thor Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 8 hours ago, freakingeek said: Jared Kushner signed form SF86 for Security Clearance when he became Trump's official White House advisor. The form is 127 pages long and asks for very detailed and specific information. Page 2 of Form SF86 has the following warning in bold “The U.S. Criminal Code (title 18, section 1001) provides that knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines and/or up to five (5) years imprisonment. In addition, Federal agencies generally fire, do not grant a security clearance, or disqualify individuals who have materially and deliberately falsified these forms, and this remains a part of the permanent record for future placements.” In that form, on page 59, the question is asked, "Do you have or have you had close and/or continuing contact with a foreign national within the last 7 years with whom you or your spouse are bound by affection, influence, common interest and/or obligation? Include ALL associates and/or relatives. A foreign national is defined as any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. Jared Kushner failed to document the meeting with the Russian Nationals regarding the highly sensitive and potentially damaging information on Hillary Clinton being made available to the Trump administration. Jared Kushner will be questioned by the Senate Intelligence committee and by Robert Mueller regarding this meeting. He will either perjure himself or admit to committing a felony. Jared is in some deep shit. LOL!!! Nice job noodles... Was that 5 years??? Shaaazzzaaaaaammmm... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justafan Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 48 minutes ago, Denali said: How much you wanna bet he didn't violate anything by not putting it down. Have you ever seen an SF86 form? No one has said that he has. It's all wishful conjecture. You know, fake news. Now, here's an example of real news from the same website: https://firenewsfeed.com/news/66280 You see, Kim Kardashian was most certainly naked in the photo that she posted, and it was Mother's Day. Completely 100% accurate reporting. There is a part on the SF 86 that asks you strait up if you have had any dealings with foreign nationals and foreign governments. Your right though that it would be a stretch to go after him legally as this is kind of grey in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denali Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 Just now, Justafan said: There is a part on the SF 86 that asks you strait up if you have had any dealings with foreign nationals and foreign governments. Not exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justafan Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 Just now, Denali said: Not exactly. The quote is above. Take that anyway you want. Did I mention that I do this stuff all the time? Again, I don't think he broke the law in the spirit of the question and I think you have to stretch the law to go after him legally. Even if he did strait up lie on the form, going after him this way would yield no results and be a joke in court. Any lawyer would get this to go away pretty fast. Just my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denali Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, Justafan said: The quote is above. Take that anyway you want. Did I mention that I do this stuff all the time? Well, there is "Do you have, or have you had, close and/or continuing contact with a foreign national within the last seven (7) years with whom you, or your spouse, or cohabitant are bound by affection, influence, common interests, and/or obligation? Include associates as well as relatives" OR "Have you or any member of your immediate family in the past seven (7) years had any contact with a foreign government, its establishment (such as embassy, consulate, agency, military service, intelligence or security service, etc.) or its representatives, whether inside or outside the U.S.? But as I've highlighted, they do not apply in this case. But again, nothing "strait up". It's all about purpose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Denali said: The emails with Donald Trump Jr. about the Russian meeting were discovered as Kushner and his legal team prepared for his testimony before Congress as they were doing a document review, a source familiar with the process told CNN. As soon as the document was discovered, Kushner's disclosure form was amended to include the meeting, the source said. In all fairness, it is always best (e.g. a really good fucking idea) to err on the side of caution when filling out an SF86, and to disclose more than is being asked for rather than less. The SF86 is concerned about giving aid to or having financial and/or other binding relationships with foreign countries and foreign nationals, and with meetings that took place on foreign soil. The meetings he had with the Russians probably did not fall under any of those categories. However, his lawyer probably recommended he err on the side of caution, as I mentioned above. Hence, the update. His lawyer flat out said it didn't disclose contact with foreign officials. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat Posted July 12, 2017 Report Share Posted July 12, 2017 He should face 5 years. Throw the book at 'em! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakingeek Posted July 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 17 hours ago, Denali said: So you've seen Kushner's SF86 form that he filled out and submitted? Wow, you have better sources than me. Maybe you're the hacker that everyone has been looking for. He left that entire section blank and amended the application AFTER the information about the meeting was made public. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakingeek Posted July 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 16 hours ago, patsplat said: He should face 5 years. Throw the book at 'em! LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakingeek Posted July 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 17 hours ago, thor said: LOL!!! Nice job noodles... Was that 5 years??? Shaaazzzaaaaaammmm... Keep flappin your jaws with nothing coming out of your mouth. Meanwhile Trump's lawyers are trying to distance themselves from Kushner. Why you reckon that is, Sherlock? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justafan Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 16 hours ago, Denali said: Well, there is "Do you have, or have you had, close and/or continuing contact with a foreign national within the last seven (7) years with whom you, or your spouse, or cohabitant are bound by affection, influence, common interests, and/or obligation? Include associates as well as relatives" OR "Have you or any member of your immediate family in the past seven (7) years had any contact with a foreign government, its establishment (such as embassy, consulate, agency, military service, intelligence or security service, etc.) or its representatives, whether inside or outside the U.S.? But as I've highlighted, they do not apply in this case. But again, nothing "strait up". It's all about purpose. Ok, well i'm telling you that if I had a cadet who asked me about this type of meeting, I would instruct them to disclose it. Have you ever filled out e-quip before? Do you have a security clearance? You seem to be speaking with a lot of authority here. My guess is you have no idea what you're talking about.... as usual. I don't think it legally breaks the spirit of the form but if the investigator found out about it he would deny the clearance. Again, take that anyway you want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denali Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 6 hours ago, Justafan said: My guess is you have no idea what you're talking about.... as usual. You guess wrong. I will not say anything more about that. And as I said earlier, it is very prudent to err on the side of the caution. It all comes down to a demonstration of trustworthiness, and leaving things off, especially with seeming intent, does not put you in a good light, so to speak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justafan Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, Denali said: You guess wrong. I will not say anything more about that. And as I said earlier, it is very prudent to err on the side of the caution. It all comes down to a demonstration of trustworthiness, and leaving things off, especially with seeming intent, does not put you in a good light, so to speak. Yea, okay. Prove it. At what stage of the security clearance for a secret clearance does the investigator come and sit down with you? Who in the process actually approves the security clearance? What is the name of the system/website that you can login to to check on a security clearance / request a security clearance? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denali Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 17 minutes ago, Justafan said: Yea, okay. Prove it. At what stage of the security clearance for a secret clearance does the investigator come and sit down with you? Who in the process actually approves the security clearance? What is the name of the system/website that you can login to to check on a security clearance / request a security clearance? <At what stage of the security clearance for a secret clearance does the investigator come and sit down with you?> For a SECRET clearance, normally an investigator does not conduct an in person interview unless there is something unusual in your background. <Who in the process actually approves the security clearance?> The DoD CAF adjudicator <What is the name of the system/website that you can login to to check on a security clearance / request a security clearance?> e-QIP to apply, JPAS and/or Scattered Castles to check/verify on status/existence Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justafan Posted July 13, 2017 Report Share Posted July 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, Denali said: <At what stage of the security clearance for a secret clearance does the investigator come and sit down with you?> For a SECRET clearance, normally an investigator does not conduct an in person interview unless there is something unusual in your background. <Who in the process actually approves the security clearance?> The DoD CAF adjudicator <What is the name of the system/website that you can login to to check on a security clearance / request a security clearance?> e-QIP to apply, JPAS and/or Scattered Castles to check/verify on status/existence Okay fair enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.