Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, why not post evidence for your claims so that we don't have to guess what you are referring to and can have a conversation?
Aside from that, you asked if Donald Trumphas a backchannel.
I answered and said that he didn't need one. Being elected is not being President. He is now President. Thus, he does not require one. He has all of the communication privacy and privilege that he could ever want or need built into the office that he currently holds.
So, no, my point is not mute.
What’s funny is I know that it’s moot, but for some reason I still typed ‘mute.’ Thank you for the correction. That said, I did post the links, review for yourself.
Evidently he doesn’t have all the communication privacy and privilege he needs if the contents of his conversations with Putin, via phone calls, are leaked. Trump has proven that he doesn’t trust even his own American officials by meeting alone with Putin and therefore it wouldnt be surprising if the two communicate outside of established channels.
Absolutely, I more than understand that but I am asking if it’s possible that Trump and Putin/Russia are, somehow, communicating outside of established diplomatic and secure channels?
He can communicate however he likes, with anyone in the world. It is his prerogative.
Why don't you take a step toward clarity for one brief moment in this thread?
Ask what you are actually trying to ask, which is if Trump is communicating in a manner that might allow communication that can not be clandestinely monitored by Intelligence personnel.
That's what I believe that you are trying to ask.
Either that or you are trying to ask if he is communicating in a manner that is unencrypted and thus would allow anyone else to listen.
Those are literally the only two plausible reasons for caring how the president communicates with other heads of State.
For the first, they do not have legal authority to listen unless authorized.
For the second, the answer is no. There would be no reason to create unsecured communication for other spies to listen to.
He can communicate however he likes, with anyone in the world. It is his prerogative.
Why don't you take a step toward clarity for one brief moment in this thread?
Ask what you are actually trying to ask, which is if Trump is communicating in a manner that might allow communication that can not be clandestinely monitored by Intelligence personnel.
That's what I believe that you are trying to ask.
Either that or you are trying to ask if he is communicating in a manner that is unencrypted and thus would allow anyone else to listen.
Those are literally the only two plausible reasons for caring how the president communicates with other heads of State.
For the first, they do not have legal authority to listen unless authorized.
For the second, the answer is no. There would be no reason to create unsecured communication for other spies to listen to.
Genuine curiosity here, but does having a ‘back channel’ somehow suggest that it cannot exist through an intermediary? I never thought Trump, or any President for that matter, cannot send information via another person? Simply, I am asking if Putin and Trump are potentially using a back channel to communicate for any reason for he doesn’t trust either technology (as documented, he’s said in the past that he doesn’t trust email and would rather send information by paper to avoid information landing the wrong hands or being hacked) nor the operators of his phones.
Absolutely, I more than understand that but I am asking if it’s possible that Trump and Putin/Russia are, somehow, communicating outside of established diplomatic and secure channels?
It's possible that Maxi is in her basement gathering her few Antifa followers together to instruct them on what the next step in attacking innocent Americans is.
What’s funny is I know that it’s moot, but for some reason I still typed ‘mute.’ Thank you for the correction. That said, I did post the links, review for yourself.
Evidently he doesn’t have all the communication privacy and privilege he needs if the contents of his conversations with Putin, via phone calls, are leaked. Trump has proven that he doesn’t trust even his own American officials by meeting alone with Putin and therefore it wouldnt be surprising if the two communicate outside of established channels.
No, post the links for the other supposed back-channel attempts that you cited.
Is this what you are referring to in the link that you posted above? I really hate doing all of your work for you in this thread.
Quote:
Ned Price, a former CIA analyst and Obama administration national security advisor, said that the leak was just one problem, and that the call itself was concerning. He cited the fact that the president reportedly made the call from the White House residential quarters rather than the Oval Office, where more advisors can be on hand; that Trump's preparation with national security advisor H.R. McMaster was apparently done over the phone; and that the written material consisted of handwritten notecards.
Please make your points with clear references, if you are referencing events. What you want to do is summarize the pertinent content in your own words.
First, what an Obama admin CIA analyst says is meaningless and should be considered to be a political tactic. He's a concern troll and nothing more.
Two, I'd hardly call a WH phone a "back channel".
Three, it sounds like a complaint that Intelligence personnel, aka: Deep State personnel, were left out of being able to influence the content of the President's call. Gee, who would have thought that people from such a Trump hostile institution would be left out of a diplomatic call? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Though, note that this is nothing more than a woman's whine. It has zero impact and in fact should be looked upon with great suspicion by the electorate. As it is essentially a complaint that they were left out of being able to un-democratically affect international diplomacy.
As they did with the Helsinki meeting, they are trying to influence and control international affairs. They are not elected officials. They are not the government. They need to be tools for he President's policies and diplomacy, at the President's discretion, and nothing more.
If "back channel" means avoiding them, then the phrase has lost all meaning. The President has diplomatic prerogative, like it or not.
Genuine curiosity here, but does having a ‘back channel’ somehow suggest that it cannot exist through an intermediary?
"Back channel" implies a clandestine channel. As I before stated, Trump has no need because he can make all communication both private and classified if he wishes. Any "backchannel" would be inherently less secure for him, even for the discussion any possible "back channel" topics.
Quote:
Simply, I am asking if Putin and Trump are potentially using a back channel to communicate for any reason for he doesn’t trust either technology (as documented, he’s said in the past that he doesn’t trust email and would rather send information by paper to avoid information landing the wrong hands or being hacked) nor the operators of his phones.
So, what you are asking isn't if he has a back channel. What you are trying to ask is if he may communicate via an alternate channel (alternate communication method).
I highly doubt it. But that would be impossible for anyone to state conclusively. Any discussion here would be pure conjecture.
"Back channel" implies a clandestine channel. As I before stated, Trump has no need because he can make all communication both private and classified if he wishes. Any "backchannel" would be inherently less secure for him, even for the discussion any possible "back channel" topics.
So, what you are asking isn't if he has a back channel. What you are trying to ask is if he may communicate via an alternate channel (alternate communication method).
I highly doubt it. But that would be impossible for anyone to state conclusively. Any discussion here would be pure conjecture.
There ya go! This what I am trying to ask, I just didn’t know how to phrase it. Is there a possibility that an alternate channel may exist between the two? And no, I’m not asking that exclusively for my beliefs of the Trump-Russia allegations but rather to discuss things such as Syria, China, Et.
I see why everyone was saying a back channel wouldn’t be needed for it’s already established and therefore I apologize for the confusion, but I am considering the fact that things leak, if it is possible if they’re talking outside of established channels.
Oh really? So it's okay to conduct government business, in private, with no one present and no recording or transcripts of the conversation, all the while trashing our allies while embracing our enemies?
I realize the cult will find no fault in anything your Dear Leader does, but the fact remains that the man could very well be committing treason and no one would know, which is precisely why people are very concerned about potential traitorous behavior.
It will end badly, for Trump. Guaranteed.
No fan of Trump, but I would say it’s OK to discuss government business in private without other government officials. The problem at hand is that he isn’t event attempting to remedy our concerns anymore. If I were Trump supporter, I would still think the optics of meeting alone while under investigation for coordinating with a foreign power isn’t the best move.
He could so easily kill our concerns:
•Release tax forms (he said no one but journalists care to see them)
•Have a consistent message on Russia (today, he again suggested Russia inference is a hoax)
•Address the nation from the Oval Office on Russia
•He should’ve implemented the sanctions on time and not grudgingly and behind closed doors
Though I don’t agree with Lindsey Graham on anything, he did say something spot on if Trump isn’t guilty:
I think the president gets this confused, if you suggest that Russians meddled in 2016, he goes to the idea that, well, I didn’t collude with them.
Of course they use “back channels” to communicate. Every leader in every major country does. To think otherwise is foolish. That doesn’t necessarily mean there is controversy going on. Just read the book about the Cuban Missle Crisis by Kennedy’s brother. It’s an interesting book and they are very open about the “back channels” used to talk with the Kremlin at that time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To put it bluntly.
