'Back channels' are protocol for a president -- but not for a president-elect

[DonViejo]

By David Ignatius May 29 at 12:10 PM

“Back channels” have been used by every modern president, from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama. If that’s so, what’s the problem with the pre-inauguration contacts between White House adviser Jared Kushner and two Russian intermediaries?

It’s a fair question. But that doesn’t mean that the right answer is a reflexive approval of Kushner’s contacts, as offered Sunday by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, who said of such offline communication: “It’s both normal, in my opinion, and acceptable.”

The devil here, as in most things, is in the details. Most analysts agree that it’s appropriate for presidents and their senior aides to use secret contacts to advance U.S. foreign policy goals. And it’s fairly routine for incoming administrations to have get-acquainted talks with foreign governments, too. Such back channels can add stability and predictability in foreign relations.

What’s not okay is when an incoming administration seeks to undermine the policies of the incumbent. We have “one president at a time.” That’s not just a political truism but a matter of law, enunciated back in 1799 in the Logan Act, which prohibits private meddling with official policy during a dispute. The fact that this statute has never been enforced criminally doesn’t blunt its importance. And it’s not okay, either, for any citizen, even the son-in-law of the president-elect, to propose contacts that would use the communications tools of a foreign intelligence service to evade detection. As Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday: “You have to ask, well, who are they hiding the conversation from?”

The secret Kushner contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Kremlin-friendly banker Sergey Gorkov raise similar questions to Michael Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak. Flynn resigned as national security adviser in February after it was revealed that he had misled Vice President Pence and the public about whether, in a Dec. 29 conversation with Kislyak, he discussed easing anti-Russia sanctions after Trump’s inauguration.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/05/29/back-channels-are-protocol-for-a-president-but-not-for-a-president-elect/

[Me.]

1. Pence Wasn't Misled About Anything

In it up to his neck

[pansypoo53219]

2. When was jared elected?

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

3. Talk about missing the point . . .

This is so fatuous that one must question whether it is intentional.

The POINT of this so-called "back channel" was that Kushner was seeking to take advantage of a secure Russian communications network so that Trump & Co. could communicate with Russian officials without U.S. intelligence officials being aware of what was being discussed.

By definition, it is impossible that such communications would be directed at "advancing U.S. foreign policy goals."

Part of the problem is that most in the press, be they on the left or the right, are pretty dimwitted.

[underpants]

8. Nailed it

[WinkyDink]

4. No. This flawed argument IGNORES, as media are wont to do, KEY DETAILS: Jared

wanted HIS "back channel" to avoid the US govt 100% AND wanted it INSIDE the ENEMY'S CONSULATE!!

Russia isn't our enemy? She STOLE our ELECTION in a COUP. That's pretty much the definition of adversarial.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

6. Exactly . . .

It seems as if the world passed into a "stupid beam" during last year's primary campaign, and has yet to emerge from it.

[mopinko]

5. self dealing is the problem. hoping to get out of a looming bankruptcy

by opening up the old ruble spigot is not diplomacy.

[spanone]

7. and NOT for his son-in-law...

[Vinca]

9. In any case, you don't have a "back channel" through a room at a foreign embassy.

It makes you wonder if Jared is just a garden variety spy. Maybe they thought he was brighter than Carter Page. LOL.