The Capricious Non partisan Government Arbitrary Action thread.

[AZ_]

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.

 

[Sebastian]

"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

 

[BooyaCS]

Uh, the FBI can't bug someone just because they're curious as to what they are saying/doing.

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.

 

[AZ_]

"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

Press conference?

Don't hold your breath, expecting the President of the United States to answer questions about his policy or offer any sort of coherent responses.

That's far too much accountability to expect.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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.

 

[AZ_]

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.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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.

 

[AZ_]

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.

Especially for someone with the foreign experience of Jared Kushner, noted diplomat and seasoned veteran of foreign affairs that he was pre-election.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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.

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.

 

[Tlyons]

The fuck is wrong with this man?

 

[Cavatt]

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.

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.

 

[Cavatt]

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.

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.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I am no Pelosi fan, the sooner she goes the better. Don't you have any worries that Trump has the same issue?

Not really. I don't think he's ever had much of a filter. Pelosi used to be very adept verbally. In watching her the last couple of years, she's clearly slid. I think McCain might be in the same boat to some degree.

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.

Well....

I'd obviously prefer if he was more adept verbally. I just think he's a poor speaker period, and there are people who are like that. My focus here is on the particular disease -- either Alzheimers or some other form of dementia. I mean, when they played tapes of him from years ago or whatever, he seems like the same guy he is now. Maybe not a very likeable guy, and one who says a lot of stupid things, but that doesn't seem to be a recent development as he's gotten older.

Honestly, I was not trying to be political with my comment about Pelosi, and if you notice, I haven't been mocking her recently. I've seen it twice, at very close quarters, and it is very sad. I truly hope I'm wrong, and that there isn't any wrong with her in that regard. But until that comes out, I'm not going to be mocking her for this kind of stuff.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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.

 

[Cavatt]

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.

i would guess it would be something you ask your secretary about? Maybe look at your day planner. I'd remember a meeting that was about billions of dollars when I am about to lose my office building in NYC, but that is me.

your benefit of the doubt apparatus is severely biased by the way.