world

White House braces for more scrutiny, Trump defends Kushner

61 Comments
By Anita Chang Beattie

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2017 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


61 Comments
Login to comment

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said that generally speaking, "we have back-channel communication with a number of countries... I would not be concerned about it."

Nor would I, except in cases where it's being done before the President takes office and is being done by an administration who has demonstrated that they will lie about Russia and will even defend Russia. Not quite the same as Trump opening up a line to Iran.

And is anyone else excited about the prospect of Comey's memos? Should be good fun. Maybe we can drain more of Trump's swamp thanks to the ongoing investigation.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

"Jared is doing a great job for the country," Trump said

But he didn't specify which country.

The rich (e.g. Trump, Kushner and family) care two nothings about country. They'll side with whichever state allows them to make and keep the most money, and also pay the least amount, if any, in taxes. Taxes and laws are 'for the peasants'. As is fighting wars for the benefit of the rich. Fighting in wars is also for the peasants.

Where are the rightists who decried nepotism and conflict of interest?

9 ( +9 / -0 )

No country is meddling other countries' elections more than US is.  What a hypocrite.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

So, let me understand.

Talking to foreign countries is bad?

Doing background work before officially being employed is bad?

So basically every prior President-elect and their team has done the same stuff.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Let me try to explain, theFu. You can "withdraw" money from a bank in 3 ways: the way most people do it (i.e., above board); you can steal it (that's how our intelligence services operate); or you can collude with employees to embezzle it. There are very justifiable suspicions that Kushner et al were going for the latter method.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

At every step, the explanation changes until the press exposes the truth.

The meeting didn't happen, until exposed.

Multiple in person meetings didn't happen, until exposed.

Security clearance applications mistakenly omitted disclosure of the meetings.

The topic of the meeting was just introductions, until exposed.

The topic of the meeting was sanctions, until exposed.

The topic of the meetings was establishing a back channel to combat ISIS, the latest excuse.

So many lies, there is no telling what the meetings were about. It creates a lot of suspicion.

The likely point of the meetings was to help Kushner refinance his NY building with loans from Russa, primarily a bank with U.S. sanctions against dealing with it. Loans are due in 2018, and no U.S. banks will refinance Kushner because he already burned them in the first refinancing to prevent losing the building.

it is a similar pattern as Trump's funding of his Trump SOHO building, which also used Russian financing except the financing was from Russian mobs.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

So basically every prior President-elect and their team has done the same stuff.

No, you're missing some details there:

1) He requested to set this back channel up at the US embassy, i.e. foreign property.

What is the rationale behind that?

2) He lied about it on security forms.

Remind me, what got Michael Flynn and Jeffrey Sessions in trouble?

3)He was a private citizen at the time.

Ever heard of the Logan Act?

So no, not basically the same thing.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Right. And the idea that the purpose was ISIS is dubious. The whole point of this "back channel" was to prevent US intelligence from monitoring - and why do that for such a topic?

Viking68's suggestion seems more plausible: Money.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

I'm going to be at a disadvantage here, because I'm going to stick with facts and reality, but here goes: 

A diplomatic back channel is used when we need to have talks with another country, which is either hostile or does not have diplomatic relations with us. In that case, a neutral country is used to broker the talks and maintain communications between them and us. That's a back channel. It is not done in secret, or without the involvement of the Department of State.  

It does not mean waltzing into a foreign embassy and use it as a cut-out to communicate with their government, using their secure communications network to avoid detection by the US intelligence and law enforcement agencies, or the Department of State. That's actually called espionage.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

According to U.S. media, the secret line was never established.

That's all I need to know about Day 4 of this manufactured scandal.

Sure lets wait for Comey. I am really looking forward to hearing from him about this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/james-comey-knew-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-document-was-fake-fbi-a7758646.html

As well as why he didnt report Trump's supposed obstruction when it happened. As well as his knowledge that the FISA court said the FBI was doing illegal surveillance on US citizens. Then once all that is done, he can add his little Russia speculation and go away.

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

@Black

Its not manufactured and its not going away. But, you'll still be here defending the Great Trumpster. How does the egg on your face taste? And, why do you think Lil Kush lied about his meeting with Russians?

10 ( +10 / -0 )

That's all I need to know about Day 4 of this manufactured scandal.

Just imagine how it will feel if it ends up going on for years and years, with multiple investigations, like the manufactured benghazi and email incidents!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

This is over soon, because they never even set up the channel much less used it. It is just a place holder until something else comes along to replace it.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

I used to review security clearance forms for a living in a previous life. There are people who tell you what to put on there and what is not necessary. Jeff Sessions has already said that he was going to put a bunch of meetings on his and was told not to as it was part of his daily job and already understood that he would meet those people.

There is also a verbal meeting where the items listed there are explained in person and details can be added. Have any of you considered that Kushner asked and was told that was part of his job and wasnt necessary to declare on the form? Nah, the Trump hate and the need for gotcha! is too strong in some of you to even think that.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

This is over soon, because they never even set up the channel much less used it. It is just a place holder until something else comes along to replace it.

Ah, so merely trying to set up a "back channel" is no big deal?

Again, this is part of the whole Russian investigation. As more news comes out, this headline will be going away, but the whole Russia scandal isn't. Enjoy!

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Black, WHY they didn't succeed in their plans is likely to be an interesting story. The Russians said no, probably because they knew use of their Embassy for this type of activity would have brought them some serious trouble down the line. After that, the Trump team dropped the whole issue - which doesn't make any sense if the purpose had been ISIS but does if it had been the money.

As I mentioned the other day, Putin knows much more about this incident than Americans do, and that gives him an uncomfortable leverage over the Trump administration.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Have any of you considered that Kushner asked and was told that was part of his job and wasnt necessary to declare on the form?

Why was Flynn canned? Why did Jefferson Beauregard Sessions recuse himself into the Trump Russia investigation

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Ah, so merely trying to set up a "back channel" is no big deal?

No it is not. Especially if it is never set up or used. Back channels exist everywhere. Now that we know the NSA was spying on US government officials and other citizens illegally the last 5 years it makes even more sense to do so. Someone we all know was working *behind the scenes (back channel?)* with Russia just 2 years ago.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-12-31/inside-obamas-secret-outreach-to-russia

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Flynn was cleared by the FBI already for the content of his communications with the Russians. He was fired for lying to the Vice President about what he spoke about (that the FBI determined was not illegal). Sessions recused himself so that the focus could be on the actual investigations and not distracted by people distracting it by talking about him. He didnt have to and didnt need to, as he did nothing wrong. But one less distraction is for the best as his Deputy can handle all that and he can focus on immigration reform.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Ok, so I guess we always do end up going around in circles here some.

So what am I missing? It seems like Kushner talked about setting up a back channel for whatever reason. It was never set up and it was never used (media confirmed). How is this a crime, anything he should lose his job for or anything that can be used against Trump? How is it even news? Do people get in trouble now for even thinking things or talking about them?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Back channels exist everywhere.

Maybe, but has a president who's suspected of personally owing millions of dollars to a country ever tried to set up back channels with said country? Nothing about this is normal, so stop pretending it is. This is what you get when you elect a known-scammer to "shake things up" in Washington.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Flynn was cleared by the FBI already for the content of his communications with the Russians. He was fired for lying to the Vice President about what he spoke about (that the FBI determined was not illegal).

No, he was not cleared. He is still under investigation. In fact, he has refused to testify to congress invoking his 5th amendment rights.

Sessions recused himself so that the focus could be on the actual investigations and not distracted by people distracting it by talking about him.

And what exactly would people be saying about it him? Certainly not that he lied about meeting with Russians, would it?

How is this a crime, anything he should lose his job for or anything that can be used against Trump? 

I've already explained why its news. He tried to hide his meeting. He was a private citizen.

When the Obama admin. tried to set up their back channel, it went through the government and they were public officials, not private.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I've heard this public official vs private official thing often. So if they were public officials then it is fine to do it, or still no? Your stance is that Trump and all his team dont become public officials until the inauguration? Then how would a transition ever work? I would imagine once they get their security clearances after Trump won the election, they are free to begin working. Something to research I guess.

Flynn actually was cleared on January 24th by the FBI:

http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/fbi-clears-michael-flynn-in-probe-linking-him-to-russia/

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Seems transition teams are funded by the government and its members are paid by the government. So to me, that would mean that they are no longer private citizens but public officials. Also the fact that they resign from any other jobs they have seems to point to them being public not private. Like anything else, I guess it is debatable, but the idea is that the transition team works from Nov-Jan inauguration not just sitting around. So if work is expected, I would think performance of work functions is also authorized as a public official.

https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/178083

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

According to U.S. media, the secret line was never established.

That's all I need to know about Day 4 of this manufactured scandal.

So now the MSM is credible? Got ya.

Sessions recused himself so that the focus could be on the actual investigations and not distracted by people distracting it by talking about him. 

Ummm . . . Nope. He recused himself because he was caught lying under oath about meeting with the Russian ambassador.

https://www.google.co.jp/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/02/jeff-sessions-calls-for-resignation-claims-lies-russia

It's almost enjoyable watching the usual posters (B&B) jump from one thread to the next and continue to spew their garbage. They stick to their obfuscation and denial guns in the face of facts, logic, and reason. Good conservative cupcakes.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Flynn actually was cleared on January 24th by the FBI:

No, he wasn't cleared. The FBI said he didn't do anything illegal on the phone call.

But that doesn't mean he done nothing wrong.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

So if they were public officials then it is fine to do it, or still no? 

Gee, I dunno, Black - I mean, if a sitting president would seek to communicate with a foreign country through that country's embassy with the goal of hiding that communication from broader government scrutiny for purposes still not understood, would that be fine? Something tells me that, no, it would not be fine at all.

Particularly if it had been Obama or either of the Clintons.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Ummm . . . Nope. He recused himself because he was caught lying under oath about meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Like Holder with fast and furious and Lynch with her accidentally bumping into Bill Clinton at the tarmac getting on a plane.

It's almost enjoyable watching the usual posters (B&B) jump from one thread to the next and continue to spew their garbage. They stick to their obfuscation and denial guns in the face of facts, logic, and reason. Good conservative cupcakes.

Hmm, more like the left spewing a stinking heap of garbage, but that's to be expected.

They stick to their obfuscation and denial guns in the face of facts, logic, and reason. Good conservative cupcakes.

There's no denying anything, but unlike liberals, they tend to not allow emotions and hate the clutter their judgments and to sway them from what's real and what's fiction, in my town we call that being objective.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

There's no denying anything, but unlike liberals, they tend to not allow emotions and hate the clutter their judgments and to sway them from what's real and what's fiction, in my town we call that being objective

Such a comedian, Bass. Werent you the one who said you don't trust statistics?

I guess it wasn't Trump's hatred of Obama that led him to claim Obama wasn't American? I guess it wasn't hate that led Trump to ignore warnings that Flynn wasn't telling the truth? So, what was it then?

Like Holder with fast and furious and Lynch with her accidentally bumping into Bill Clinton at the tarmac getting on a plane.

As much as you dislike dems, I'd be curious to know why you have no problem with Republicans acting like them?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Gee, I dunno, Black - I mean, if a sitting president would seek to communicate with a foreign country through that country's embassy with the goal of hiding that communication from broader government scrutiny for purposes still not understood, would that be fine? Something tells me that, no, it would not be fine at all.

Perfectly fine, especially considering the President at the time and his NSA and FBI was illegally surveilling all of their phone calls (FISA court confirmed as true), unmasking names and leaking the contents of the calls.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

The FBI said he didn't do anything illegal on the phone call.

But that doesn't mean he done nothing wrong.

Yes my same exact sentiment about Hillary. But everyone here makes sure to remind me that cleared by the FBI means innocent/not guilty even when a person did do something wrong. Its just another example of investigate until you find something, because something MUST have happened.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Such a comedian, Bass. Weren't you the one who said you don't trust statistics

I don't, so I keep an open mind, that's the reason why I can make a lot of money, I don't rush to judgment if I did, I would be without a job.

I guess it wasn't Trump's hatred of Obama that led him to claim Obama wasn't American?

So what, the man can believe whatever he wants, even if it's a nutty thought.

 I guess it wasn't hate that led Trump to ignore warnings that Flynn wasn't telling the truth? So, what was it then?

Dunno, but I'm open to whatever the investigation will tell us in the end.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

There's already a direct line between the US and Russia - the so-called "red phone"

Any communications by the US with Russia done under public official capacity should not be secret without records of paper trail or witnesses - it should be subject to Freedom of Information Act when the appropriate time period has come

(Heck, why don't all nations have a Freedom of Information Act if they have nothing to hide)

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I don't, so I keep an open mind, 

Lol so, not using statistics or facts makes you logical? Hmm?

So what, the man can believe whatever he wants, even if it's a nutty thought.  

That wasn't my question, Bass. If not for the kind of hate you accuse dems of, why did Trump continue spewing the birther narrative?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

FBI was illegally surveilling all of their phone calls (FISA court confirmed as true)

That was legal:

http://www.newsweek.com/carter-page-fbi-fisa-donald-trump-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-582667

"Carter Page, Russia and How the FBI Obtained a FISA Warrant to Monitor Donald Trump's Ex-Foreign Policy Adviser"

3 ( +3 / -0 )

especially considering the President at the time and his NSA and FBI was illegally surveilling all of their phone calls

Oh, looks like you got duped by the fake news in the bubble again.

You really need to fact check yourself sometimes.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

everyone here makes sure to remind me that cleared by the FBI means innocent/not guilty even when a person did do something wrong

The problem with your theory here is that you, some dude on the internet, and not even remotely internal or involved in the actual investigation, have made a determination that the person did something wrong, while the people who are on the front-lines of the investigation, have all the information, and have spent a significant amount of time parsing it, have determined they didn't do anything wrong.

Why ever would we take your conclusion over theirs?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Fact Check:

https://www.scribd.com/document/349261099/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-4#from_embed

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447973/nsa-illegal-surveillance-americans-obama-administration-abuse-fisa-court-response

Based on these, I would want a secure method of communication free from Obama people snooping too.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Lol so, not using statistics or facts makes you logical? Hmm?

It keeps me open-minded and safe, libs should try it, maybe they might be able to win some elections in the future.

 If not for the kind of hate you accuse dems of, why did Trump continue spewing the birther narrative?

I'm not in Trump's head, how would I know that's like asking why Hillary decided to use an unsecured server? Come on now....

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

So what, the man can believe whatever he wants, even if it's a nutty thought.

He believes he can grope women without consequence. Is that ok as well?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Here is a perfect example of an attempt at obfuscation when someone presents a fact against a conservative wish:

Ummm . . . Nope. He recused himself because he was caught lying under oath about meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Like Holder with fast and furious and Lynch with her accidentally bumping into Bill Clinton at the tarmac getting on a plane.

Just to be very clear, the top quote was in response to another cupcake claiming Sessions recused himself for a reason other than being caught lying under oath. The bottom sentence is completely unrelated an only meant to distract from the cupcake having been corrected.

I guess it wasn't Trump's hatred of Obama that led him to claim Obama wasn't American?

So what, the man can believe whatever he wants, even if it's a nutty thought.

Notice how quickly a cupcake downplays a repugnant idea Trump promoted for over five years? There was zero evidence that Obama was not American, yet it apparently is okay that Trump promoted that blatant lie for over five years because "the man can believe whatever he wants, even if it's a nutty thought." Of course, Trump having led the birther parade despite factual evidence that he was completely incorrect doesn't mean his credibility is questionable.

Can you see the logic being employed here? Nobody else can either, except the cupcakes.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Sessions was not caught lying under oath, sorry. He was never even charged or found guilty.

But legal experts say it would be difficult to prosecute a perjury charge against Sessions, given the ambiguity of the context of his statement.

According to federal law, perjury is committed when one is under oath and “willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/did-sessions-lie/

a repugnant idea Trump promoted for over five years? There was zero evidence that Obama was not American

Just as there is zero evidence that Trump personally colluded with Russia, but we are about to start Year 2 of that.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

I don't, so I keep an open mind, that's the reason why I can make a lot of money, I don't rush to judgment if I did, I would be without a job.

Really? You continually determine that Trump and his team have done nothing wrong related to Russia despite the mounting evidence to the contrary. That's very open-minded.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Lying under oath and perjury are not the same thing. Keep trying.

a repugnant idea Trump promoted for over five years? There was zero evidence that Obama was not American

Just as there is zero evidence that Trump personally colluded with Russia, but we are about to start Year 2 of that.

This is a false equivalency. There is evidence of possible collusion, and that is why the investigations continue.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Really? You continually determine that Trump and his team have done nothing wrong related to Russia despite the mounting evidence to the contrary. That's very open-minded.

"So far" as what has been revealed from the people that aren't actually Trump lovers, yes. So yes, until otherwise, I'm ver open-minded.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

they tend to not allow emotions and hate the clutter their judgments and to sway them from what's real and what's fiction, in my town we call that being objective.

Hahh. I needed a good laugh.

Alternative facts is now a word b/c of Trump and the right.

Sessions was not caught lying under oath, sorry.

Oh, I saw the testimony. He plainly lied and then looked into the camera in despair (like he gulped a bunch of water) because he knew what he said was wrong.

He was never even charged or found guilty.

Perjury before congress is a political thing, just like impeachment. The Senate would need to vote to refer the matter for charges, which isn't going to happen in a GoP controlled Senate.

So, just because he wasn't charged, doesn't mean he didn't commit perjury.

You are also avoiding the fact that he [so-called] recused himself from the Russia investigation as a result of the lie, but he later inserted himself with the firing of Comey.

Just as there is zero evidence that Trump personally colluded with Russia

How can you possibly know that and state that emphatically? You can't.

There is no publicly disclosed evidence, but there is plenty of evidence of frequent and abnormal communications with Russia. Trump and his cohorts act guilty and until the investigation is finished and proven guilty or innocent, Trump personally and his cohorts are suspects.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Fact Check:

https://www.scribd.com/document/349261099/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-4#from_embed

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447973/nsa-illegal-surveillance-americans-obama-administration-abuse-fisa-court-response

First, that's the NSA, not the FBI - please get the proper institution right; it does matter

Second, the surveillance itself is legal since FISA allows monitoring of foreign agents communications as the primary targets, even when those may involve US citizens if those agents contact US citizens. What's the serious issue though is the searches of US citizens off the internet collections NSA database:

The IG report spared few words for the NSA’s efforts before the disclosure to ensure it was complying with practices, some that date to rules issued in 2008 in the final days of the Bush administration and others that Obama put into effect in 2011.

> In question is the collection of what is known as upstream “about data” about an American that is collected even though they were not directly in contact with a foreigner that the NSA was legally allowed to intercept.

> More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa.

> “Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collections under Section 702,” the unsealed court ruling declared. “The Oct. 26, 2016 notice informed the court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”

> The NSA acknowledged it self-disclosed the mass violations to the court last fall and that in April it took the extraordinary step of suspending the type of searches that were violating the rules, even deleting prior collected data on Americans to avoid any further violations.

> The NSA said it doesn't have the ability to stop collecting ‘about’ information on Americans, “without losing some other important data. ” It, however, said it would stop the practice to “reduce the chance that it would acquire communication of U.S. persons or others who are not in direct contact with a foreign intelligence target.”

Basically, it's like Ctrl-F on the database and querying for US citizens. Without search warrants, that's indeed a 4th Amendment Constitutional issue.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Wrong. We don’t fabricate sources and these days we don’t have to look hard to find them. Right now they’re talking about Jared Kushner — and have nothing nice to say.

WP about Trump's tweet. Ouch.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Hahh. I needed a good laugh.

Liberals make me laugh every single day.

Alternative facts is now a word b/c of Trump and the right.

Its been the cornerstone of the left for years now.

How can you possibly know that and state that emphatically? You can't.

Right back at you, buddy.

There is no publicly disclosed evidence, but there is plenty of evidence of frequent and abnormal communications with Russia.

Doesn't amount that a crime was committed. Ask "Alan Dershowitz" one of the best lawyers on the planet and not a big Trump fan, but he even says, the Dems are rushing to judgment and should heed this carefully because it could blow up in their face like a Cohiba.

Trump and his cohorts act guilty and until the investigation is finished and proven guilty or innocent, Trump personally and his cohorts are suspects.

Suspects doesn't mean, you are guilty. But as I said, I'm enjoying this, have at it libs. ROFL!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Lying under oath and perjury are not the same thing.

They are, actually. Three words we'll likely be hearing a lot this summer: obstruction of justice (destruction of evidence or intimidation of witnesses), false statements (lying while not under oath in order to mislead government officials), and perjury (lying under oath).

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Laguna:

Lying under oath is perjury in laypeople terms. However, Blacklabel got the legal definition correct:

According to federal law, perjury is committed when one is under oath and “willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true.”

3 ( +3 / -0 )

...which would make them the same thing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A knee-jerk lie is not a willful lie.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The important thing is that Americans keep barking at each other.

It is worrying that Americans are so divided and are as you say 'barking' at each other. But so far no one has been disappeared, nor opposition dioxin-ated, nor have media people been murdered like in Russia. I think most Americans, excluding perhaps the 35% who prefer an authoritarian system and who back Trump and the Republicans, prefer keeping Russians out of US politics.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

 excluding perhaps the 35% who prefer an authoritarian system  

And which part of the socialist spectrum do the liberals want to occupy?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The US political system is adversarial. Americans accept it. We like to argue internally. We don't mind if others see the arguments. It is part of our culture.

Since the Clinton administration, our political divide has been huge. I'm not sure why.

But nobody will be killed over this. That is the difference between the USA (and most western political systems) and Russia. In Russia, very few people will argue with President Putin, since they will be killed or disappear sooner than later.

They will be publicly outed and get to deal with any repurcussions - legal and private.

I don't think republicans or democrats in the USA hate the country at all. It is because they care so much that they argue. There are about 10 accounts (probably only 5 different people) here who must be paid to post. Who else would post for 10 hrs a day?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

viking68: How can you possibly know that and state that emphatically? You can't.

Fox News actually created that narrative. If you go there today you will see this story: "MEDIA BUZZ: As media targets Kushner, is frenzy overblown?" Fox has had the drip drip drip of "nothing here" and "waste of time" for months now, even as Trump's people resign and recuse.

Fox presents itself as some kind of insider to the investigation, able to see all evidence to date, and able to confidently state there's nothing there. They say these things with authority so their base assumes there is some kind of confirmed insider knowledge, almost as if Fox News is invited in to review the evidence.

Fox did the same with Clinton and the FBI, but this time their magic insider knowledge pointed to Clinton being guilty. The politicians did their part, with Issa saying, "I think the FBI director would like to indict both Huma and Hillary as we speak". Tom Delay said, "they're ready to indict and they're ready to recommend an indictment". We all remember how that turned out.

Most of the reason why conservatives were outraged about Clinton not being indicted is because they were sold bunk statements like that from their politicians and media. They literally believed they knew everything going on about the investigation and the wrong result meant something underhanded was going on (Obama ordered the investigation to be dropped).

Now we have Trump in the hot seat, and all of their special, inside knowledge points to him being innocent. Oh, and of course, that means the investigation is due to something underhanded (by the Democrats).

4 ( +4 / -0 )

With so many former intelligence officials condemning Kushner's actions, and with only current Trump appointees defending him, it seems pretty obvious that Kushner's behavior was worryingly abnormal.

It is looking more and more like the current administration in the White House is inappropriately influenced by their ties to Moscow.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Perhaps President Trump is pulling out of the Paris climate change agreement in order to move the world's attention away from this mire. Very sad if so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

News already announced his intention to pull out.

So far he seems bend on undoing everything that Obsma and previous administrations agreed on/inplemented.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites