Comey's opening statement is out.

[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.