old salt wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:52 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:16 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:50 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:29 pm
thatsmell wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Exactly. The point is officials were aware. It's why you do the screening and answer the gov'ts questions about your past.
The whole part of avoiding being leveraged is the government KNOWING that it can happen and in this case, helping him avoid the pitfalls with in- and out-briefs.
So... you just 'warn' Jared that if he's offered foreign financing on a building US bankers won't touch, the foreign folks might want something in return???
And no worries from there?
Gee, let's have a bunch of secret meetings, no notes, no problem...
No. You follow up & ask Kushner to alert you if he's contacted by any of the foreign officials that were intercepted.
It's not that complicated. How did the IC know that foreign officials were talking about him ?
Do you think the IC stopped listening to the foreign officials ?
Do you think this might have come up during the Mueller probe if it was a concern ?
nope, given the prior lies he doesn't get the job, the clearance, period.
Not a chance.
Come on Salty, you know better.
I know better than to swallow, without question or details, the partisan BS the MSM cranks out anytime the story includes Trump.
I want to hear from Mr Carl Kline, not his disgruntled subordinate.
I wouldn't hire Kushner, just based on experience.
That doesn't mean the risk of him having a TS clearance (without SCI) can't be managed.
I think you mean the whistle blower.
By "disgruntled" you mean very worried professional.
Yes, we'd like to hear from Kline.
But do we trust a political appointee who overruled the professional process on behalf of a whole bunch of folks who couldn't otherwise get approved?
I don't.
But yes, he should be on the hot seat, under oath, to explain exactly how he arrived at
each decision to overrule the professionals.
I have a little bit of experience with this, both through the companies I've invested with their personnel, and a close family member who has intermittently spent most of his professional life with TS/SCI.
Sure, for some types of work, with enough attention, risks could be mediated at the TS level. Depending on what those risks actually are. But someone with those risks still doesn't get the clearance. Period.
And this set of risks is way, way more than what would normally get a clearance blocked. I'm just talking about those we know about, eg his lying again and again on his disclosure forms about foreign contacts. Sorry, I don't buy that he didn't understand the question...each time. And the amount of financial compromise was/is extreme. No way you have someone doing personal financial deals at the same time as he's doing foreign policy negotiations.
So, no, you don't get TS, you don't get
any clearance. Someone else gets the job.
Especially the job in which the clear person has enormous influence on foreign policy decisions.
And then he has meetings alone with foreign leaders, no notes?
What, is he wearing a wire so the intel folks know exactly what's being said? Got visual on each piece of paper?
Really? No problem?