Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Seems like you guys aren't even trying.
Says the guy who cited the wrong section. :lol: You wasted everyone's time citing 19B and now want to call people stupid as you wade through Google.
You guys wasted my time. You, as the so-called experts should have known that a meeting with a foreign govt. official would be covered under 20b, not 19b. Instead, you made arguments that the pertinent part was "close and continuing", when the pertinent part was that 19b was the wrong section. So, yes, I'm calling you stupid, because you act like you're knowledgeable, but you don't know any more than I do, and are too lazy and dopey to try and learn something.
You tried to make aoun argument based solely on your proclaimed expertise (trust me!), and when your bluff is called, you can't even admit you're wrong....now for the third time in this thread.
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.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by HokieFanDC »

133743Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: #'s is right. "Close and continuing" are the key terms.

You should close the Google tab on your browser and get back to your Obamaphone kiosk. ;)
Seems like you guys aren't even trying.
I mean, we have self-proclaimed experts making proclamations, insulting people, and acting soooo incredibly knowledgeable.
Unfortunately for you, there is a Google, and it's useful for when you sense bullshirt.
Now, I'm not an expert, and admit that. But, there seems to be no reason for the resident genius experts not to fully understand this part of the form.
It's almost like you're talking out of your asses, and are too lazy to actually read the from you're soooo familiar with. Or not.
The key term here is "FOS", and it applies to you. I eagerly await your explanation as to why Kushner had no need to disclose the meeting in this section.....

Image
I fully understand that form, having first completed one in the mid 80s and having updated my information over the years as the forms have evolved. Until retiring 9 years ago I held TS/SCI level (or agency equivalent) poly-based clearances with just about every government entity except DOE (didn't have a need to get Q). I was badged with staff-like access into the WH, DOS, the major intelligence agency HQs (as well as numerous affiliated domestic "sites") and cleared to work in all aspects of US embassies, including the core and "tenant spaces". This was my career for almost 30 years. I lived with clearances for 30 years. I created, transported, transmitted, received and destroyed classified documents.

I filled the forms out. I spoke with investigators, I discussed the documents with poly administrators. My casual foreign acquaintances were not to be included in that section of the form.Trust me when I tell you I know what I'm talking about.
Did you have meetings with foreign government officials, that you asked about? Yes, or no.
Limited number of meetings with foreign officials, but I did have a few. None were put on the form and in the pre-poly discussion with the administrator, when the question of foreign contacts came up we discussed these contacts and it was made clear the question did not apply to them. (FYI, in case you didn't know, they go over every question they are going to ask you before the poly to make sure you understand the question, its context, and to provide any clarification to questions you may have).

OK, first, can you explain the reasoning? The question is not ambiguous. It says "any contact". How does a meeting with an ambassador not qualify as "any contact".
Second, you keep on talking about poly information. I'm pretty sure Kushner didn't undergo a poly.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote: #'s is right. "Close and continuing" are the key terms.

You should close the Google tab on your browser and get back to your Obamaphone kiosk. ;)
Seems like you guys aren't even trying.
I mean, we have self-proclaimed experts making proclamations, insulting people, and acting soooo incredibly knowledgeable.
Unfortunately for you, there is a Google, and it's useful for when you sense bullshirt.
Now, I'm not an expert, and admit that. But, there seems to be no reason for the resident genius experts not to fully understand this part of the form.
It's almost like you're talking out of your asses, and are too lazy to actually read the from you're soooo familiar with. Or not.
The key term here is "FOS", and it applies to you. I eagerly await your explanation as to why Kushner had no need to disclose the meeting in this section.....

Image
I fully understand that form, having first completed one in the mid 80s and having updated my information over the years as the forms have evolved. Until retiring 9 years ago I held TS/SCI level (or agency equivalent) poly-based clearances with just about every government entity except DOE (didn't have a need to get Q). I was badged with staff-like access into the WH, DOS, the major intelligence agency HQs (as well as numerous affiliated domestic "sites") and cleared to work in all aspects of US embassies, including the core and "tenant spaces". This was my career for almost 30 years. I lived with clearances for 30 years. I created, transported, transmitted, received and destroyed classified documents.

I filled the forms out. I spoke with investigators, I discussed the documents with poly administrators. My casual foreign acquaintances were not to be included in that section of the form.Trust me when I tell you I know what I'm talking about.
Did you have meetings with foreign government officials, that you asked about? Yes, or no.
Limited number of meetings with foreign officials, but I did have a few. None were put on the form and in the pre-poly discussion with the administrator, when the question of foreign contacts came up we discussed these contacts and it was made clear the question did not apply to them. (FYI, in case you didn't know, they go over every question they are going to ask you before the poly to make sure you understand the question, its context, and to provide any clarification to questions you may have).

OK, first, can you explain the reasoning? The question is not ambiguous. It says "any contact". How does a meeting with an ambassador not qualify as "any contact".
Second, you keep on talking about poly information. I'm pretty sure Kushner didn't undergo a poly.
LOL, come on
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Seems like you guys aren't even trying.
Says the guy who cited the wrong section. :lol: You wasted everyone's time citing 19B and now want to call people stupid as you wade through Google.
You guys wasted my time. You, as the so-called experts should have known that a meeting with a foreign govt. official would be covered under 20b, not 19b. Instead, you made arguments that the pertinent part was "close and continuing", when the pertinent part was that 19b was the wrong section. So, yes, I'm calling you stupid, because you act like you're knowledgeable, but you don't know any more than I do, and are too lazy and dopey to try and learn something.
You tried to make aoun argument based solely on your proclaimed expertise (trust me!), and when your bluff is called, you can't even admit you're wrong....now for the third time in this thread.
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).
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by HokieFanDC »

awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
133743Hokie wrote: I fully understand that form, having first completed one in the mid 80s and having updated my information over the years as the forms have evolved. Until retiring 9 years ago I held TS/SCI level (or agency equivalent) poly-based clearances with just about every government entity except DOE (didn't have a need to get Q). I was badged with staff-like access into the WH, DOS, the major intelligence agency HQs (as well as numerous affiliated domestic "sites") and cleared to work in all aspects of US embassies, including the core and "tenant spaces". This was my career for almost 30 years. I lived with clearances for 30 years. I created, transported, transmitted, received and destroyed classified documents.

I filled the forms out. I spoke with investigators, I discussed the documents with poly administrators. My casual foreign acquaintances were not to be included in that section of the form.Trust me when I tell you I know what I'm talking about.
Did you have meetings with foreign government officials, that you asked about? Yes, or no.
Limited number of meetings with foreign officials, but I did have a few. None were put on the form and in the pre-poly discussion with the administrator, when the question of foreign contacts came up we discussed these contacts and it was made clear the question did not apply to them. (FYI, in case you didn't know, they go over every question they are going to ask you before the poly to make sure you understand the question, its context, and to provide any clarification to questions you may have).


OK, first, can you explain the reasoning? The question is not ambiguous. It says "any contact". How does a meeting with an ambassador not qualify as "any contact".
Second, you keep on talking about poly information. I'm pretty sure Kushner didn't undergo a poly.
LOL, come on
Excellent argument. You are now the 3rd person on the planet that doesn't think Kushner should have disclosed the meeting with Kislyak.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
133743Hokie wrote: I fully understand that form, having first completed one in the mid 80s and having updated my information over the years as the forms have evolved. Until retiring 9 years ago I held TS/SCI level (or agency equivalent) poly-based clearances with just about every government entity except DOE (didn't have a need to get Q). I was badged with staff-like access into the WH, DOS, the major intelligence agency HQs (as well as numerous affiliated domestic "sites") and cleared to work in all aspects of US embassies, including the core and "tenant spaces". This was my career for almost 30 years. I lived with clearances for 30 years. I created, transported, transmitted, received and destroyed classified documents.

I filled the forms out. I spoke with investigators, I discussed the documents with poly administrators. My casual foreign acquaintances were not to be included in that section of the form.Trust me when I tell you I know what I'm talking about.
Did you have meetings with foreign government officials, that you asked about? Yes, or no.
Limited number of meetings with foreign officials, but I did have a few. None were put on the form and in the pre-poly discussion with the administrator, when the question of foreign contacts came up we discussed these contacts and it was made clear the question did not apply to them. (FYI, in case you didn't know, they go over every question they are going to ask you before the poly to make sure you understand the question, its context, and to provide any clarification to questions you may have).


OK, first, can you explain the reasoning? The question is not ambiguous. It says "any contact". How does a meeting with an ambassador not qualify as "any contact".
Second, you keep on talking about poly information. I'm pretty sure Kushner didn't undergo a poly.
LOL, come on
Excellent argument. You are now the 3rd person on the planet that doesn't think Kushner should have disclosed the meeting with Kislyak.
Another search engine miss Ace. I'm also laughing that you think people with WH access didn't take the poly. WTF, just stop already.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by HokieFanDC »

RiverguyVT wrote:Let's be cool, yall
Who's not being cool?
Highly entertaining, IMO.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Seems like you guys aren't even trying.
Says the guy who cited the wrong section. :lol: You wasted everyone's time citing 19B and now want to call people stupid as you wade through Google.
You guys wasted my time. You, as the so-called experts should have known that a meeting with a foreign govt. official would be covered under 20b, not 19b. Instead, you made arguments that the pertinent part was "close and continuing", when the pertinent part was that 19b was the wrong section. So, yes, I'm calling you stupid, because you act like you're knowledgeable, but you don't know any more than I do, and are too lazy and dopey to try and learn something.
You tried to make aoun argument based solely on your proclaimed expertise (trust me!), and when your bluff is called, you can't even admit you're wrong....now for the third time in this thread.
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.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:Let's be cool, yall
Who's not being cool?
Highly entertaining, IMO.
Nothing personal, DC. I know these must be stressful times to be a Obamaphone mall kiosk operator. :mrgreen: ;)
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:Let's be cool, yall
Who's not being cool?
Highly entertaining, IMO.
Nothing personal, DC. I know these must be stressful times to be a Obamaphone mall kiosk operator. :mrgreen: ;)
None taken. I think your 30 posts, 25 insults lifted from 15 y/o reddit posters, and zero original thinking, is highly entertaining, that's all.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Seems like you guys aren't even trying.
Says the guy who cited the wrong section. :lol: You wasted everyone's time citing 19B and now want to call people stupid as you wade through Google.
You guys wasted my time. You, as the so-called experts should have known that a meeting with a foreign govt. official would be covered under 20b, not 19b. Instead, you made arguments that the pertinent part was "close and continuing", when the pertinent part was that 19b was the wrong section. So, yes, I'm calling you stupid, because you act like you're knowledgeable, but you don't know any more than I do, and are too lazy and dopey to try and learn something.
You tried to make aoun argument based solely on your proclaimed expertise (trust me!), and when your bluff is called, you can't even admit you're wrong....now for the third time in this thread.
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.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:Let's be cool, yall
Who's not being cool?
Highly entertaining, IMO.
Nothing personal, DC. I know these must be stressful times to be a Obamaphone mall kiosk operator. :mrgreen: ;)
None taken. I think your 30 posts, 25 insults lifted from 15 y/o reddit posters, and zero original thinking, is highly entertaining, that's all.
A 15yo redditor is smart enough to know Egg Mcmuffin was a DNC plant. Just sayin.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Says the guy who cited the wrong section. :lol: You wasted everyone's time citing 19B and now want to call people stupid as you wade through Google.
You guys wasted my time. You, as the so-called experts should have known that a meeting with a foreign govt. official would be covered under 20b, not 19b. Instead, you made arguments that the pertinent part was "close and continuing", when the pertinent part was that 19b was the wrong section. So, yes, I'm calling you stupid, because you act like you're knowledgeable, but you don't know any more than I do, and are too lazy and dopey to try and learn something.
You tried to make aoun argument based solely on your proclaimed expertise (trust me!), and when your bluff is called, you can't even admit you're wrong....now for the third time in this thread.
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.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by cwtcr hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Seems like you guys aren't even trying.
Says the guy who cited the wrong section. :lol: You wasted everyone's time citing 19B and now want to call people stupid as you wade through Google.
You guys wasted my time. You, as the so-called experts should have known that a meeting with a foreign govt. official would be covered under 20b, not 19b. Instead, you made arguments that the pertinent part was "close and continuing", when the pertinent part was that 19b was the wrong section. So, yes, I'm calling you stupid, because you act like you're knowledgeable, but you don't know any more than I do, and are too lazy and dopey to try and learn something.
You tried to make aoun argument based solely on your proclaimed expertise (trust me!), and when your bluff is called, you can't even admit you're wrong....now for the third time in this thread.
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.[/quote]


two pages for a huge nothingburger, wow, the TDS has taken you over...GET HELP! CALL THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, THEY HAVE GRANTS FOR THIS!
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by HokieFanDC »

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.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by USN_Hokie »

You're missing the point, DC. The entire impetus for this is some irrational fear that he was trying to hide/obstruct (publicized) meetings with foreign officials. It's obvious he did no such thing, and actually jumped through his arse to document a hell of a lot more than he had to. You guys are trying to pretend he had to go back and amend his application after stories came out - nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no reasonable conclusion that he lied, obstructed, or shouldn't have a clearance based on anything in that press release.

You should apologize.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:You're missing the point, DC. The entire impetus for this is some irrational fear that he was trying to hide/obstruct (publicized) meetings with foreign officials. It's obvious he did no such thing, and actually jumped through his arse to document a hell of a lot more than he had to. You guys are trying to pretend he had to go back and amend his application after stories came out - nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no reasonable conclusion that he lied, obstructed, or shouldn't have a clearance based on anything in that press release.

You should apologize.
I already said he didn't obstruct or doing anything illegal. I don't believe he was completely honest about the omissions, but that's just an opinion. And it's part of a pattern in this administration. As for his clearance, that's not my decision, but WH admin personnel get clearances when they shouldn't have them fairly regularly.
If he was a rank and file employee, I think he would not get his clearance, but again, that's my opinion.
You can be upset about all the ppl trying to burn him at the stake. I'm not one of them, and have already said that.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by cwtcr hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:You're missing the point, DC. The entire impetus for this is some irrational fear that he was trying to hide/obstruct (publicized) meetings with foreign officials. It's obvious he did no such thing, and actually jumped through his arse to document a hell of a lot more than he had to. You guys are trying to pretend he had to go back and amend his application after stories came out - nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no reasonable conclusion that he lied, obstructed, or shouldn't have a clearance based on anything in that press release.

You should apologize.
I already said he didn't obstruct or doing anything illegal. I don't believe he was completely honest about the omissions, but that's just an opinion. And it's part of a pattern in this administration. As for his clearance, that's not my decision, but WH admin personnel get clearances when they shouldn't have them fairly regularly.
If he was a rank and file employee, I think he would not get his clearance, but again, that's my opinion.
You can be upset about all the ppl trying to burn him at the stake. I'm not one of them, and have already said that.
As compared to Obama and Hillary, they are very honest
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by HokieFanDC »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:You're missing the point, DC. The entire impetus for this is some irrational fear that he was trying to hide/obstruct (publicized) meetings with foreign officials. It's obvious he did no such thing, and actually jumped through his arse to document a hell of a lot more than he had to. You guys are trying to pretend he had to go back and amend his application after stories came out - nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no reasonable conclusion that he lied, obstructed, or shouldn't have a clearance based on anything in that press release.

You should apologize.
I already said he didn't obstruct or doing anything illegal. I don't believe he was completely honest about the omissions, but that's just an opinion. And it's part of a pattern in this administration. As for his clearance, that's not my decision, but WH admin personnel get clearances when they shouldn't have them fairly regularly.
If he was a rank and file employee, I think he would not get his clearance, but again, that's my opinion.
You can be upset about all the ppl trying to burn him at the stake. I'm not one of them, and have already said that.
As compared to Obama and Hillary, they are very honest

So what? Why do you keep bringing up Obama and Hillary.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by cwtcr hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:You're missing the point, DC. The entire impetus for this is some irrational fear that he was trying to hide/obstruct (publicized) meetings with foreign officials. It's obvious he did no such thing, and actually jumped through his arse to document a hell of a lot more than he had to. You guys are trying to pretend he had to go back and amend his application after stories came out - nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no reasonable conclusion that he lied, obstructed, or shouldn't have a clearance based on anything in that press release.

You should apologize.
I already said he didn't obstruct or doing anything illegal. I don't believe he was completely honest about the omissions, but that's just an opinion. And it's part of a pattern in this administration. As for his clearance, that's not my decision, but WH admin personnel get clearances when they shouldn't have them fairly regularly.
If he was a rank and file employee, I think he would not get his clearance, but again, that's my opinion.
You can be upset about all the ppl trying to burn him at the stake. I'm not one of them, and have already said that.
As compared to Obama and Hillary, they are very honest

So what? Why do you keep bringing up Obama and Hillary.
you said "And it's part of a pattern in this administration", I do agree it is a good dig and for your TDS is required but the Trump folks are choir boys compared to the last 8 years and the shenanigans that the Clintons pulled for years. I am amused tho how upset you get about this big nothing that the MSM pounced on.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote: I already said he didn't obstruct or doing anything illegal. I don't believe he was completely honest about the omissions, but that's just an opinion. And it's part of a pattern in this administration. As for his clearance, that's not my decision, but WH admin personnel get clearances when they shouldn't have them fairly regularly.
If he was a rank and file employee, I think he would not get his clearance, but again, that's my opinion.
You can be upset about all the ppl trying to burn him at the stake. I'm not one of them, and have already said that.
Is this as close as we're going to get to a complete retraction of your opening position in this thread?
HokieFanDC wrote: LOL. Lying on the clearance form should be reason enough not to get clearance. He submitted a BS form to start with. Then after months of revising it, he still "left out" meetings. How many chances do you think he should get?
Maybe he should take a polygraph as a test of his trustworthiness. That would be a good start, because the initial results of his clearance process are pretty lousy.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by awesome guy »

YepImage
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: I already said he didn't obstruct or doing anything illegal. I don't believe he was completely honest about the omissions, but that's just an opinion. And it's part of a pattern in this administration. As for his clearance, that's not my decision, but WH admin personnel get clearances when they shouldn't have them fairly regularly.
If he was a rank and file employee, I think he would not get his clearance, but again, that's my opinion.
You can be upset about all the ppl trying to burn him at the stake. I'm not one of them, and have already said that.
Is this as close as we're going to get to a complete retraction of your opening position in this thread?
HokieFanDC wrote: LOL. Lying on the clearance form should be reason enough not to get clearance. He submitted a BS form to start with. Then after months of revising it, he still "left out" meetings. How many chances do you think he should get?
Maybe he should take a polygraph as a test of his trustworthiness. That would be a good start, because the initial results of his clearance process are pretty lousy.
Good one. What retraction? I still think his clearance should be in question. The simple fact that he let an aide sign his name on the form, or that he signed without checking the actual info in it, is pretty hideous. Someone doing that in the real world is putting themselves at great risk.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by USN_Hokie »

You just won't let this retarded argument go, will you?

You called him a liar. You said he falsified federal forms. You implied he hadn't had a polygraph. You said he shouldn't have a clearance based on your uneducated, completely BS opinion.

Have you ever used E-qip (go ahead, Google it)? If what he used was anything like that I could completely understand effing it up.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Trump talking pardons and Hillary

Post by ip_law-hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:You just won't let this retarded argument go, will you?

You called him a liar. You said he falsified federal forms. You implied he hadn't had a polygraph. You said he shouldn't have a clearance based on your uneducated, completely BS opinion.

Have you ever used E-qip (go ahead, Google it)? If what he used was anything like that I could completely understand effing it up.
Crushing it cap'n. What do you win?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Post Reply