Today brings yet another baseless assault on President Trump, this time through his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The Washington Post reported late yesterday in the daily attack piece that during the campaign Kushner sought to set up a secure channel to communicate with the Russians that could not be intercepted by others. And how does the WaPo know this? Easy, the US intelligence agencies intercepted the communications and now unnamed sources are leaking that information to the anti-Trump media. At least that is the claim of the WaPo. It's stories based on unnamed sources have been correct about 50% of the time in recent weeks.
So it this a big deal? Nope. Let's take it at face value as if it is totally true. What do we know so far?
1. During the campaign, the intelligence agencies listened in on a great many conversations involving Americans including those involved in the Trump campaign.
2. Despite laws to the contrary, Obama administration officials like Susan Rice among others ordered the unmasking of people from the Trump campaign or Trump associates and then spread that intelligence to multiple agencies. This is possibly a criminal offense.
3. Just as the agencies have leaked their anti-Trump items, it is possible that someone leaked those anti-Trump activities to the Trump campaign. We don't know, but certainly General Flynn had all the needed connections to have some friend who gave him a heads up.
4. Establishing a communications channel separate from the normal State Department routine is not a new thing. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, just such a back door communications channel was used for sending messages between the White House and the Kremlin.
5. Establishing a separate communications channel is perfectly legal. There is no law that requires the President-Elect or the President to communicate with any foreign leader in a particular way.
6. This very story shows the wisdom of having a separate and secure communications channel. After all, people in the intelligence community who leak this information got access through surveillance to the discussion.
Put this all together and what do we have? Simply put, there is nothing wrong with setting up a back door communications channel with Russia; in fact it is a good idea. We don't know for sure if any of the WaPo story is true, but despite all the hype, it's a big nothing.
So it this a big deal? Nope. Let's take it at face value as if it is totally true. What do we know so far?
1. During the campaign, the intelligence agencies listened in on a great many conversations involving Americans including those involved in the Trump campaign.
2. Despite laws to the contrary, Obama administration officials like Susan Rice among others ordered the unmasking of people from the Trump campaign or Trump associates and then spread that intelligence to multiple agencies. This is possibly a criminal offense.
3. Just as the agencies have leaked their anti-Trump items, it is possible that someone leaked those anti-Trump activities to the Trump campaign. We don't know, but certainly General Flynn had all the needed connections to have some friend who gave him a heads up.
4. Establishing a communications channel separate from the normal State Department routine is not a new thing. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, just such a back door communications channel was used for sending messages between the White House and the Kremlin.
5. Establishing a separate communications channel is perfectly legal. There is no law that requires the President-Elect or the President to communicate with any foreign leader in a particular way.
6. This very story shows the wisdom of having a separate and secure communications channel. After all, people in the intelligence community who leak this information got access through surveillance to the discussion.
Put this all together and what do we have? Simply put, there is nothing wrong with setting up a back door communications channel with Russia; in fact it is a good idea. We don't know for sure if any of the WaPo story is true, but despite all the hype, it's a big nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment