Comey's opening statement is out.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-08-2017, 05:08 PM)GMDino Wrote:  

Short of absolute, damning evidence.  

I couldn't agree with this more.  You're claiming smoke as evidence in the case of Trump, but ignoring ACTUAL evidence in other Obama scandals much less the loads of other "smoke" there that didn't go anywhere.

Trump is not even a target of the investigation, so it's dubious to even claim there's smoke with respect to that.  We've even been told in congressional testimony that [to-date] there is not evidence of collusion with Trump's campaign.  The investigation appears, again based on testimony, to be at least partially centering on Trump associates knowingly or unwittingly being agents of a foreign power.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-08-2017, 05:08 PM)GMDino Wrote:  
Oh, no doubt.  If Trump was impeached the right would claim it was the Democrats fault even while they control Congress.  If nothing is done to Trump the left will claim the GOP is covering for him.

That's an interesting take given top Democrats have been saying there's not a case yet for impeachment.  So short of evidence emerging or being uncovered, believing the GOP is covering would be strictly a partisan opinion in the absence of any support.

[Belsnickel]

Since this has been a thread about the overall shenanigans, any thoughts on Kushner lying on his SF86? I have heard former WH staffers commenting that they had seen people fired and escorted out of the building for lying about smoking marijuana when a teenager, and those were folks who didn't even have access to the daily schedule of the POTUS. The concern is that lying on those forms opens up a staffer for black mail.

Just curious what people think about that?

[Millhouse]

(06-08-2017, 05:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: On a brighter note my mom saw Air Force One fly over her house.  That's pretty cool.  Took off out of Lunken, and I have no idea how they did that with a 747.

I wondered that too but apparently it was a 757, which is smaller than the normal 747 one Presidents usually fly on. And any plane the Prez flies on is called Air Force One.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/06/06/wait-can-air-force-one-land-lunken/374866001/

[*michaelsean*]

(06-08-2017, 05:36 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I wondered that too but apparently it was a 757, which is smaller than the normal 747 one Presidents usually fly on. And any plane the Prez flies on is called Air Force One.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/06/06/wait-can-air-force-one-land-lunken/374866001/

So he's got the two 747s plus at least one 757?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-08-2017, 05:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Since this has been a thread about the overall shenanigans, any thoughts on Kushner lying on his SF86? I have heard former WH staffers commenting that they had seen people fired and escorted out of the building for lying about smoking marijuana when a teenager, and those were folks who didn't even have access to the daily schedule of the POTUS. The concern is that lying on those forms opens up a staffer for black mail.

Just curious what people think about that?

Sounds like he should be ousted.  Dude seems shady anyway, and I'll be happier if it becomes less of a family business.  

[Millhouse]

(06-08-2017, 05:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So he's got the two 747s plus at least one 757?

Technically he has any plane in the military at his disposable. But maybe the 757 is the one generally used for the VP? Dont know to be honest.

[masterpanthera_t]

(06-08-2017, 05:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Since this has been a thread about the overall shenanigans, any thoughts on Kushner lying on his SF86? I have heard former WH staffers commenting that they had seen people fired and escorted out of the building for lying about smoking marijuana when a teenager, and those were folks who didn't even have access to the daily schedule of the POTUS. The concern is that lying on those forms opens up a staffer for black mail.

Just curious what people think about that?

As someone who thought that Hillary didn't deserve to be President for having security vulnerabilities through her private email server, I will say that if Kushner has been proven to have lied, his clearance should be revoked (if already given) at the least.  It should also severely prejudice any future considerations for clearance requests.  

[JustWinBaby]

(06-08-2017, 05:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Since this has been a thread about the overall shenanigans, any thoughts on Kushner lying on his SF86?

Not just Kushner, but one or two others (including Flynn).  I'm not sure of the actual facts, but I believe Kushner caught the mistake fairly quickly and amended his submission?

Was it a lie of omission, or an honest oversight?  The only big swingers I'm aware of in other Administrations where this could have happened have been former Wall Street guys used to operating in a highly regulated business and probably better equipped with respect to records and reporting.

The Russian contacts were, I believe, during the transition period.  So that would be much more forgivable.  But there were meetings with other countries that weren't reported.


He's  not qualified for his position, anyway....so take away his clearance.


Part of me also wonders if the media hadn't been complacent in past administrations, and we'd have a bit more of this if they same scrutiny had been applied.  At the same time, the law is pretty clear.  In some respects, I think the media is doing it's job better than ever and, in others, worse than ever.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-08-2017, 05:46 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I will say that if Kushner has been proved to have lied, his clearance should be revoked (if already given) at the least. 

I don't think the law makes a distinction between intentional omissions or lies and honest mistakes, nor should it.  The only difference would be if criminal prosecution is warranted.

According to the NYT, these forms are often amended to address lapses.  The day after submitting, Kushner said supplemental material was to follow.  So maybe a non-issue (Flynn might be a different matter, though).

[ballsofsteel]

Hello. All this Comey drama isn't important. The commander in tweets is going down, its only a matter of time. The committee investigating Trumps campaign and ties with Russia will catch one of Trumps underlings perjure themselves.
Instead of going to jail for 10 years, they will spill all the beans about Trumps collusion.

[Bengalzona]

(06-08-2017, 04:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: The best thing to come out of all this will be the end.  One way or the other.  

Would I like to see Trump under oath? Pffft.  That would be high comedy!  But since that will never happen we'll just have the GOP say there's nothing to see here no matter what happens or is said so let's just get the thing over with.

What sticks out, to me, is that the head of the FBI said he figured Trump might lie about their meeting so he started making notes.  Even though he never thought that about a previous POTUS.  How sad that the man elected to the office had such a personality flaw that that that thought even crossed the FBI Director's mind?  


And that no one in the this hearing even questioned it?

I disagree.

The best thing to come out of this is "up yours, Russia!". Seriously. I haven't felt very patriotic for awhile. But hearing Comey call out the Russian efforts really inspired me! 

(06-08-2017, 04:58 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Along the same lines, it's understandable why Comey refused to say Trump wasn't a target, because he knew that new information could change that.

Makes me wonder what and who are still being investigated. 

[masterpanthera_t]

(06-08-2017, 05:56 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't think the law makes a distinction between intentional omissions or lies and honest mistakes, nor should it.  The only difference would be if criminal prosecution is warranted.

According to the NYT, these forms are often amended to address lapses.  The day after submitting, Kushner said supplemental material was to follow.  So maybe a non-issue (Flynn might be a different matter, though).

The point I was making with "proven to have lied" is if the clearing agency finds his statement to be a lie.  I.e. I don't know the issue to which Belsnickel was referring, and I don't know if Kushner lied or not, but if Belsnickel's statement is true, then Kushner's clearance should be revoked if already given, and future requests should be prejudiced in their consideration.

[Bengalzona]

(06-08-2017, 05:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Since this has been a thread about the overall shenanigans, any thoughts on Kushner lying on his SF86? I have heard former WH staffers commenting that they had seen people fired and escorted out of the building for lying about smoking marijuana when a teenager, and those were folks who didn't even have access to the daily schedule of the POTUS. The concern is that lying on those forms opens up a staffer for black mail.

Just curious what people think about that?

I don't think anything official comes out of it. Just media flak. Unless the Admin decides to crack down on pot. Then, there will be backlash.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-08-2017, 06:17 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Makes me wonder what and who are still being investigated. 

I don't read anything more into it than the investigation is ongoing.  Like I said, it's a very large and complex undertaking. 

I'll be shocked if this wraps in a few months as opposed to a few years, especially with a special prosecutor involved (which can go wildly "off course" beyond the Trump campaign).

[Bengalzona]

(06-08-2017, 06:33 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't read anything more into it than the investigation is ongoing.  Like I said, it's a very large and complex undertaking. 

I'll be shocked if this wraps in a few months as opposed to a few years, especially with a special prosecutor involved (which can go wildly "off course" beyond the Trump campaign).

Not looking at this from a "get Trump!" point of view. But I do suspect there are other Americans involved. They may not be associated with Trump and the campaign.

I do agree that this will take awhile. Years rather than months.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-08-2017, 06:38 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Not looking at this from a "get Trump!" point of view. But I do suspect there are other Americans involved. They may not be associated with Trump and the campaign.

Wow.  I never considered that.  Can't really wrap my head around that.  That would astonish me, but I suppose it's entirely possible that Hillary and Trump were so polarizing that "insiders" were knowingly or unwittingly influenced by foreign agents.

I'm still not fully appreciating the irony that Russia did to us what we do all over the world.  Or the perhaps selective outrage over Russia trying to influence our elections when compared to the repeated damaging hackings from China.

Another question I'm fascinated by....if the CIA had tools to replicate hacking signatures of foreign powers, could we really be certain that, say, China or NK aren't behind all this?  Or perhaps, more accurately, Russia did not act in this alone?  If you remember, cyberwarfare was an active point of emphasis early on in the Obama administration - I don't know if we are a leader now, but at one point I think we were definitely behind the curve.  And that's all a deep, deep rabit hole with Israel and Iran also having serious cyber capabilities.

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2017, 05:56 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't think the law makes a distinction between intentional omissions or lies and honest mistakes, nor should it.  The only difference would be if criminal prosecution is warranted.

According to the NYT, these forms are often amended to address lapses.  The day after submitting, Kushner said supplemental material was to follow.  So maybe a non-issue (Flynn might be a different matter, though).

(06-08-2017, 06:21 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: The point I was making with "proven to have lied" is if the clearing agency finds his statement to be a lie.  I.e. I don't know the issue to which Belsnickel was referring, and I don't know if Kushner lied or not, but if Belsnickel's statement is true, then Kushner's clearance should be revoked if already given, and future requests should be prejudiced in their consideration.

He omitted several meetings that had occurred in the months leading up to him filling out the form. It's understandable that every meeting with foreign government officials over the past seven years, the required disclosure, would be difficult to recall. But several recent ones were omitted, including one with Kislyak and a Russian banker with direct ties to Putin.

Yes, amendments are made if the omissions are deemed oversights instead of intentional attempts to mislead, and they don't prosecute for lying on the form very often. But people have been denied their clearances for far less, and Kushner's lawyer referred to it as an error, not something he had intended to amend.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-08-2017, 05:57 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Hello. All this Comey drama isn't important. The commander in tweets is going down, its only a matter of time. The committee investigating Trumps campaign and ties with Russia will catch one of Trumps underlings perjure themselves.
Instead of going to jail for 10 years, they will spill all the beans about Trumps collusion.

That's the spirit! RESIST RESIST RESIST!

[JustWinBaby]

(06-08-2017, 07:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes, amendments are made if the omissions are deemed oversights instead of intentional attempts to mislead, and they don't prosecute for lying on the form very often. But people have been denied their clearances for far less, and Kushner's lawyer referred to it as an error, not something he had intended to amend.

He informed the FBI the very next day he would be submitting supplemental information, so characterizing it as "lying" wouldn't seem to be an accurate or fair representation. 

Isn't an error something that would be corrected, while an omission or attempt to mislead is something that was not corrected voluntarily?  Supplementing or correcting an error definitely means to amend, or could be something more substantive.

It doesn't sound to me like the submission in its entirety was reviewed and found lacking or incomplete.  So I'm not sure this is an open issue, although it appears Kushner being linked to the investigation is what has led to calls to revoke his clearance. And in that respect, the answer is "depends on things we don't know", but I'd assume it would be revoked if just cause was discovered.