As Predicted- No There, There- Kushner Releases 11- Page Report Prior To Inquiry

[jc456]

Easy Dems..... Don't let facts confuse you

-Geaux
-----

Ahead of his closed-door meeting with the Senate Intelligence Committee at 10am, Jared Kushner released an 11-page statement which confirmed four contacts with Russians during his father-in-law’s presidential campaign or after the election, but described the encounters as unmemorable and denied colluding with the Russian government to help Donald Trump win the election.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, including whether Trump’s campaign colluded with a Russian government effort to tip the election toward Trump.

The key statement: "I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector. I have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 [security clearance] form, above and beyond what is required."

In the most consequential meeting, Kushner said he agreed to meet with a Russian banker, Sergey Gorkov, on Dec. 13 at the request of the Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak

Kushner Releases 11-Page Statement: Denies Collusion, Confirms Four Meetings With Russians | Zero Hedge

 

[jc456]

Jared Kushner, sought a secret line of communications with Russian officials that would bypass American intelligence services is four large Goodyears tossed onto the White House tire fire. There is no "legitimate" reason why Trump's transition team should have sought out a secret line of communication with a foreign nation that the American government wouldn't know about.


Jared Kushner and Russian ambassador discussed setting up a secret communications channel

except it's a normal white house strategy. D'OH!

Back-channel communications are nothing new for White House

"Kushner’s alleged request, first reported by the Washington Post on May 26, stirred controversy. But White House back-channel communications with foreign powers aren't unprecedented: Several other presidential administrations have used back-channel communication as a means of problem solving outside of traditional avenues.

“Back channels are a tool in the diplomatic tool box, and they can be a very effective tool,” said Richard Moss, author of the book “Nixon’s Back Channel to Moscow” and a professor at the U.S. Naval War College. “There’s a long tradition of it -- it goes back as long as diplomacy itself.”

Back channels can be a good way to achieve diplomatic breakthroughs, but they can also indicate something more sinister.

“They certainly have a varied history,” Moss said. “And it varies from nefarious and illegal to perfectly legitimate and effective.”

Whether back-channel diplomacy is legal depends on the context: There is a clear line between back channels and espionage, Moss said."

it's what smart administrations do. even obummer had one or two.

 

[jc456]

Okay, that's his side of the story.

whose side would he have given if not his?

No one.
.

so he did what he was expected to do? ewwwwwwww watch the fk out now. cause I'm not sure whose is the other side of the story?

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, that's his side of the story.

whose side would he have given if not his?

No one.
.

so he did what he was expected to do? ewwwwwwww watch the fk out now. cause I'm not sure whose is the other side of the story?

If Hillary Clinton testified about something, would you wonder if there were any more to the story? If someone else might have a version that was different? Of course you would. In fact, you'd assume it. You'd want to know more.

Since I don't believe partisans on either end of the spectrum, I wonder that same thing regardless of the letter after their name.

Does that make sense to you, on any level, whatsoever?
.

 

[jc456]

Okay, that's his side of the story.

whose side would he have given if not his?

No one.
.

so he did what he was expected to do? ewwwwwwww watch the fk out now. cause I'm not sure whose is the other side of the story?

If Hillary Clinton testified about something, would you wonder if there were any more to the story? If someone else might have a version that was different? Of course you would. In fact, you'd assume it. You'd want to know more.

Since I don't believe partisans on either end of the spectrum, I wonder that same thing regardless of the letter after their name.

Does that make sense to you, on any level, whatsoever?
.

I already know more. I know she had a server in her garage as secretary of state. illegal. I don't need her side of the story. I know benghazi happened, it was evident by the deaths of four americans on her watch. I don't need her side of the story. she deleted 33K of emails because of benghazi, I don't need her side of the story. What I needed was a fking honest FBI and justice system, not her side of the story.

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, that's his side of the story.

whose side would he have given if not his?

No one.
.

so he did what he was expected to do? ewwwwwwww watch the fk out now. cause I'm not sure whose is the other side of the story?

If Hillary Clinton testified about something, would you wonder if there were any more to the story? If someone else might have a version that was different? Of course you would. In fact, you'd assume it. You'd want to know more.

Since I don't believe partisans on either end of the spectrum, I wonder that same thing regardless of the letter after their name.

Does that make sense to you, on any level, whatsoever?
.

I already know more. I know she had a server in her garage as secretary of state. illegal. I don't need her side of the story. I know benghazi happened, it was evident by the deaths of four americans on her watch. I don't need her side of the story. she deleted 33K of emails because of benghazi, I don't need her side of the story. What I needed was a fking honest FBI and justice system, not her side of the story.

You've completely missed my point.

That's okay.
.

 

[jc456]

whose side would he have given if not his?

No one.
.

so he did what he was expected to do? ewwwwwwww watch the fk out now. cause I'm not sure whose is the other side of the story?

If Hillary Clinton testified about something, would you wonder if there were any more to the story? If someone else might have a version that was different? Of course you would. In fact, you'd assume it. You'd want to know more.

Since I don't believe partisans on either end of the spectrum, I wonder that same thing regardless of the letter after their name.

Does that make sense to you, on any level, whatsoever?
.

I already know more. I know she had a server in her garage as secretary of state. illegal. I don't need her side of the story. I know benghazi happened, it was evident by the deaths of four americans on her watch. I don't need her side of the story. she deleted 33K of emails because of benghazi, I don't need her side of the story. What I needed was a fking honest FBI and justice system, not her side of the story.

You've completely missed my point.

That's okay.
.

what was it?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The key words in your post is:

1. May have
2. If
3. We do not yet know

Great events begin with those phrases above......(be very scared, Stevie...LOL)

I may have eaten a sandwich that may have had turkey on it in a deli that might exist in an imaginary town on a planet that could be far fr away.

 

[deanrd]

Okay, that's his side of the story.

True. Now all we need is the truth.

 

[jc456]

Okay, that's his side of the story.

True. Now all we need is the truth.

from where?

 

[Geaux4it]

Has anyone actually read his statement?

His claim "I did not collude" has no credibility. It is up to others to decide

Good grief... We're still all waiting... ((((((YAWN)))))

-Geaux

 

[dannyboys]

Okay, that's his side of the story.

That's right.
IF anyone had/had the slightest shred of evidence to the contrary you can be sure the WAPO/NYT/CNN/MSNBC 'witch hunters' would have already made it public.
It's literally driving the 'witch hunters' fucking crazy that they haven't been able to even start the tiniest fire to burn President Trump at the stake.
They've tried and tried as has been well documented. Every time the 'fake fire' they start ends up sputtering out for lack of fuel.
And who ends up always getting burned? The FAKE news witch hunters.
Mueller is going to turn up fuck all and even then the FAKE news witch hunters will not believe he wasn't somehow either incompetent and 'bought off' by President Trump.

Yeah, I don't know what the FBI has, if anything. And given the way most of the media have jumped with both feet on this, they'd better be hoping something pans out.

To me, until something is proven and people are punished, it's all partisan noise. Just like Benghazi and the last eight years. The two ends of the spectrum can be very similar in their behaviors.
.

The whole russian collusion farce was/is a carefully planned LIB MSM/DEM strategy to undermine President Trump to the point where they actually believe he'll quit.
NOT going happen.
Bottom line is they are DESPERATE to stop the REPs from putting anymore SC judges on the bench by getting back control of Congress.
They are too fucking stupid to understand that Pence would put RADICAL REP SC judges on the bench if he could.
It's all going to blow up in their stupid faces.
Then the LIB MSM will literally invent another bullshit 'scandal'.
Note that the Senate Intelligence committee today isn't even bothering to have the sitting members present when Kushner is interviewed.
Low level staffers are going to read the questions to Kushner.

I think it's a safe bet that they'll be going after Trump full force for the duration. And the one thing none of this can change is appointments at the SC and lower courts, and that's going to happen whether it's Trump or Pence.
.

President Trump is going to put at least two more SC judges on the bench and about 500 lower court judges on the bench.
THIS fact is the one and only reason the LIB MSM/DEMs are apoplectic right now.
Otherwise they couldn't care less what the President does.
Now that the negroes and unions can't be counted on to vote DEM anymore the DEMs are toothless impotent 'beta' man-buns.

 

[jc456]

Okay, that's his side of the story.

That's right.
IF anyone had/had the slightest shred of evidence to the contrary you can be sure the WAPO/NYT/CNN/MSNBC 'witch hunters' would have already made it public.
It's literally driving the 'witch hunters' fucking crazy that they haven't been able to even start the tiniest fire to burn President Trump at the stake.
They've tried and tried as has been well documented. Every time the 'fake fire' they start ends up sputtering out for lack of fuel.
And who ends up always getting burned? The FAKE news witch hunters.
Mueller is going to turn up fuck all and even then the FAKE news witch hunters will not believe he wasn't somehow either incompetent and 'bought off' by President Trump.

Yeah, I don't know what the FBI has, if anything. And given the way most of the media have jumped with both feet on this, they'd better be hoping something pans out.

To me, until something is proven and people are punished, it's all partisan noise. Just like Benghazi and the last eight years. The two ends of the spectrum can be very similar in their behaviors.
.

The whole russian collusion farce was/is a carefully planned LIB MSM/DEM strategy to undermine President Trump to the point where they actually believe he'll quit.
NOT going happen.
Bottom line is they are DESPERATE to stop the REPs from putting anymore SC judges on the bench by getting back control of Congress.
They are too fucking stupid to understand that Pence would put RADICAL REP SC judges on the bench if he could.
It's all going to blow up in their stupid faces.
Then the LIB MSM will literally invent another bullshit 'scandal'.
Note that the Senate Intelligence committee today isn't even bothering to have the sitting members present when Kushner is interviewed.
Low level staffers are going to read the questions to Kushner.

I think it's a safe bet that they'll be going after Trump full force for the duration. And the one thing none of this can change is appointments at the SC and lower courts, and that's going to happen whether it's Trump or Pence.
.

President Trump is going to put at least two more SC judges on the bench and about 500 lower court judges on the bench.
THIS fact is the one and only reason the LIB MSM/DEMs are apoplectic right now.
Otherwise they couldn't care less what the President does.
Now that the negroes and unions can't be counted on to vote DEM anymore the DEMs are toothless impotent 'beta' man-buns.

exactly, they were looking at the Justice system to control you and me since they can't hold the other two phases of the government. And since most litigation goes to the lower courts first. Just like the travel ban EO. they are beyond pissed.