together there are because when those groups get together there are messages i together there are messages exchanged together there are messages exchanged on together there are messages exchanged on whatsapp - together there are messages exchanged on whatsapp or. together there are messages - exchanged on whatsapp or twitter or whatever, exchanged on whatsapp or twitter or whatever, so exchanged on whatsapp or twitter or whatever, so they exchanged on whatsapp or twitter or whatever, so they will exchanged on whatsapp or twitter or whatever, so they will be exchanged on whatsapp or twitter or whatever, so they will be based - exchanged on whatsapp or twitter or whatever, so they will be based on i whatever, so they will be based on intelligencem whatever, so they will be based on intelligence. you whatever, so they will be based on intelligence. . . whatever, so they will be based on intelligence. you can t always say there will be intelligence. you can t always sa
you don t need to lock and glue yourself onto property. - ok, but let s just say there are a group of protesters not causing any disruption, not interfering with anyone or anything. do you think it is ok then for the police to intercept those protesters before they do anything based on the idea they may cause disruption? so in effect what you re doing is intercepting a peaceful protest? you re not intercepting a peaceful. protest because you are intercepting a protest that is going to cause disruption. | but how do you know that? it will be based on intelligencel because when those groups get together there are messages - exchanged on whatsapp or twitter or twitter or whatever it is, so they will be based - on intelligence, not on an idea. but you can t always say there will be intelligence regarding every protest. what i am trying to get at here is that there is a line between what is a peaceful protest and one that is disruptive. how are the police going to know where that line is? w
for the post presidency. is it a lack of imagination, it a failure of policy and politics that there is no mechanism to hold jared kushner accountable? well, it s also a lack of transparency, nicolle. to this day, we still don t know what foreign policy was conducted through the jared kushner office. he had a little tiny office about the size of a closet in the west wing, and i know for a fact that jared conducted diplomacy from whatsapp on his iphone. what happened in those conversation? what did he tell world leaders that the secretary of state didn t or the secretary of homeland security didn t. we don t know. and that s what s really dangerous, that lack of transparency. i can tell you, for instance, when jamal khashoggi was murdered allegedly at the behest of saudi leadership, jared swung by one day and saw us and said, well, you know, you ve got to see it the saudis way.
they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. and he intimated that he d been messaging with the crown prince on whatsapp. so here you have the whole u.s. federal government saying the saudis might be complicit in the murder of a u.s. person, working to develop policy options for the president to hold them accountable, and his son is conducting a parallel track side diplomacy with the crown prince and defending his actions. that was extremely worrisome. i have no doubt it affected the trajectory of u.s. foreign policy in that time period in addition to potentially benefitting people financially after the fact. but because we don t have transparency about what happened then, we don t know whether these financial transactions have any tie to official actions that were taken in that time. my last question for you, why is this coming out now? why are kelly s experiences something that you re able to report out now that maybe earlier were not able to be learned? it took an enormous amount
so what are the indians saying about it? they are nothing suspicion about it. let me tell you a little bit about who mr pavel antov was. he was a businessman who made more than $100 million mostly out of making sausages. he was also a politician. he represented the united russian party. the united russia party is a party normally loyal to vladimir putin but injune he caused a stir. he posted on social media a vivid description of a ukrainian family that had died under russian bombardment. he said this cannot be called anything but terrorism. suddenly, he changed his mind and deleted his tweet and said it was a technical error. sorry it wasn t a tweet, a post on whatsapp. he deleted the tweet and said he supported the invasion of ukraine and dutily referred to it as a special military operation. but that reversal because something of a stir and attention on the sausage businessman.