Back-channel Communications: The Common Threads between The Trump Four

[Objective Voice]

The more information that comes out of Mueller probe on Russian meddling and/or collusion in the 2016 presidential election, the more Pres. Trump and members from his Administration try to convince the American citizens that no one from his campaign actively colluded with Russian government officials. He's used various excuses from "it's just businessmen doing regular business" to "what's wrong with heads-of-state talking to one another" to "I don't know Putin...never met him (when, in fact, he does know him and has meet him long before running for office) to "I don't have any real estate/business deals in Russia" which may be true but what he's failed to acknowledge is that he (and his son, DTJr working on his behalf) has tried to negotiate a real estate deal in Russia just prior to the 2016 election, but the deal didn't come to fruition.

So, what we have is constant deflection on his part, as well as, a few loyalists from within his Administration providing him cover. Here's the point of this thread, however...

Each time Trump says "there's no evidence of collusion by anyone in my campaign" he's lying through his teeth. What he's trying to convince the public of is that people who were involved in his campaign, i.e., Carter Paige and G-Pop, were minor players and not that deeply involved in his campaign efforts. But take a closer look at each person from Trump's campaign who has gotten caught-up in Mueller snare and you'll discover Page and G-Pop weren't such minor players after all.

Ask yourself: What does Carter Paige, George Papodopolous, Michael Flynn and Jeff Sessions all have in common as far as their positions on the Trump campaign staff?

The answer: They all worked in national security in some capacity or another.

Each and every one of these individuals have lied about their contact with Russian officials. Moreover, once the truth of their associations became known we've discovered that there has been one of three common threads among their meetings. It's either been:

a) discussions involving lifting of economic sanctions
b) discussion involving NATO policy
c) some attempt at a back-channel secret communications effort

The line we're being fed here is akin to Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monika Lewinski" and "it depends on what your definition of 'IS' is...".

So, when Trump (and Sarah Huckabutt-Sanders or Kelly-Ann Cry-Me-A-Scathing-River) tells you "no collusion between Russia and my campaign", think about the connections mentioned above, the reasons behind their lies and then ask yourself why would low-level players like Paige and G-Pop be sitting in on a National Security meeting with the likes of Jeff Sessions (and Michael Flynn) if they meant very little to nothing to Trump's campaign?

Very simple questions with answers that may have BIG implications not just for the Trump Four who have been caught lying to the FBI about their Russian contacts, but how their low-key positions within Trump's campaign may have allowed them to fly under the radar to have to "back-channel discussions" mentioned above.

Think about it...

Sidenote: Modes, feel free to move this to the Conspiracy Theory thread if it is deemed worthy of such.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The more information that comes out of Mueller probe on Russian meddling and/or collusion in the 2016 presidential election, the more Pres. Trump and members from his Administration try to convince the American citizens that no one from his campaign actively colluded with Russian government officials. He's used various excuses from "it's just businessmen doing regular business" to "what's wrong with heads-of-state talking to one another" to "I don't know Putin...never met him (when, in fact, he does know him and has meet him long before running for office) to "I don't have any real estate/business deals in Russia" which may be true but what he's failed to acknowledge is that he (and his son, DTJr working on his behalf) has tried to negotiate a real estate deal in Russia just prior to the 2016 election, but the deal didn't come to fruition.

So, what we have is constant deflection on his part, as well as, a few loyalists from within his Administration providing him cover. Here's the point of this thread, however...

Each time Trump says "there's no evidence of collusion by anyone in my campaign" he's lying through his teeth. What he's trying to convince the public of is that people who were involved in his campaign, i.e., Carter Paige and G-Pop, were minor players and not that deeply involved in his campaign efforts. But take a closer look at each person from Trump's campaign who has gotten caught-up in Mueller snare and you'll discover Page and G-Pop weren't such minor players after all.

Ask yourself: What does Carter Paige, George Papodopolous, Michael Flynn and Jeff Sessions all have in common as far as their positions on the Trump campaign staff?

The answer: They all worked in national security in some capacity or another.

Each and every one of these individuals have lied about their contact with Russian officials. Moreover, once the truth of their associations became known we've discovered that there has been one of three common threads among their meetings. It's either been:

a) discussions involving lifting of economic sanctions
b) discussion involving NATO policy
c) some attempt at a back-channel secret communications effort.

IMO this is just conspiracy theory using basic "guilt by association" thinking.

1. Sessions had numerous contacts with public officials and diplomats from all sorts of foreign nations during his tenure as Senator. His alleged "secret meeting" with the Russian Ambassador during a 2016 campaign event is evidence of nothing.

2. Creating "backchannels" is nothing new, and is especially pertinent when trying to establish communication lines with nations we are publicly at odds with so as to discuss issues and try to resolve conflicts without creating a public furor.

3. Handling sanctions and NATO policy are the purview of the Chief Executive, and they will usually be a part of any high level discussion with both allies and enemies. Allies, as we've seen by one example of many issues that can be discussed was to try to beef up their share of the load. Enemies, as we are seeing, to try to either reduce tensions or apply pressure for some specific American goals.

You are splicing all these things together, things several past Administrations have done with little or no outrage from anyone, in an ongoing effort to try to prove THIS President is a Russia stooge at best, or a traitor at worst.

IMO this is just another example of the lengths some people will go to prove they were gypped during the 2016 election. To try for impeachment if not an outright "reset" of that election.

 

[Objective Voice]

IMO this is just conspiracy theory using basic "guilt by association" thinking.

1. Sessions had numerous contacts with public officials and diplomats from all sorts of foreign nations during his tenure as Senator. His alleged "secret meeting" with the Russian Ambassador during a 2016 campaign event is evidence of nothing.

2. Creating "backchannels" is nothing new, and is especially pertinent when trying to establish communication lines with nations we are publicly at odds with so as to discuss issues and try to resolve conflicts without creating a public furor.

3. Handling sanctions and NATO policy are the purview of the Chief Executive, and they will usually be a part of any high level discussion with both allies and enemies. Allies, as we've seen by one example of many issues that can be discussed was to try to beef up their share of the load. Enemies, as we are seeing, to try to either reduce tensions or apply pressure for some specific American goals.

You are splicing all these things together, things several past Administrations have done with little or no outrage from anyone, in an ongoing effort to try to prove THIS President is a Russia stooge at best, or a traitor at worst.

IMO this is just another example of the lengths some people will go to prove they were gypped during the 2016 election. To try for impeachment if not an outright "reset" of that election.

Ah, but the key word or phrase here is "Administration". Past Presidents and/or members of a President's Cabinet have held the types of meetings and/or attempted to carry out diplomacy as members of said President's Administration, not before the candidate him or herself becomes president-elect. That's the key part you're glossing over.

Now, you discount AG Sessions meeting with a Russian official an as a Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee or the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I'd certainly give him a pass. However, if he was meeting this Russian official in such capacity, why didn't he just say so during Senate hearings? After all, he had at least two opportunities to make that clear. Why didn't he?

Again, back-channel communications isn't anything new...for current or incoming Administrations, but as I stated above this was going on before Trump even became president-elect. Moreover, no one's arguing that the POTUS can't negotiate treaty deals or handle sanctions as part of his executive authority. He certainly has the enumerated power to do that. Hence, the reason NATO nor treaty negotiations weren't part of my discussion points in the OP. So, let's not deflect. There's no splicing on my part. It's merely seeing things as they're outlined, connecting the dots since the breadcrumbs are already out there and asking the unasked questions.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Ah, but the key word or phrase here is "Administration". Past Presidents and/or members of a President's Cabinet have held the types of meetings and/or attempted to carry out diplomacy as members of said President's Administration, not before the candidate him or herself becomes president-elect. That's the key part you're glossing over.

How do you know this is true? Do you have some insider information on all the goings on of all past Administrations?

You are using the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because you believe something is true and other's agree with you, does not make it true.

IMO back-channeling goes on all the time, not only among elected officials, but corporations, special interest groups, and who knows who.

IMO it is more likely than not past leading candidates have contacted all sorts of foreign governments via back-channeling in order to feel them out, set up expectations, and discuss possible agenda items "if" they win.

I have no way to prove they have, and you don't have any proof they haven't. Although we do have that now famous Obama whisper with the Russia rep about how much more "flexibility" he will have after re-election.

IMO the only reason this issue came to light is because people were seeking things to make issue of with Trump's election.

 

[Objective Voice]

How do you know this is true? Do you have some insider information on all the goings on of all past Administrations?

You are using the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because you believe something is true and other's agree with you, does not make it true.

IMO back-channeling goes on all the time, not only among elected officials, but corporations, special interest groups, and who knows who.

IMO it is more likely than not past leading candidates have contacted all sorts of foreign governments via back-channeling in order to feel them out, set up expectations, and discuss possible agenda items "if" they win.

I have no way to prove they have, and you don't have any proof they haven't. Although we do have that now famous Obama whisper with the Russia rep about how much more "flexibility" he will have after re-election.

IMO the only reason this issue came to light is because people were seeking things to make issue of with Trump's election.

First off, let me direct your attention to this article from Slate.com which articulates my stated position that it's highly unusual and uncommon (not the least bit uncustomary if not unlawful) for certain government officials and/or members of the President's Cabinet to coordinate back-channel communications with foreign officials prior to the candidate for the presidency to become president-elect. The article makes clear the prior POTUS' going back to at least Reagan didn't coordinate back-channel communications in ways that drew undue attention to themselves or called into question their ethics or lawfulness with themselves or members from their campaign OR members on their short-list for their Cabinet. More to the point, they waited until after the election and coordinated these back-channel communications during the transition period between the election (thus, once the candidate became the president-elect) and Inauguration Day. So, my question still remains: Why were people from Trump's campaign attempting to establish back-channel communications with Russian officials prior to Trump becoming president-elect?

Of all the members the public is aware of who could have held talks with Russian officials and gotten away with it either in their capacity as a duly elected member of Congress or as an appointed member of Trump's transition team/Cabinet member not requiring Senate confirmation, Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn are the only two who come to mind. But as we now know both had very questionable contact with Russian officials where they either lied about having said contact OR they got caught holding discussions with said foreign official on topics they shouldn't have been discussing. My point here is the Trump campaign has established a pattern of behavior where attempts at establishing back-channel communication is concerned.

* Jared Kushner
* Paul Manafort
* Jeff Sessions (via impromptu conference and office meetings)
* Michael Flynn (via telephone conversations)
* Carter Paige
* George Papadalous
* Donald Trump, Jr.

Each one of these individuals have been caught having failed to disclose their attempts to hold discussions with Russian officials whether it was an attempt at some back-channel communications or some "chance" dialog in a bar or via some telephone conversation and except for Michael Flynn, they all were held before Trump became president-elect.

Now, you're right Captain Adverse, I can't prove that any POTUS before Trump didn't do it, too. Hell, Reagan allegedly held (or attempted to hold) back channel communications with Iran over the Iranian Hostage Crisis. So, yes it apparently happens, but the difference here is according to historical accounts Reagan did this while he was president-elect not while he was out campaigning. That's the difference here.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Now, you're right Captain Adverse, I can't prove that any POTUS before Trump didn't do it, too. Hell, Reagan allegedly held (or attempted to hold) back channel communications with Iran over the Iranian Hostage Crisis. So, yes it apparently happens, but the difference here is according to historical accounts Reagan did this while he was president-elect not while he was out campaigning. That's the difference here.

According to "historical accounts" is an appeal to authority, and a weak one which does not address my response at all.

What we see in "historical accounts" is a mere fraction of all the simultaneous goings on occurring at any point in history. There are all sorts of things occurring at any one time that will NEVER make the pages of "historical accounts." Common sense would argue that it is more likely than not political candidates through American and world history have established back-channels that we will never hear about for all sorts of reasons.

Your own article points out that Michael Flynn made contact with Kislyak AFTER Trump was elected, but before he was sworn into office. It then admits prior candidates have done similarly, but then claims that none did so to "undermine" a seated President.

Well how would they know this for certain?

Moreover, your citation state's that Flynn's call was made on 12/29/16, just 17 days before Trump would be sworn in. Meanwhile Obama...the lame-duck President...had instigated sanctions that Trump the President-Elect would have to deal with. Why shouldn't Trump open a "back-channel" to let the Russian's know he was NOT Obama, and his policies on sanctions would be different?

How the devil can that be considered "colluding?" How is that not reasonable diplomacy for an incoming President who has to deal with the issue over the next four years?

As to lying to the FBI investigators? Back-channels by their very nature are classified at some level, otherwise they would not be "back"-channels. Those who are asked would not assume anyone would have knowledge of them, and would not "plead the fifth" in any case to alert someone to the activity. Flynn probably thought the agent's had no "need to know" and simply denied it for that reason. That's my opinion anyway. :shrug:

Only people who automatically assume the worst would consider efforts to create back-channels either unusual or inherently reprehensible.

 

[Objective Voice]

Considering we only have historical records to help inform us of actions and/or conduct of previous Presidents, I'll lean on historical authority to help weed through Pres. Trump's ethical and/or illegal practices, as well as those of members of his campaign/Cabinet.

It's interesting that even after I gave Michael Flynn a pass (re: "Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn are the only two who could have held talks with Russian officials and gotten away with it either in their capacity as a duly elected member of Congress or as an appointed member of Trump's transition team/Cabinet"), you still found it necessary to bring the discussion back around to him. I can understand why, however. It's because as I've already pointed out, his contact with a Russian official (via the now infamous phone call over Obama-era Russian sanctions) took place after Trump became president-elect. In short, it fits your narrative that Flynn at least tried to follow historical norms. That said, I posted a list that included 6 other members of Trump's campaign (directly or indirectly associated) all of whom didn't play by the norms. Interestingly enough, you didn't mention any of them (except for Jeff Session whom you eluded to in a previous post).

So, let me be clear: I don't have a problem with members of the president-elect's transition team having contact with foreign officials. They should have such communications as necessary to affect a smooth transition between the out-going Administration and the incoming Administration. That's normal and it is to be expected. What I have a problem with is members of a candidate's campaign attempting to make "back-channel" contact with foreign officials before the candidate becomes president-elect. You said it yourself in post #4:

...back-channeling goes on all the time, not only among elected officials, but corporations, special interest groups...

So, why were all these non-elected officials who were directly or indirectly part of Trump's campaign having or attempting to have all these back-channel contacts before Trump became president-elect? This signifies to me (as it should to anyone else) that there's something shady going on and not "normal business dealings" or typical conduct of a domestic campaign. The mere fact that you had so many members of Trump's campaign who suddenly forgot to mention or list their contacts with Russian officials should also be a red-flag to anyone that something's not quite right here.