It is not a "back channel"...

[kentuck]

in the general sense.

It is a covert plot to deal secretly with a country and its leader, in order to further personal financial deals to enrich themselves. It is not about our national security. It is about betrayal of our national interests.

We need to stop calling it a "back channel"...

[RKP5637]

1. Agree!!! It needs a better name to catch on. Calling it a traditional

"back channel" is wholly wrong. Maybe it should be called trying to establish a "subversive channel."

[mopinko]

2. secret channel.

[forgotmylogin]

3. a "Secure Hotline to the Kremlin"

Like we'd always joke about Trump's "red phone" Putin would call him on...turns out it wasn't a joke.

[C_U_L8R]

4. A rogue covert scheme. It's about evading the law

and hiding from the governance of government.
Something that comes easily to traitors and tax evaders.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. No it's not. It's using encrypted assets of the State of Russia to avoid detection by our government

Even the act of proposing that arrangement compromised him with the Russians. It was going the extra mile to communicate something he did not want our own government to know about. This wasn't a proposed contact at some conference in Oslo - it was the Russian embassy in Washington DC being used as a so called "back channel".

[L. Coyote]

6. No, Jared Kushner Didn't Seek A Legitimate Back Channel

[kentuck]

7. Thanks for this video!

[meow2u3]

8. It sure isn't a "back channel"

It's a "sneak behind America's back" channel to traffic our secrets to the russkies.

[L. Coyote]

9. kick for visibility