Jared Kushner

[Airbrush]

Has anyone ever heard the sound of Jarod Kushner's voice?

 

He is probably the most senior advisor to Trump, as son-in-law. And his voice has never been heard in the media, unless you go searching the internet for him saying anything and I did find him speaking in 2015 at "MAS 2015 - Growing the Innovation Economy" on Youtube. Listen to him, does he sound boring or what?

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jared+kushner+voice&&view=detail&mid=129FACF5053C23545A2F129FACF5053C23545A2F&rvsmid=E2FF558C74940DAC9DE7E2FF558C74940DAC9DE7&fsscr=0&FORM=VDRVRV

 

Why does he always avoid being heard? It makes him look sneaky. And now the possibility of him trying to set up a back channel with Moscow? But don't forget that if it was NOT for the back channel between JF Kennedy and Khrushchev the Cuban Missile Crisis may have accelerated to WWIII. So it's not so bad right?

 

What else do we need to know about Kushner? Trump obviously sees himself in Jarod since they have similar upbringings, they both inherited real estate empires. And Kushner is married to Trump's favorite daughter-wife, Ivanka, whom Trump joked about on Wendy Williams in 2013 as having sex in common with his daughter. When Ivanka heard him say it she responded by laughing, not shock or indignation! That is very telling.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/video/donald-trump-once-joked-he-and-ivanka-have-sex-in-common/vp-AAjrMXI

Edited May 29, 2017 by Airbrush

[KipIngram]

The 1960's "hot line" wasn't a secret, was it? I was just a baby at the time, but I always thought of it as something everyone (public included) knew about the existence of but just not the "content" of.

I always thought of the hot line as a good thing - the idea of leaders being able to "just talk" to each other without having to posture, and all that. But then on the other hand I never felt that Kennedy would have used it to collude with the Kremlin, and that's what people are worried about right now. In that context it's hard to think of it quite in the same way.

[swansont]

Is a connection from one head of state to another a back channel?

 

Also, private citizens trying to intervene in disputes involving a foreign government violates the Logan act.

 

Further, it's Jared.

[Phi for All]

The 1960's "hot line" wasn't a secret, was it? I was just a baby at the time, but I always thought of it as something everyone (public included) knew about the existence of but just not the "content" of.

I always thought of the hot line as a good thing - the idea of leaders being able to "just talk" to each other without having to posture, and all that. But then on the other hand I never felt that Kennedy would have used it to collude with the Kremlin, and that's what people are worried about right now. In that context it's hard to think of it quite in the same way.

 

As I understand the problem, because Kushner was seeking a setup from the Russian end using their systems, there was no guarantee any of the communications would be monitored on the US side. He was willing to rely totally on Russian security for a pipeline directly to the Oval Office.

 

At least with all the backchannel methods we've heard about recently, we have classified records of what transpired (many of Kennedy's communications with Russia and Cuba have been declassified). This is just sneaky sneakiness from lying liars.

[Airbrush]

I watch many hours of cable news everyday and have heard in the news from the White House many times that Jarod Kushner is ready and willing to testify about his issues with Russia. Great! When and with whom? This is from a guy who is very, very careful to not allow his voice to be heard by the public. All the public gets is seeing his pretty baby face smiling in every political meeting of significance. Like some kind of sneaky antichrist in training, Trump's loyal apprentice or "senior advisor"?

Edited May 30, 2017 by Airbrush

[iNow]

Jared

[KipIngram]

Maybe he just has a terrible voice or something.

[Airbrush]

Jared, not Jarod. Thanks.

 

He is "senior advisor" to Trump in the manner as helper to a very needy senior citizen. Grandpa appreciates help with the new technology. But both of them wonder how the hell to make the White House functional?

Edited May 31, 2017 by Airbrush

[Airbrush]

Maybe he just has a terrible voice or something.

 

You can listen to Jared on the YouTube below. He starts speaking at about 2:50 into the video and speaks for about 3 minutes.

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jared+kushner+voice&&view=detail&mid=129FACF5053C23545A2F129FACF5053C23545A2F&rvsmid=E2FF558C74940DAC9DE7E2FF558C74940DAC9DE7&fsscr=0&FORM=VDRVRV

 

He has a mellow, soft-spoken, articulate speaking style. He speaks fast, but he is talking real estate, his main work experience, not domestic and global politics.

 

Below is from Wikipedia. Just before he entered Harvard, his dad donated $2.5 million to the university.

 

"Jared Kushner graduated from.... high school in 1999. According to a spokeswoman for Kushner Companies, he was an honors student and a member of the debate, hockey, and basketball teams.^[11] Former school officials described him as a less than stellar student.^[12] In 1998 [his father Charles Kushner] pledged $2.5 million to Harvard University.^[13].....Kushner matriculated at Harvard College in 1999......and graduated from Harvard in 2003 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Kushner

Edited May 31, 2017 by Airbrush

[Ken Fabian]

A back channel to another nation's leaders is okay, even a good thing for a President to have. A back channel established without the knowledge and cooperation of Intelligence services is not.

[KipIngram]

A back channel to another nation's leaders is okay, even a good thing for a President to have. A back channel established without the knowledge and cooperation of Intelligence services is not.

 

Yes - that. That would be the difference between this and the 1960's hotline.

[swansont]

A back channel to another nation's leaders is okay, even a good thing for a President to have. A back channel established without the knowledge and cooperation of Intelligence services is not.

Kushner is not president.

 

How can a direct line between heads of state be a back channel?

[Ken Fabian]

Kushner is not president.

 

How can a direct line between heads of state be a back channel?

 

Kushner would not be establishing it for his own personal use, surely. If it's an unofficial, unacknowledged line - whether direct between heads of state or between their staff on their behalf - that is outside the knowledge or scrutiny of the Intelligence agencies it could be called a "back channel". If they aren't involved how would anyone be confident that it is secure? Perhaps it's more correctly called a communications security breach?

[swansont]

 

Kushner would not be establishing it for his own personal use, surely.

 

 

And you know this how? What actions of this administration lead you to this certainty?

[Manticore]

Shouldn't it be spelled 'Jarhead'.

[swansont]

Shouldn't it be spelled 'Jarhead'.

That's an insult to the many marines who faithfully serve their country.

[Phi for All]

I'd really like to stick to what we know and rise above mere name-calling and insults. I don't like this administration one bit, but I sure don't need any more bias related to it.

 

I found this Politico article very revealing. Kushner's father went to jail for campaign improprieties. The stage has been set.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/25/jared-kushner-russia-fbi-donald-trump-215191

[Manticore]

That's an insult to the many marines who faithfully serve their country.

 

Never heard that one before - I was thinking in terms of Jughead in the Archie comics.

[Ken Fabian]

And you know this how? What actions of this administration lead you to this certainty?

It just seems unlikely that Kushner would attempt this without Presidential knowledge or direction, or do so for purposes other than the White House's purposes. It may be Kushner's mistake or Trump's mistake but, if it's outside the knowledge and cooperation of US Intelligence Community I have trouble seeing such a communications channel as anything but a mistake - an error of judgement at best and possibly a breach of communications security requirements for White House staff.

 

But I agree that independent investigation for establishing the facts seems warranted.

[iNow]

Your personal incredulity is irrelevant

Edited June 2, 2017 by iNow

[KipIngram]

Your personal incredulity is irrelevant

 

So's your personal credulity. None of us at in the loop on this aside from media-crafted message. That's why there's official investigation underway, right?

[iNow]

Not sure what point you're trying to make. I'm not here putting forth an argument one way or the other.

Unlike Ken, who was doing so based on... what? Oh yeah, personal incredulity.

 

Kushner would not be establishing it for his own personal use, surely.

seems unlikely that Kushner would attempt this without Presidential knowledge or direction, or do so for purposes other than the White House's purposes. (...) I have trouble seeing such a communications channel as anything but a mistake - an error of judgement at best

See also: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Incredulity

[Ken Fabian]

Not sure what point you're trying to make. I'm not here putting forth an argument one way or the other. Unlike Ken, who was doing so based on... what? Oh yeah, personal incredulity. See also: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Incredulity

I think my incredulity is reasonable - assuming the activities of White House staff is on behalf of the President doesn't seem like an unreasonable working assumption. Yet I am not sure the sentence you are objecting to - or the one Swansont did - implied clear certainty on my part, rather, it reflects that working assumption. Sounds like you don't appreciate the rhetorical style of my comment? You could try addressing the real content, that establishing a means of covert communications - covert from the POV of the US Intelligence Community - with a foreign government that has a long and distinguished history of hostility to the USA appears to have been attempted and that it looks to me (but what do I know?) like potential breach of White House communications security protocols. The President may well have the necessary authority to do that; I'm not sure that Kushner would have.

[KipIngram]

Ken, I think there has been enough stuff implying that Trump has business ties to Russia to make kicking the tires here a worthwhile thing to do. Contrast that to the 1960's hotline Kennedy had; first of all, it was known about by other parts of the government, and second there were NO signs that Kennedy had any "leanings" toward "cozying up" to Russia.

 

Trump is different - it's undeniable that has ways of personally benefitting from working with Russia in inappropriate ways, and such a thing is too important to ignore. I don't really want to think that he's crossed that line, but a "hidden channel" to Russia is concerning enough to investigate, in my opinion. Hopefully the investigation will reveal nothing, but even that won't alleviate everyone's concerns, given that he has so much of the government on his side right now. I figure if he gets impeached it will be almost certain that he deserved it, whereas if he doesn't we still won't know for sure. We'll just have to hope.

[StringJunky]

... I figure if he gets impeached it will be almost certain that he deserved it, whereas if he doesn't we still won't know for sure. We'll just have to hope.

I think, given the amount of smoke, there's a fire somewhere... or a few.