the guy that you are hinging your hopes on?

Comey should have been fired and his firing has no effect on the investigation. It would probably improve it as I doubt whoever is leading it now won't be investigating documents he knows are fake.

 

It's the same guy Trump obstructed justice with by asking that guy to be loyal to him. Meaning, let this all go and stop investigating me, (Trump).

At this point, firing or not firing Comey is irrelevant. It's the obstruction by Trump to have Comey stop the investigation, which is relevant. Nothing else!

 

You people still do not understand what a back channel actually is; http://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/no-kushner-didn-t-seek-a-legitimate-back-channel-955217475931

 

OMIGOD???!!! Really/
I think that the Head of Homeland security does have a pretty good idea of what it is, and is FAR MORE credible than the Liespeak, Fake News idiots at MSNBC.

 

>>>MOD EDIT Quoted Post Deleted<<<

Now BWK, you have drifted into the ad hominem zone which is not rational argument. And, even after seeing the guy who started the collusion nonsense, CIA Director Morell, reject his own Fake News tale you continue to embrace the nonsense - what's up with that? Do you see a "campfire" "a candle" or "a spark"?

When Fake News, like the collusion story blows up, and it has, Trump becomes stronger as his enemies are discredited. Those in the know keep trying to warn the ordinary grunts that they are firing duds. You should have paid attention.

“But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.” The Intercept, The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer, Glenn Greenwald, 1/11/17.
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11...-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/

 

Can you point out what's been obstructed? I only ask because the acting director of the FBI says nothing was obstructed.