USN_Hokie wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:USN_Hokie wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:USN_Hokie wrote:
You cited the wrong section, it was explained to you why you were wrong. The rest of your post is why debating Google warriors is a waste of time. You throw a hundred puzzle pieces on the table upside down and backwards, then declare victory unless the other person can fix it. Then, if the other person fixes it and makes you look dumb, you just Google another puzzle to throw on the table and declare victory. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
On a high note, you've made a lot of progress from your silliness on page 1.
WADR, you are still FOS. I said from the outset that I wasn't an expert on the subject, and there's nothing wrong with reading what actual experts have to say. And all the actual experts, as well as Kushner, and Kushner's lawyers, agree that Kushner should have disclosed the meeting. I looked up the form when #sHokie said there was nowhere on the form to disclose a meeting with Kislyak. That smelled like BS (it was). On section 19 of SF86, that seemed like a reasonable place for him to put the disclosure. As it turns out, that section was not the right section, but neither of you mentioned that. You argued about the section, when you should have known there was a section about foreign gov contacts. So, what #s said made sense, but we still had a pile of experts agreeing that Kushner should have disclosed the meeting, so I figured that there was another part of the form for that...and guess what, 20b.
That's not throwing puzzle pieces on the table, that's doing research, and doing addl research when the first assumption was wrong.
You and #sHokie are literally the only people that think Kushner shouldn't have disclosed his meeting with Kislyak (and of course you came up with that conclusion quite quickly, because according to USN_Hokie at 9:50AM this morning, that meeting didn't happen).
The best part of this whole fit of yours is that it's moot. He added the information almost immediately after submitting, before anyone else asked any questions. If you had read Kushner's press release you would have seen that. Your TDS won't let you do that, though.
Actually, his press release said what was already known, that after he submitted (well, not him, but someone else) his first application, he told the FBI he did have contacts with foreign gov officials, without any details. And he released those details over the next few months, not immediately. I read the press release, it's mostly rehash of what google users already know....just saying.
No, you're full of it. Read it again.
And we can add another example of you being wrong to your growing list. Here's the press release language:
"The very next day, January 19, 2017, we submitted supplemental information to the transition, which confirmed receipt and said they would immediately transmit it to the FBI.
The supplement disclosed that I had "numerous contacts with foreign officials" and that we were going through my records to provide an accurate and complete list. I provided a list of those contacts in the normal course, before my background investigation interview and prior to any inquiries or media reports about my form."
Exactly as I said. He revised his form to say that he had contact with foreign officials, and then "in the normal course', he provided a list of those contacts. The "normal course" took months, as he was reviewing emails, calendar, and phone records.
And as I said, this was all known already. The media reports about the omissions, and the subsequent revisions, started in April.