Seriously, it is ridiculous to claim that it’s a “thing of value” for the purposes of that law.
If it is, please cite a precedent.
Cite a precedent.
That’s the thing. You list everyone and everything because failing to list them is worse. One of my friends and his wife, who both have clearances, are into swinging (having sex with people outside of their marriage). They list that on their applications because they don’t want anyone to be able to use it against them. “Dave cheats on his wife”. “We know - he told us. What else you got?”
Again, you list everything and let the people who handle your application sort it out. Withholding anything is as good as lying about it.
I can’t be bothered to dig through your old posts, so I’ll just ask: how did you feel about the “there’s no precedent” argument when it was applied to Hillary?
Can you and others explain why anything to do with security clearance is relevant to the case of Donald Trump Jr. who has none?
Ho Ho! Very droll my good man!
Are you proud that you are defending the president’s son, who met with a Russian lawyer during the election in order to gain information from the Russian government to help his campaign?
And it’s all just fine because in your opinion, “Not Illegal”. Just hunky dory. No problem if foreign governments obtain information however they can (I’m sure they will always obtain the information in ethical ways), and share it with whatever campaign they want in order to influence presidential elections, right? That’s the way things should be? No problem with that going forward into future elections?
There is a line between “Right” and “Wrong”.
How do you feel about Kushner, who does have a security clearance?
Was Cain justified in killing Abel? There was no precedent. Do you really think a judge would say “Gee, this hasn’t happened before. Olly olly oxen free!”
If opposition intel is not a thing of value, why do campaigns pay so much money gathering it?
Post 67.
Errr… post 67.
“Opposition intel” is. Information about criminal misdeeds of your opponent isn’t.
Let’s do a thought experiment to demonstrate. Let’s say someone (US citizen) contributed the max to a candidate ($2700). Then that someone finds out that the opponent of the candidate committed a crime. With proof. He comes to the candidate’s campaign and offers the proof.
The campaign checks and sees that the person has already contributed the maximum to the campaign. So - are they obligated to reject his “contribution”?
Is there any evidence that Kushner did not reveal it? I have ever gotten an American security clearance, but in other places, the forms you fill out are also classified or at least restricted.
Well… not really. As I said earlier, it’s probably wise to over-communicate your contacts. But it’s not a crime to simply to be unwise. When you start getting into “anything” you enter the realm of: I said excuse me to a guy with an accent that I bumped into on the subway this morning.
His personal attorney has confirmed on the record that his sf-86 did not list any foreign contacts.
I can’t find any case that specifies opposition intel on a candidate is a “thing of value,” but in statutes, words have their ordinary meaning. I don’t believe any court would be overturned on appeal for finding that this information was a “thing of value,” within the meaning of the law. People pay large sums of money for detailed opposition research.
As the Second Circuit explained:
My emphasis added, quoting US v. Girard, 601 F. 2d 69 (2nd Cir 1979) with all internal citations omitted. (But available on request).
You set up a false dilemma. If you are aware of someone committing a crime, you are obligated to report it to the appropriate legal authorities, not an opposing candidate’s campaign office. So which criminal activities did the Ruskies have knowledge of, exactly? Was it something…something…something… EMAILS! Or was it “Hillary lied, people died- BENGHAZI!”?
His lawyer’s statement (bolding mine)
"As we have previously stated, Mr. Kushner’s SF-86 was prematurely submitted and, among other errors, did not list any contacts with foreign government officials.
The next day, Mr. Kushner submitted supplemental information stating that he had had ‘numerous contacts with foreign officials’ about which he would be happy to provide additional information. He has since submitted this information, including that during the campaign and transition, he had over 100 calls or meetings with representatives of more than 20 countries, most of which were during transition,
…
Mr. Kushner has submitted additional updates and included, out of an abundance of caution, this meeting with a Russian person, which he briefly attended at the request of his brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr.".
You’re fighting the hypothetical. Try to answer it as asked. It is not a “false dilemma”. It is a hypothetical situation. Should the campaign reject this information because it is, according to you, an illegal campaign contribution?
… and that the next day after submitting it he “submitted supplemental information stating that he had had ‘numerous contacts with foreign officials’ about which he would be happy to provide additional information.”
‘contact’ being - saying hi as you pass them on the street or pleasantries in a meeting with a large group of people is much different then ‘contact’ with a named individual int he form of a meeting with said individual. They clearly shared common interests, goals.
In the end - the cite was to reference that it was ‘any foreign national’ - not just those that had specific affiliations - you can split hairs all day long on what it means by ‘meaningful contact’ or if it were to be ‘ongoing’ - if it were my form/interview - you can guaruntee that would be considered a ‘meaningful’ contact and I am so far down the food chain that its unlikely I would be sought out by foriegn ‘interests’ - which is what they are trying to determine here.
Keep in mind that @ Trumps level - simply exchaning pleasantries in a bar can be ‘first contact’ by the foriegn asset - so you have to pay even MORE attention to them.
Well that settles it. Kushner’s lawyer says there’s nothing to see here. We can be assured that he has no agenda in this matter.
Guess we can close the thread then? :rolleyes:
What he said -