'There Is No Letter' - Kushner Accusation Based on 'Anonymous' Letter Never Proven To Exist

[bendog]

I don't think it's politics as usual. Presidents Elects so sometimes have communications with foreign powers. The left tried to make something of Reagan's with the Iranians, but there just wasn't much there. The Iranians wanted to get rid of the hostages, but they hated Carter. Lat
I don't think it's politics as usual. Presidents Elect have communications with for powers. That's usual. They seek to establish relationships. The left tired to make something of Reagan and the Iranians in 1980, but there wasn't anything unusual. The Iranians wanted to get rid of the hostages, but they hated Carter. Later on, Reagan pretty much ended his presidency by illegally dealing with them, but that was a different animal. There'd be nothing wrong with Trump chatting up Putin, and even suggesting diplomatic ways to ending sanctions. There was nothing wrong with Jared and Ivanka vacationing with Murdoch's ex and Putin's punch. Unseemly perhaps but not necessarily unethical.

What smells here is the need for secrecy. and the ongoing failures to list meetings which were legally required to be disclosed. In the end there may not be a smoking gun. But they were up to something. And it probably involved ending sanctions without Russia getting out of Ukraine. We may not have that proven. But we're going to learn that Trump owes the oligarchs Big League.

i agree to stand by my original opinion.

You think other presidents have come into office with comparable secret meetings?

sure.

OK. I don't see support for you view. But it's a free country ... for now anyway.

A previous president was, "teflon coated" not "coated with glue".

Reagan skirted towards impeachment, and his apporvals went in the toilet. He was pretty ineffective domestically after 2006. But like I posted, I don't think his 1980 communications with Iran were improper. He and Maggie Thatcher probably talked.

One difference may be that Reagan understood govt. He was an outsider, but an outsider with critical thinking and principled allies, like William Buckley and formerly cold warrior dems like Kilpatrick.

Conversely, the only one in the WH with actual experience is Priebus, who is a toady big firm lawyer and party loyalist. He's not a guy with a vision. Bannon is an outsider who hates the notion of govt.

Reagan came in with two ideas - confront the Soviets on every field, and lessen the power of the fed govt over the states. He'd loved to have ended Medicare, but he knew a loser issue when he saw it. Trump started with one of the two issues guaranteed to keep a majority disapproving of him, healthcare. He took a pass on soc sec and the deficits. The only way to take those on is a bipartisan compromise where both parties have to face the music, and one can't blame the other.

 

[postman]

Maybe you need to change the title: 'There Is No Letter' - Kushner Accusation Based on 'Anonymous' Letter Never Proven To Exist

Your rant has nothing to do with Kushner.

Umm, the entire accusation - the entire article referenced / linked involves Kushner. 'Knit-picking'? Call it what you want .

All I heard was Comey memo and Mueller

 

[danielpalos]

i agree to stand by my original opinion.

You think other presidents have come into office with comparable secret meetings?

sure.

OK. I don't see support for you view. But it's a free country ... for now anyway.

A previous president was, "teflon coated" not "coated with glue".

Reagan skirted towards impeachment, and his apporvals went in the toilet. He was pretty ineffective domestically after 2006. But like I posted, I don't think his 1980 communications with Iran were improper. He and Maggie Thatcher probably talked.

One difference may be that Reagan understood govt. He was an outsider, but an outsider with critical thinking and principled allies, like William Buckley and formerly cold warrior dems like Kilpatrick.

Conversely, the only one in the WH with actual experience is Priebus, who is a toady big firm lawyer and party loyalist. He's not a guy with a vision. Bannon is an outsider who hates the notion of govt.

Reagan came in with two ideas - confront the Soviets on every field, and lessen the power of the fed govt over the states. He'd loved to have ended Medicare, but he knew a loser issue when he saw it. Trump started with one of the two issues guaranteed to keep a majority disapproving of him, healthcare. He took a pass on soc sec and the deficits. The only way to take those on is a bipartisan compromise where both parties have to face the music, and one can't blame the other.

Politics for the "bottom line"?

 

[bendog]

You think other presidents have come into office with comparable secret meetings?

Only Nixon sending Kissinger to Vietnam to derail the paris peace talks, and Ronald Reagan having the Iranians hold onto the hostages until his inauguration.

yes, Nixon committed a similar sin, and LBJ seriously considered going public. But LBJ was not totally convinced, nor did he truly trust Humphrey.

I don't think Reagan really prompted the Iranians to hold onto the hostages till after the election. They really hated Carter.

 

[jc456]

What Is the Washington Post Hiding About Its Jared Kushner Story?

"To date, there has been no independent verification the letter is real or that WaPo’s description of its contents is accurate. The Washington Post editors also never explain why they withheld the letter."


The Washington Post just set the new world's record for FAKE NEWS, filing a FALSE STORY in which they hurl a FALSE Accusation against the Trump Administration (already debunked with the news that Russia, not Kushner, proposed a temporary back communication channel with the Trump administration specifically to deal with the Syria situation) without having any source ('Anonymous') and no actual 'letter' which they claim is the basis for their story.

Such criminal 'journalism' should not be tolerated. The Trump administration should go after them legally, and at any point it is discovered or they admit that the letter does not exist legal action should be taken against the reporter, those running the WP, and the WP itself. They should be made an example of!


The Democrats and their surrogate Propaganda-Pushing media is the source and to blame for the very same Fake News Hillary claimed harmed her in the election. (Hillary claimed the news about her having broken laws was false...only to have Comey testify before Congress not long ago to confirm that she DID break laws with her un-authorized server / e-mail, though. So in HER case, it really WASN'T 'fake news.)

"Another issue testing the credibility of mainstream news organizations is a May 16 New York Times article claiming a memo former FBI Director James Comey wrote revealed President Donald Trump asked him to drop his investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

But The NYTimes never possessed the Comey memo. According to the newspaper, “The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter.”

Freedom of speech is one thing; however, when national media begin intentionally reporting LIES as fact they need to be held legally, judicially accountable!

I asked for a story last week which you can actually prove wrong which the Washington Post released and did not retract....

Trump had 70% falsehoods in the last two years....

And sane person believes the Washington Post over this shower of liars

or not.

 

[jc456]

From something I heard on the Sunday shows, it sounds as if some classified types have actually seen the memos in question. They are real enough.

You shouldn't believe everything Trump tells you, either. You will be embarrassed later.

And YOU shouldn't believe everything snowflakes and the Fake News media tells you.

1. The memos are NOT classified and are open for public viewing, if the FBI would release them - this according to the NY Times. (Read the thread I started on 'There is no letter'.)

2. The NY Times was busted reporting about the specific contents of the letter...and had to admit it had NEVER SEEN OR READ the actual memos.

3. An article I cited in the thread I started states the WaPo refuses to release the letter or their sources names.

Know what call a story reported based on no verifiable source names and no evidence (the letter)?
- Liberal Fake News Propaganda Media BULLSHIT.

No disrespect to you, but I will tell you what I tell every snowflake who claims 'Russia-Trump Collusion':

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

Show me the letter. Without names or at least the letter, we are being asked by a media source that has already been busted in the past for reporting fake news to 'TRUST' them now with this.

Ummm...NO!

Sources: Mueller visits FBI headquarters, briefed on Comey memos - CNNPolitics.com
Two weeks ago, Mueller was briefed on the memos you and Trump are declaring as imaginary.
The fact that the newspaper doesn't give YOU their sources doesn't mean they are unknown to them. They know who they're talking to. Drive you crazy? You bet. But when the administration won't tell the truth, the people will.

well sure they are and why they can't produce any evidence. sorry, fool me once. This is like fool us 100 times and you still bite. you really are a fool.

 

[postman]

I don't think Reagan really prompted the Iranians to hold onto the hostages till after the election. They really hated Carter.

Carters folks negotiated the safe release of the hostages. We all know Reagan later helped the Iranians trade arms for hostages, and buy US military goods they were banned from buying. Which sounds like paying back on a debt.

 

[easyt65]

Carters folks negotiated the safe release of the hostages.

WHAT hostages would those be? Talk about the perfect example of snowflakes attempting to re-write history! Carter didn't negotiate anything. In fact he tried to take the hostages back by FORCE; however, the actual attempted military operation failed almost as badly as Carter's Presidency.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What Is the Washington Post Hiding About Its Jared Kushner Story?

"To date, there has been no independent verification the letter is real or that WaPo’s description of its contents is accurate. The Washington Post editors also never explain why they withheld the letter."


The Washington Post just set the new world's record for FAKE NEWS, filing a FALSE STORY in which they hurl a FALSE Accusation against the Trump Administration (already debunked with the news that Russia, not Kushner, proposed a temporary back communication channel with the Trump administration specifically to deal with the Syria situation) without having any source ('Anonymous') and no actual 'letter' which they claim is the basis for their story.

Such criminal 'journalism' should not be tolerated. The Trump administration should go after them legally, and at any point it is discovered or they admit that the letter does not exist legal action should be taken against the reporter, those running the WP, and the WP itself. They should be made an example of!


The Democrats and their surrogate Propaganda-Pushing media is the source and to blame for the very same Fake News Hillary claimed harmed her in the election. (Hillary claimed the news about her having broken laws was false...only to have Comey testify before Congress not long ago to confirm that she DID break laws with her un-authorized server / e-mail, though. So in HER case, it really WASN'T 'fake news.)

"Another issue testing the credibility of mainstream news organizations is a May 16 New York Times article claiming a memo former FBI Director James Comey wrote revealed President Donald Trump asked him to drop his investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

But The NYTimes never possessed the Comey memo. According to the newspaper, “The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter.”

Freedom of speech is one thing; however, when national media begin intentionally reporting LIES as fact they need to be held legally, judicially accountable!

I asked for a story last week which you can actually prove wrong which the Washington Post released and did not retract....

Trump had 70% falsehoods in the last two years....

And sane person believes the Washington Post over this shower of liars

So in your opinion only 29% of Americans are sane?

U.S. adults trust President Trump’s White House more than the national political media, according to a poll released Friday.

Thirty-seven percent trust the White House versus 29 percent who favor the political media in the Morning Consult survey.

Thirty-four percent are unsure or have no opinion.

Poll: More trust Trump WH than political media

 

[task0778]

This is why the approval ratings for the media approaches or is below that of the Congress. Trump is at 40 or so, right? These days the media isn't anywhere near close to that, in the minds of too many they cannot be trusted and that's sad.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't think Reagan really prompted the Iranians to hold onto the hostages till after the election. They really hated Carter.

Carters folks negotiated the safe release of the hostages. We all know Reagan later helped the Iranians trade arms for hostages, and buy US military goods they were banned from buying. Which sounds like paying back on a debt.

are you implying the right wing, merely supplied the TIP?

 

[postman]

well sure they are and why they can't produce any evidence. sorry, fool me once. This is like fool us 100 times and you still bite. you really are a fool.

Your demand for proof where the source is classified is growing tiresome. I propose that the US nuclear forces are all "fake news", that none of the bombs or warheads still function. And you can't prove they do, because not a single one has been tested for decades. (25 years to be exact)

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-life-expectancy-of-a-modern-unused-nuclear-weapon

Most of the United States' nuclear weapons were designed to last around 20 to 25 years.

Which means all our nukes have expired.

Although there is classified information that they still work, but nobody will be able to post it.

 

[bendog]

I don't think Reagan really prompted the Iranians to hold onto the hostages till after the election. They really hated Carter.

Carters folks negotiated the safe release of the hostages. We all know Reagan later helped the Iranians trade arms for hostages, and buy US military goods they were banned from buying. Which sounds like paying back on a debt.

Reagan traded arms for hostages and cash that was used for the contras .... illegally. But the hostages Reagan traded for were not the Iranian hostages, and the sales weren't made until 1985, five years after the Iranian Hostage Crisis ended. The hostages we traded for were in Lebanon, and Hezbollah had captured ,and for fifteen months, tortured our CIA station chief. The aim was to get Iran to moderate terrorists in Lebanon.

 

[jc456]

I don't think Reagan really prompted the Iranians to hold onto the hostages till after the election. They really hated Carter.

Carters folks negotiated the safe release of the hostages. We all know Reagan later helped the Iranians trade arms for hostages, and buy US military goods they were banned from buying. Which sounds like paying back on a debt.

when you can't win them over with facts, baffle them with bullshit. there you go.

why don't you post up that link bubba.

 

[jc456]

well sure they are and why they can't produce any evidence. sorry, fool me once. This is like fool us 100 times and you still bite. you really are a fool.

Your demand for proof where the source is classified is growing tiresome. I propose that the US nuclear forces are all "fake news", that none of the bombs or warheads still function. And you can't prove they do, because not a single one has been tested for decades. (25 years to be exact)

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-life-expectancy-of-a-modern-unused-nuclear-weapon

Most of the United States' nuclear weapons were designed to last around 20 to 25 years.

Which means all our nukes have expired.

Although there is classified information that they still work, but nobody will be able to post it.

well if it is classified how has the washington toast seen it? please. your ignorance is shining brightly!! stupid fk. you don't even know when you contradict your ownself.

 

[jc456]

What Is the Washington Post Hiding About Its Jared Kushner Story?

"To date, there has been no independent verification the letter is real or that WaPo’s description of its contents is accurate. The Washington Post editors also never explain why they withheld the letter."


The Washington Post just set the new world's record for FAKE NEWS, filing a FALSE STORY in which they hurl a FALSE Accusation against the Trump Administration (already debunked with the news that Russia, not Kushner, proposed a temporary back communication channel with the Trump administration specifically to deal with the Syria situation) without having any source ('Anonymous') and no actual 'letter' which they claim is the basis for their story.

Such criminal 'journalism' should not be tolerated. The Trump administration should go after them legally, and at any point it is discovered or they admit that the letter does not exist legal action should be taken against the reporter, those running the WP, and the WP itself. They should be made an example of!


The Democrats and their surrogate Propaganda-Pushing media is the source and to blame for the very same Fake News Hillary claimed harmed her in the election. (Hillary claimed the news about her having broken laws was false...only to have Comey testify before Congress not long ago to confirm that she DID break laws with her un-authorized server / e-mail, though. So in HER case, it really WASN'T 'fake news.)

"Another issue testing the credibility of mainstream news organizations is a May 16 New York Times article claiming a memo former FBI Director James Comey wrote revealed President Donald Trump asked him to drop his investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

But The NYTimes never possessed the Comey memo. According to the newspaper, “The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter.”

Freedom of speech is one thing; however, when national media begin intentionally reporting LIES as fact they need to be held legally, judicially accountable!

I asked for a story last week which you can actually prove wrong which the Washington Post released and did not retract....

Trump had 70% falsehoods in the last two years....

And sane person believes the Washington Post over this shower of liars

So in your opinion only 29% of Americans are sane?

U.S. adults trust President Trump’s White House more than the national political media, according to a poll released Friday.

Thirty-seven percent trust the White House versus 29 percent who favor the political media in the Morning Consult survey.

Thirty-four percent are unsure or have no opinion.

Poll: More trust Trump WH than political media

as long as he is allowed to determine who is sane. probably. kind of calls him out eh?

 

[bendog]

In theory, it would be illegal for a potus-elect to negotiate a change in some policy, but the reality is there is nothing wrong in a potus-elect suggesting our policy might be influenced by another country taking some action. Postman is correct that it would be very wrong for a candidate - like Reagan - to get a foreign power to take some action that would help him and hurt another candidate, and it would be very very wrong, and probably impeachable, if any laws were broken - like illegal arms sales or computer hacking - in connection.

And Nixon not only violated law in getting SOUTH Vietnam to torpedo LBJ's peace negotiations but if there is a god and justice, he's currently undergoing punishment for the millions he may have caused to die so that he could win an election.

If it comes to light that Trump was subject to influence by Russia because of his finances, and it probably will, it will be embarrassing. But unless witnesses will testify "yah, he said get him elected and you can have Ukraine and no sanctions" this is really much ado about not so much. Unless, you happen to be appalled that America would elect anyone whom the Russians had anything on.

 

[jc456]

In theory, it would be illegal for a potus-elect to negotiate a change in some policy, but the reality is there is nothing wrong in a potus-elect suggesting our policy might be influenced by another country taking some action. Postman is correct that it would be very wrong for a candidate - like Reagan - to get a foreign power to take some action that would help him and hurt another candidate, and it would be very very wrong, and probably impeachable, if any laws were broken - like illegal arms sales or computer hacking - in connection.

And Nixon not only violated law in getting SOUTH Vietnam to torpedo LBJ's peace negotiations but if there is a god and justice, he's currently undergoing punishment for the millions he may have caused to die so that he could win an election.

If it comes to light that Trump was subject to influence by Russia because of his finances, and it probably will, it will be embarrassing. But unless witnesses will testify "yah, he said get him elected and you can have Ukraine and no sanctions" this is really much ado about not so much. Unless, you happen to be appalled that America would elect anyone whom the Russians had anything on.

Potus elect can do whatever they want. and you might wake up one day normal. but highly unlikely.

 

[bendog]

In theory, it would be illegal for a potus-elect to negotiate a change in some policy, but the reality is there is nothing wrong in a potus-elect suggesting our policy might be influenced by another country taking some action. Postman is correct that it would be very wrong for a candidate - like Reagan - to get a foreign power to take some action that would help him and hurt another candidate, and it would be very very wrong, and probably impeachable, if any laws were broken - like illegal arms sales or computer hacking - in connection.

And Nixon not only violated law in getting SOUTH Vietnam to torpedo LBJ's peace negotiations but if there is a god and justice, he's currently undergoing punishment for the millions he may have caused to die so that he could win an election.

If it comes to light that Trump was subject to influence by Russia because of his finances, and it probably will, it will be embarrassing. But unless witnesses will testify "yah, he said get him elected and you can have Ukraine and no sanctions" this is really much ado about not so much. Unless, you happen to be appalled that America would elect anyone whom the Russians had anything on.

Potus elect can do whatever they want. and you might wake up one day normal. but highly unlikely.

That's what I posted numbnut

 

[jc456]

In theory, it would be illegal for a potus-elect to negotiate a change in some policy, but the reality is there is nothing wrong in a potus-elect suggesting our policy might be influenced by another country taking some action. Postman is correct that it would be very wrong for a candidate - like Reagan - to get a foreign power to take some action that would help him and hurt another candidate, and it would be very very wrong, and probably impeachable, if any laws were broken - like illegal arms sales or computer hacking - in connection.

And Nixon not only violated law in getting SOUTH Vietnam to torpedo LBJ's peace negotiations but if there is a god and justice, he's currently undergoing punishment for the millions he may have caused to die so that he could win an election.

If it comes to light that Trump was subject to influence by Russia because of his finances, and it probably will, it will be embarrassing. But unless witnesses will testify "yah, he said get him elected and you can have Ukraine and no sanctions" this is really much ado about not so much. Unless, you happen to be appalled that America would elect anyone whom the Russians had anything on.

Potus elect can do whatever they want. and you might wake up one day normal. but highly unlikely.

That's what I posted numbnut

and?