AZ_
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,728
- Reaction score
- 51,466
- Points
- 148
Uh, the FBI can't bug someone just because they're curious as to what they are saying/doing.
Well, he did lie on his SF 86 form.
Uh, the FBI can't bug someone just because they're curious as to what they are saying/doing.
Uh, the FBI can't bug someone just because they're curious as to what they are saying/doing.
"The President of the United States is traveling to France to meet with the leader of the Western World."
Trump is going to France for Bastille Day. The irony.
And considering how Macron treated Putin, the press conference could be hilarious. This will be gold (if Trump doesn't cancel out of fear of protests like he did with the UK). Can't wait for the hand shake.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40433180
No I am saying he should be the focus of the investigation. We had Flynn doing dealings with Russia and there has been reports of Kushner doing things with Russia (at least in the media) if there is actionable intelligence then target Kushner.
What illegal "things" is Kushner being accused of doing with Russian? It is not illegal to meet with the Russians or talk to them about policies. It's not even illegal to have met with them before the election and say how a Trump Administration would try to improve relations.
Lying on his SF 86 form.
Good luck proving an intentional omission. The normal consequence response for an omission on an SF 86 (which is not uncommon for people who have had a lot of such contacts) is to either ask for supplementation to correct the information, or, if the omission is deemed significant and deliberate, to withhold/withdraw clearance. Generally, if some but not all contacts are disclosed, the omission is deemed non-intentional and supplementation is the usual response.
In any case, the relevant factual inquiry in such a case would whether he actually had a meeting in the past that was not disclosed, and that wouldn't be probable cause to get a wiretap now because the crime would be based on a past omission.
But fine, if the conclusion is going to be that Kushner intentionally omitted those meetings, and that justifies withdrawal of his clearance, then they can withdraw his clearance. The President can then either get rid of him, or simply give him waivers for viewing classified information.
I'd prefer the former, although that could make it somewhat harder for him to solve the Middle East peace crisis.
But in the end, I fully understand how easy it would be to forget a meeting with a state owned Russian bank that was set up by the ambassador to Russia.
Jesus....
There's a video at the link of her speaking, and it is far from the only one. She recently called Trump Bush....She's 77, and it is hardly implausible that she may be developing dementia. It happens.
I even said if - I'm not trying to spout some conspiracy theory, but rather saying that if that is the case, I hope the Democrats ease her out.
I lost both my father and father in law to that disease, and it is unpleasant. I hope for her sake she does not have it, but if she does, I really don't want to see conservatives mocking her for screwing up if she actually has a problem.
That was my point -- it was not partisan or political.
Forgetting such meetings would seem incomprehensible to someone who never engages in such conduct. It's something any of us would remember for the rest of our lives. It stands out much less to people who routinely engage in contacts with foreign banks all the time.
But again, fine. If the meeting happened, and it is deemed to be a material, deliberate omission, then his clearance can be withdrawn. I wouldn't shed any tears of that.
But if that's the only criminal act we have here...that's about as minimal as it gets.
I am no Pelosi fan, the sooner she goes the better. Don't you have any worries that Trump has the same issue?
For someone who is such a good writer and obviously good at using language, doesn't his word salad and inability to complete a thought bother you? I mean the subjects and objects of his sentences are unrelated.
If people were accusing you of being in cahoots with Russia, would Russian meetings be the ones you forget? We knew they were on Session's mind because he brought it up and forgot to disclose.
Not sure how to put this, but a lot of times, people answer questions from a certain frame of reference, and if they see the question come at it differently, it doesn't trigger the right memory. For example, if he's asked to disclose contacts with the Russian government, it simply may not cross his mind that a bank meeting that was unrelated to the election actually counted. People make mistakes like that. Honestly, I cannot tell you how many times in a deposition people give a fact that isn't correct because they've honestly misremembered something. It happens all the time, and generally isn't that big a deal unless there are other facts suggesting it was intentionally misleading.
It also depends on how maybe other meetings they disclosed. For example, if Kushner didn't disclose any meetings, and it turned out there were a lot, that's suspicious. If he disclosed 5, and it turned out there were 6, that's not. That's especially true in this case since he was only a Presidential advisor, and not subject to Senate confirmation.
Anyway, the point is that all those ancillary facts matter, and I don't know what they are. How many total meetings were there? How many did he disclose v. how many he didn't? What is his explanation for not disclosing a particular meeting, etc.. I have no problem with those questions being asked, but until the answers are known, I think it is premature to render a judgement.