Tweet
It's a big deal. I mean, if PDJT is lying about it then it must be a BIG DEAL.
-
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good. -
Is Kushner done amending his application form yet? Like the end of A Song of Ice and Fire, it's could be a heck of a piece when he's finally finished.Comment
-
The dems need another angle at impeachment, because they know there was no collusion.Originally posted by crashcourse View PostComment
-
I'd be interested in any of your thoughts on why it's not a big deal that the guy lies his ass off on his application form, appears ready to sell policy outcomes for personal gain, and yet should have a security clearance. I get that at a certain level there's not much damage he could potentially do, but, in the bigger picture, it makes you wonder what the point is of spending billions of dollars on information security if we're all good with the current treatment of American secrets, in which Russia's president has easier access than most Americans. If that's OK, then there's not much point in having secrets anyways. It's the very definition of wasteful government spending.Comment
-
(1) I don't think PDJT lying about something is evidence that that thing is a big deal. I find that rationale specious given how pervasively he lies. Not that that was your particularly point.
(2) IMO, you answer the question, in part -- "I get that at a certain level there's not much damage he could potentially do". Doesn't that make it sort of not a big deal? At least in terms of this particular incident.
(3) I can't speak to how the US maintains secrets. I do think that the notion that Kushner got a certain level of access so we should question it all seems like a leap. If you're asking the big policy question then you need the big policy data. If the US systemically doesn't give a fuck, then ok. Point taken. If that's not the case then I don't think the basis is there to ask the question. Assuming that Kushner is an example of widespread dissemination of US secrets, then I concur with your point.
(4) My mind isn't made up at all on whether this is a "big deal." The key fact(s) for is/are the basis/bases for his denial.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
-
The story that was revealed yesterday was pretty interesting, when the White House legal counsel was against it and the Chief of Staff writes a memo saying the order came from Trump himself that is a noteworthy story. Its really noteworthy that the Trumps have continually denied that Trump had anything to do with it. Does Jeff Buchanan want the Post and Times to sit on the story because Jeff doesn't think its a big deal?
Comment
-
The politics talk is so unproductive. Has anyone here changed stances? Can someone point to something here where a person from the other side of the aisle changed the way you think after an argument on this forum?
"I used to believe X but someone posted that meme and now I have changed my mind."
"I supported Y until someone threw up some strawmen and called me an idiot, now I have made a 180."
"I wanted to see candidate z win the election but after someone hit me with unrelenting condescension and insulted my intelligence I have thought better of it."
Anyone?
Jesus Christ, people, we could be talking about Kris Kristopherson."The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham LincolnComment
-
Here are some thoughts on this question:Originally posted by hack View Post
There are probably questionable entries on Kushner's security clearance application. I've been through this process multiple times including a subsequent inquiry after being granted SCI access, about places I had been and people that I had talked to. There are multiple pages on security clearance applications ..... I mean, a shit-ton of them. Like, who was your 6th grade teacher or how many times have you visited a foreign country, which country and which communist countries if any? Did you speak with any government personnel during these visits. If so, who, when and how many times.
Well, shit, I might not remember all of these but I try to be accurate as possible. Kushner has traveled widely and in pursuit of the family business interests has undoubtedly talked to multiple foreign government people. I can't imagine Kushner going through his application and intentionally omitting contacts he might have had. It's possible I suppose but my take is it's not likely that in his case he willfully omitted information. Any of these voluminous and tedious questions are perfect "gottchas" for anyone who wants to get you.
My sense is that Trump's political enemies received information that they could use against Kushner or Trump (the deny him access b/c "knowlege is power" thing) from the agency conducting the background check. For a guy like Kushner in the employ of the Federal Government and for a TS clearance, it's going to be The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, a central agency that serves as the corporate human resources organization for the federal government. State was likely also involved in reviewing his clearance application and talk about a hive of Trump haters within it's hallowed halls.
I think the entire Kushner affair is a hit piece and maintain it is of minor significance. So, Trump lied about being involved. Trump lies about everything. Nothing to see here. My take is that Kushner made errors on his security clearance application. Were they willful? I can't say I'm not privy to his application or to questions surrounding it..... and BTW, we aren't going to know about them either.
The major questions for me about the Trump presidency involve the emoluments questions as well as illegal campaign activity. I've already posted where I am on his presidency. I very much doubt prosecutors who are in possession of evidence that Trump committed crimes would indict him as a sitting president. JMO, YMMV. I also don't think Congress will initiate and undertake the process for articles of impeachment based on the emolluments clause of the constitution although there is probably a basis for it. Again JMO, YMMV. But I've been clear, I don't think Trump possesses the skill set or the trustworthiness to fulfill his constitutional duties as president of the US. I made that determination before the Kushner shit hit the wall.
So, the Kushner stuff to me is a silly side show to the bigger issues of DJT's competency to hold the office he currently holds. IMO, he crossed the threshold of not being fit a while back. The legal risks Trump faces both while in office and, to a larger degree, when he is out of office are or should be the other big issue. That he might have lied about his involvement in Kushner's security clearance or that Kushner might have purposely or otherwise omitted information on his security application is small potatoes and at the best just more piling on of evidence that Trump is unfit to serve as president.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! timeComment
-
2 years in I would be interested to see what evidence you have of this happening.Originally posted by hack View Post
Personally I don't like either of those Manhattan progressives having the ear of the president. Even with their influence, Trump has governed very conservatively, I wonder how much more so without those two.Comment
-
(2) IMO, you answer the question, in part -- "I get that at a certain level there's not much damage he could potentially do". Doesn't that make it sort of not a big deal? At least in terms of this particular incident.
Yes, it does make it sort of not a big deal. For me it calls into question the point of having this process. Why do we have an extraordinarily expensive process for information security that does not need to be taken seriously? There are other examples. Once the volume of classified docs started to really increase 15 years ago, that required many more people to manage the system, and then suddenly we got Bradley Manning and Reality Winner. My understanding -- and some of you could be in a position to correct me -- is that the volume of information created required more contracting with Booz Allen Hamilton and others to manage the system, and it is of course any secrecy system is inherently less secure when the secrets are shared with more people.
The whole thing just suggests that security of information may not actually be the point of the system. A secure system would be smaller, and would exclude lifelong access for serial liars everybody knows won't be in DC all that long anyways.Comment
-
We're all a bunch of fucking idiots. Michigan has a 25-4 basketball team, and even when Harbaugh was finally remaking his staff a few weeks back, this thread was the one with all the action. Judge us accordingly.Originally posted by AlabamAlum View Post
Comment
-
Anyone but Kris K ......Originally posted by AlabamAlum View Post
Seriously though, my entrenched political positions haven't changed but they been informed sometimes in nuanced ways by posters here. Actually, I think most of us learn things about the "other" side of the isle that we may not have otherwise made an effort to understand.
For example, who would have ever thought that Wizard had a collection of tractors and animals he loved and because of that failed to father a son, an heir.
A mother and her young daughter were discussing sex. The daughter had had a discussion at school with friends about anal intercourse. They had disagreed about whether or not you could get pregnant from that kind of activity. The daughter posed the question to her Mom. She paused for a moment and thought then excitedly responded, YES, that's how we get lawyers.Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! timeComment
-
Froot, try to follow along. We are talking about a CNBC-posted Harwood article that Strangelove posted. We are not talking about what Republicans may or may not claim in the future. Nor are we talking about any claim of quarterly growth made by the current administration. We are talking about John Harwood's statements which certainly qualify as "fake news". Strangelove's accurate summary of the article was"Originally posted by froot loops View Post
Obama had growth of 3%+ over 4 consecutive quarters at least 4 different times.
Why do you try to somehow change the clear statement (in your most recent post you now ignore the word "consecutive"). Why defend this nitwit (Harwood, not CGVT)? Strangelove isn't defending him. Strangelove simply posted a Democrat talking point that he receives every day. I only took note because it is so clearly evident that the statement is untrue. Obama never had 4 consecutive quarters of 3% growth, much less having that happen four different times. But this is how shit happens, and the next thing is that this false narrative becomes accepted as true.
For example, there was a new report issued today written by a UN guy who is in charge of climate change research that says that 95-99% of climate change (meaning global warming) is caused by humans. For thinking people, the warming of the planet being "caused" 95% by any one factor is fanciful on its face. We simply don't know what caused the warm periods of 1AD and 1250 AD. We do know we are coming out of the Little Ice Age beginning about 1850, and ALL projections are based on relatively recent temperature data (from 1880 or so).
And to say that this false narrative doesn't matter is also wrong. Silent Spring in the 1960s and The Population Bomb in the 1980s resulted in massive worldwide policy changes which we now know to be wrongheaded. DDT does not hurt humans when used responsively (but two million people extra per year died from malaria each year after it was banned). Global population has increased since Urlich's book, but we were not tribes battling for limited resources by 2000 as he predicted. Now, even China is dealing with a demographic problem of not enough replacement population growth.
So, Froot, just accept that Strangelove didn't get away with this particular "fake news" and let it be. I only called it out because any sensible person knows that there was not 3% economic growth during half of the quarters in the Obama years. I suggest you post about the Federal Reserve which is something you seem to know something about.
Comment
-
I can't help it if it is something you cannot comprehend, I didn't say the argument was all that good, its what the White House is pushing. It is average growth over 4 quarters.
But remember one thing, you are a POS and will always be, that welfare comment sealed it.Comment
Comment