Photo: The White House/flickr
The Intercept: Saudi Crown Prince Boasted That Jared Kushner Was “In His Pocket”
Until he was stripped of his top-secret security clearance in February, presidential adviser Jared Kushner was known around the White House as one of the most voracious readers of the President’s Daily Brief, a highly classified rundown of the latest intelligence intended only for the president and his closest advisers.
Kushner, who had been tasked with bringing about a deal between Israel and Palestine, was particularly engaged by information about the Middle East, according to a former White House official and a former U.S. intelligence professional.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: What I find disturbing about this report is this ....
.... Citing three sources close to the Saudi and Emirati royal families, the news outlet said Kushner provided the heir to the Saudi throne details about Saudi princes who were not loyal to him.
I would love to know who made the decision to take sides in Saudi Arabia's internal disputes.
Update: Some are not happy with the role that Jared Kushner is playing in foreign policy .... 'Outrageous' Jared Kushner a 'Huge Threat' to US Foreign Policy, Says Retired Army General (Newsweek)
More News On Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Boasting That He Has President Trump's Son-In-Law Jared Kushner In His Pocket
Saudi crown prince boasted Jared Kushner was 'in his pocket' -- Al Jazeera
Saudi Crown Prince Reportedly Bragged After Purge: 'I Have Kushner in My Pocket' -- Haaretz
Saudi Arabia's crown prince reportedly bragged about having Jared Kushner 'in his pocket' after being told classified information meant for Trump -- Business Insider
Saudi prince said he owns Jared Kushner: Report -- Washington Examiner
Why the Saudi Crown Prince Might Think He Has Jared Kushner 'In His Pocket' -- New York Magazine
Jared Kushner May Have Helped the Saudi Prince Carry Out a Purge of His Political Opponents -- Splinter
19 comments:
Nepotism is made worse with being naive for the position
Ah, the Saudis will then work up a peace agreement for the Palestinians and Israelis
Typical click bait. The story starts with sensational charge. Kushner in hip pocket of foreign leader!
Then as we read thru it we seen Kushner was given vast responsibilities in the Middle East. Trump can authorize him to disclose sensitive information. MBS probably already knew who his enemies were. MBS could be sending a signal to his enemies that the US supports him, etc.
A non-story or as is commonly said "fake news". A classic of the genre.
probably...could be...
your comment is a non comment
I don't see a pocket in his thawb.
Don't be surprised by other pockets and those who are in them.
LOCK HIM UP LOCK HIM UP
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/27/politics/jared-kushner-security-clearance/index.html
Personally I'm not overly impressed with the critics of Mr. Kushner. These critics have managed to make a God awful mess of things as they are. In voting for DJT, the American people understood that the status quo as promised by HRC, the so called deep state, and critics of Mr. Kushner absolutely could not be continue and, if they were, it was going to be death of us all. As such, they voted for something different, a "shot in the dark" if you will.
Personally I trust his judgment much more than I trust that of the critics. The best thing the critics could do is GET OUT OF HIS WAY AND ALLOW HIM TO DO HIS JOB!! YOU HAVE ALREADY CAUSED ENOUGH PAIN AND SUFFERING TO AMERICANS AND THE WORLD!! IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO GO AWAY!!
The fact that he is "inexperienced" is a good thing. This means he has not been trained by those who have made the mess in the first place and is less likely to repeat their mistakes. The fact that he is the son in law of DJT is a good thing as well. When one is in a leadership position, one typically selects people that they know they can trust, that are on the same page as them, and they know will have their backs.
My suggestion to the critics would be first and foremost to stop being part of the problem. This can be done initially by getting out of the way of people like Mr. Kushner. The next step for them would be to start looking for ways they can be part of the solution. How can they add value to people like Mr. Kushner and help him achieve his goals which is to make America more secure. The same old same old that they represent simply was not going to work and never will. To keep doing the same thing over and over again that isn't working is the definition of insanity.
As for the claims of MBS, not a very smart thing to say. He's probably trying to signal to his enemies that he has US support for whatever that is worth. He may not have calculated that the US media might take this out of context if they ever found out about it. Isn't he one of the top officials in a very important country? As such, I think it is good that Mr. Kushner is on good terms with him. As Mr. Kushner works closely with DJT one of the master deal makers and negotiators on the planet, I see minimal risk of the US being taken advantage of here. At least the risk is less than it is with critics who are largely governed by ideology that makes them easily manipulated.
As for the editor's question of who made the decision of who made the decision on which side to take in Saudi Arabia's internal disputes, this could be turned the other way around. Foreigners routinely take sides in America's internal disputes. There was bound to be some "blowback" here. If the other side was worse or thought to be so, then it may seem a no brainer on whose side to pick.
Do you stick with the horses that brung you? These being the horses that have run our foreign policy to the ground, pretty much destroyed our military, and wrecked careful negotiations with Russia that might have ended the new Cold War. I could go on. When faced with such a dire situation, it seems prudent to change horses. When in a hole the first thing to do is to STOP DIGGING!!
That guy cannot get top secret clearance !
You don’t trust such people and I know this first hand
Fred,
We have to evaluate who rejected such clearance? Was it a "careerist," a member of the so called "deep state." or an ideologue out to harm POTUS and his team. While the jury is still out on POTUS and his team, I trust such people even less than I trust Mr. Kushner.
Of course as I understand it, POTUS can override this. I assume he will rectify this.
How would you know of the current situation "first hand?" Frankly I find the critics of Mr. Kushner and those who are trying to prevent him from doing his job are the ones we need to worry about. The longer he is denied access to the information he needs to properly to do his job, if he is being denied such information as a work around may have already been found, the worse things are for the country I think. As I stated, the best thing for them to do is get out of the way, stop trying to undermine him from doing his job, and even find ways they can assist him.
I find General McCaffrey's statements outrageous. I say bust him back to private, reduce his pension, make the reduction retroactive to the date he retired, set the pay back to the day he first enlisted, and make him pay back the four star retirement he has received all of these years.
The reasons given for animosity towards Mr. Kushner seem to be his lack of experience and alleged financial conflicts of interests yet no one has been able to supply any detail on just what they are. Additionally something about some real estate transactions his family's business conducted are being investigated. Unfortunately there have been so many partisan claims made against DJT and his team that any such things need to be treated with extreme skepticism. What are the details of the claims being made against the family's business? who are the investigators and what are the affiliations? We need to know of any things as they may compromise the investigation.
There also seem to be cries of "nepotism!!" As I explained, when doing important things one in the business world seeks to surround themselves with people they can trust, will have their backs, and will carry out the goals and policies they have set. There is no one better than a family member or close friend to do this!!
As for the lack of experience, where was General McCaffery when the US government went out of its way to inflame Cold War 2, get involved with the chump government of Ukraine, or a number of other things that have ground our military to powder and all but destroyed it? Give me Mr. Kushner over the chump/deep state toady any day of the week.
DJT has been accused of having to many generals on his team. At first glance it would seem a big honor that this many generals would want to work on his team!! Perhaps we should be asking are these deep state plants whose job is to kneecap and otherwise undermine the presidency of DJT? Why is general Kelly so willing to go along to get along with all of this? Perhaps we need to be asking harder questions of these people. As I said give me Jared Kushner over any of these deep state toadies who have been all but destroying our country for a very long time any day of the week.
Until they can come up with something more definitive and destroy the trust that they have lost, pretty much nothing they say can be taken seriously. It's pretty much that they don't like DJT and any of his closest advisors for personal reasons. Therefore they must destroy them. Such petty behavior is expected from petty school girls not from people who would want to lead our country.
I've already said what needs to happen to general McCaffery. This would be a warning to those who have pretty much destroyed our country and are still part of the problem.
You are dead wrong
He was vetted as I was for top secret
FBI is so called deep state as they were in Texas when they nailed the bomber
Want to do away with fbi and cia and let who do what the fo
Who actually did the vetting? Was it a rubber stamp anti-Trump group? I'm assuming your vetting was fair and equitable for what you needed to know to do your job.
Given the over the top anti-Trump sentiment that permeates the government, it seems questionable at best to say I am "dead wrong." Perhaps I am wrong but it seems questionable at best to blithely assume so.
As for the FBI, they have some good field agents. As for the management, not so much. As a general rule, don't trust a government bureaucrat, treat what they say with extreme skepticism, to get to a managerial position anywhere in the government requires making nice with such people, apply more still more skepticism to anything they tell you, and only when thoroughly examined and multiple sources can back up what they say perhaps then they can be trusted.
As for the FBI, kudos to the agents. None of them will probably ever become the FBI director. The FBI is a bit like a cancer that can be treated with a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. The cancer can probably be cut out and the agency itself saved.
As for CIA, this is like some blood cancers. The only way to treat it is going to essentially to destroy it, and start over. How you go about doing this now I am not sure. 15 years ago I suggested turning to allies such as Israel, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany to help us construct competent intelligence services.
These are my considered opinions of course and may well be inaccurate. Given the nature of the opposition to their legitimate critics and the nature of who they have supporting them, I tend to believe my position to be accurate. I suspect local and state law enforcement agencies could probably take over in coordination for the work the FBI (Famous but Incompetent). As for CIA, a foreign policy similar to that of New Zealand, Canada, or Australia would be helpful. This would lessen the risk to our country, probably increase our wealth, and give us breathing space to properly address the problem.
If we are to deny the team members of a duly elected POTUS the proper access to materials they need to do their jobs, a very good reason will need to be presented. So far this is lacking and given the partisan nature of the process I don't think there is one and it is going to be problematic to trust those with very bad track records anyway.
As I said, give me Mr. Kushner over General McCaffery or general McMaster who just got fired any day of the week to make important foreign policy decisions and to deal with foreign leaders. While we may not know the outcome of these decisions, sticking with these people/deep state was getting us nowhere except a deeper hole.
A retired four star like general McCaffery should be able to get access to POTUS where he could have raised his concerns if he had legitimate ones or he could have gone through an intermediary. Instead he chose to act like as spoiled brat/child. Such actions are disrespectful on their best day. At worst and probably more likely, they undercut carefully cultivated ties with a very powerful and influential country and a very powerful person within that country.
I see general Kelly did not even know more staffers were about to be axed. Apparently he was kept out of the loop. It appears the vermin may finally be meeting their match. This may explain them flailing about wildly as they are. Could general Kelly be next? We shall see.
Notching to do with lack of experience
He is security risk and you try to want security for him?
Get over it and stop trying to defend the indefensible
Others close to trump got cleared by the people who do this
You really are being silly for a bright guy and show how partisanship makes silly ststements
I try to be a bright guy. I appreciate the compliment, I think.
Perhaps he is a security risk. The point I have been trying to make is to reject a person selected by POTUS for jobs such as this would generally require a VERY GOOD REASON. Such reasons have not been presented. The only ones given are some questionable business deals without providing specific examples other than hearsay or evidence of such, lack of experience, or nepotism.
This simply isn't good enough. They will need to do better than that. As I would say the same thing if one of BHO's nominees for such a position were treated so disrespectfully and trashed in the manner Mr. Kushner has been, very respectfully, I think it is inaccurate to accuse me of partisanship.
Who were the others close to Trump that got accepted? There does seem to be and has been for quite awhile a special animosity to Mr. Kushner and Ivanka Trump. I think it may be because those two were integral parts to the campaign that got DJT elected to be POTUS. They did not want him as their Commander in Chief. This is generally true of the government as a whole.
I think the hatred goes deeper than that. They positively hate DJT and have from early on. I think they are acting this way because they are family. The others who were "close" were perhaps not family or not immediate family. Furthermore given the track record of the government in general toward Mr. Kushner and DJT as well as the media it is going to be hard to trust any process involving a Trump associate.
Even if they were pristine which they are not you're still going to have to better than lack of experience or some alleged business deals. I'd say the same thing if an Obama team member were treated in this fashion. To blindly accept the decisions of people who don't particularly have a good track record towards team Trump and who have taken an extreme position in blocking a key team member from having access to information he would normally need to do his job seems like partisanship to me.
I already explained what General NcCaffery could have done if he had a problem with how Mr. Kushner was conducting diplomacy. He didn't do this. Instead he acted like an impudent spoiled brat child who couldn't resist the urge to act out. When I further explained what should be done to such a person, I may have been a bit harsh but there does need to be consequences for such boorish and childlike behavior. As stated, give me Mr. Kushner over General McCaffery or the recently fired General McMaster any day. It's my considered opinion that the country is better off with him making important national security decisions than it is with those individuals who very likely achieved their positions on the backs of the deep state. At least in the case of General McCaffery he has revealed his character and it is not good. As for General H. R McMaster, maybe I am being a bit harsh.
Bottom line: POTUS chooses someone to advise him, you are going to need a very good reason not to grant that person access to the materials they need to do their job, this person is denied, and very flimsy excuses are being presented by those who made this decision along with a prior hostility towards team Trump. It doesn't look good on the part of those who made that decision and this would apply no matter who POTUS is.
It could well be the right decision but they are going to need to do better than they have in explaining the rationale. The fact that they have not done so only adds to my skepticism. We should always be skeptical of your government from POTUS on to all other positions.
Jarvanka filled out his NSC-28 form 38 times, he kept "forgetting" to list on the form Foreigners he owed money to, Foreign Spies he had meetings with, Foreign holdings and offshore bank accounts he had, etc.
Despite not having a NSC, he read the PDB every day and thousands of classified documents.
LMFAO
Every year, over 550,000 people in the US pass their NSC background check.
Only three types of people fail, felons, foreign spies and people with so much kompromat existing on them that they arn't even allowed in Casino's.
LMFAO
So what specifically is the charge? Where is the proof? So fsr the only things provided are lack of experience, closeness to DJT as a family member, and something about some financial dealings by his family without supplying any real details.
As stated, these simply aren't good enough reasons to deny a key aid access to the information he needs to properly do his job. Add to this the extreme animosity shown toward POTUS and his family by the bureaucracy and this provides more reason to be extremely skeptical of what they come up with.
While 550,000 people may well pass background checks, most of them didn't help a man the bureaucracy hates win an election nor are they immediate family members.
Is he a felon? Produce the records and the circunstances.
Is he a foreign spy? Who did he spy for? What is the proof.
What is the kompromat? Provide details and proof. A nebulous accusation regarding a family business isn't good enough.
Details can't be provided because the reason is a,key aid is being denied the access he needs purely for partisan political reasons.
LMFAO: I find nothing humorous in denying key aids to a duly elected POTUS access to key info he needs purely for partisan political reasons. Continuing such behavior is all but certain to get Americans killed. Of clurse I don't think you like us very much. You probably want that to happen.
Denying an important aide to POTUS access to the information he needs to most effectively do his job based upon a felon might be a good enough reason if it is recent or it involves a violent crime of some type. A drug conviction that occurred in the late teens or early twenties when the person is now in their 30s would be insufficient reason.
A foreign spy should definitely be denied access. Such an accusation is very, very serious and would need to be proven. Business relations between the person and a foreign country aren't sufficient to label the person a spy. Actually in the case of Russia we should want our leaders to have business relations with them. Vladimir Putin is arguably the most powerful man on earth. If we have leaders who are on good terms with him and/or his inner circle, this would be a huge asset for us. Such a thing does not make a person a spy. If this is going to be the accusation, the accusers will need to be able to show who he spied for, what secrets were given, and how they harmed national security.
Keep in mind the US has often withheld things from others that should have been released to them under the cry of "classified." For example, you have information the Israelis supplied you with regards to aviation security and how to detect a threat, its classified, you learn the Russians face the same kinds of threats you do, if you don't share it with them Russian lives are endangered that could have been saved by sharing the f!ckinng information, and from this, you have a moral obligation to share this. If this is going to be the allegation and someone were to go off of something like this, this would be insufficient.
Again, show what secret information was given to an enemy, provide proof the person accused did it, and show how US national security was harmed. There is no such information to present. Instead a key member of the team of a duly elected POTUS is being denied access to information he would normally be expected to have to do his job placing us all in even more mortal danger than we are already in all for partisan political reasons. Some day the mothers of these people will be ashamed and sorry to have given birth to them.
Perhaps they can be thwarted. Either way history will not remember such people kindly nor will their mothers who will be ashamed to have birthed them.
Post a Comment