So the top law enforcement officer in the United States lied to the Department of Justice when he applied for his Security Clearance. He should be tossed out on his ass for this.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politics/ ... l?adkey=bn

And the swamp gets more putrid and polluted.

Rather a murkey area here isn't it?

"Sessions initially listed a year's worth of meetings with foreign officials on the security clearance form, according to Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores. But she says he and his staff were then told by an FBI employee who assisted in filling out the form, known as the SF-86, that he didn't need to list dozens of meetings with foreign ambassadors that happened in his capacity as a senator."

Might it not be better to curb your hate until more complete information is available?

BobPatterson wrote:

Might it not be better to curb your hate until more complete information is available?

How do you distinguish your meetings as a Senator from those on a personal basis? It's similar to his "I'm not a Trump surrogate even though the campaign considered me one". That is what you would call a conflict of interest, which to save you the trouble, should have been listed. You can use your Senate office to go on official duties and during your business morph into Jeff Sessions, the citizen, do what you need, then morph back into Senator mode and call it a day. Your office details it as an official meeting...official business WAS carried out, but a little extra might have also been done when no one else was looking.

When I applied for my job, I listed EVERY country I had ever visited, regardless of whether it was friendly or not, whether I visited once or thrice. To quote a famous 5th Amendment seeker: "If I did a 10th of that, I'd be in jail".

For an administration that seeks to drain the swamp, it's not doing a good job of convincing us that its new keepers are drainers and not dumpers.

BobPatterson wrote:

Rather a murkey area here isn't it?

"Sessions initially listed a year's worth of meetings with foreign officials on the security clearance form, according to Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores. But she says he and his staff were then told by an FBI employee who assisted in filling out the form, known as the SF-86, that he didn't need to list dozens of meetings with foreign ambassadors that happened in his capacity as a senator."

Might it not be better to curb your hate until more complete information is available?

Remember though, we are dealing with the possibility that a public official lied. (Hence Hillis's world stops spinning.)

einsteinboricua wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Might it not be better to curb your hate until more complete information is available?

How do you distinguish your meetings as a Senator from those on a personal basis? It's similar to his "I'm not a Trump surrogate even though the campaign considered me one". That is what you would call a conflict of interest, which to save you the trouble, should have been listed. You can use your Senate office to go on official duties and during your business morph into Jeff Sessions, the citizen, do what you need, then morph back into Senator mode and call it a day. Your office details it as an official meeting...official business WAS carried out, but a little extra might have also been done when no one else was looking.

When I applied for my job, I listed EVERY country I had ever visited, regardless of whether it was friendly or not, whether I visited once or thrice. To quote a famous 5th Amendment seeker: "If I did a 10th of that, I'd be in jail".

For an administration that seeks to drain the swamp, it's not doing a good job of convincing us that its new keepers are drainers and not dumpers.

Were you once a Federal employee? I was for almost 10 years.

I remember filling out forms listing every place I ever lived, but I don't remember a countries list. I had only been to Canada for one day as a kid.

What I DO remember was the damned form listing so-called subversive organizations. Man, I couldn't believe how long that list was. Well, the Audubon Society and National Wildlife Federation weren't on it, and I never joined a number of listed groups whose literature I had read.

I can only say it seems pretty stupid to not list everything, regardless of what "an FBI employee" tells you. I would trust lawyer's opinions. I mean we all trust what "an airline employee" says here, especially pilots, right? Seriously, if applying for the level he was applying I would essentially air more than less. And he has been a Senator long enough to know better of the politics.

Of course, again I will reiterate that I don't intend to change peoples minds, I'm not trying to convince those who cannot be of anything.

Tugg

BobPatterson wrote:

Rather a murkey area here isn't it?

"Sessions initially listed a year's worth of meetings with foreign officials on the security clearance form, according to Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores. But she says he and his staff were then told by an FBI employee who assisted in filling out the form, known as the SF-86, that he didn't need to list dozens of meetings with foreign ambassadors that happened in his capacity as a senator."

Might it not be better to curb your hate until more complete information is available?

Read the second paragraph in the link. He did NOT disclose meeting with a Russian official in the last year. He was required to disclose that. He did not. Probably because it would raise red flags, no pun intended.

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Rather a murkey area here isn't it?

"Sessions initially listed a year's worth of meetings with foreign officials on the security clearance form, according to Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores. But she says he and his staff were then told by an FBI employee who assisted in filling out the form, known as the SF-86, that he didn't need to list dozens of meetings with foreign ambassadors that happened in his capacity as a senator."

Might it not be better to curb your hate until more complete information is available?

Read the second paragraph in the link. He did NOT disclose meeting with a Russian official in the last year. He was required to disclose that. He did not. Probably because it would raise red flags, no pun intended.

No kidding? Read the paragraph that I posted from the linked article. You can interpret it two ways:

1. After listing a year's worth of meetings he stopped listing additional ones after being advised they were not necessary.

2. The list of meetings were re-listed, omitting meetings in his capacity as a Senator.

In either case, the meetings of interest were not listed on the form(s) that were submitted. His intent in omitting them is in question.

I don't have enough information upon which to make a judgement as to his intent.

I have no sympathy for Sesions. When I was in the Navy in the later part of the 60's I filled in a FBI Background form as part of applying for a TS clearance. The FBI spent an average of $10,000 back in those days completing their investigation and they take your honesty in completing the form very seriously. I can assure you that I took that effort very seriously when I filled it out.

In terms of what should happen to Sessions, I've had it with the lying SOBs in Trumps Administration. Arrest the SOB (and the others), put them on trial ASAP and z"Lock Em Up" if found guilty. Maybe the rest of Trump's good buddies will get the message.

BobPatterson wrote:

I don't have enough information upon which to make a judgement as to his intent.

So then you should agree that further investigation and review to determine the intent is fair and appropriate?

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I don't have enough information upon which to make a judgement as to his intent.

So then you should agree that further investigation and review to determine the intent is fair and appropriate?

Tugg

Indeed there should be an investigation but the problem is can be trusted to do it ? The DOJ can't, the FBI has issues, Congressional and Senate committees have huge political party biases. Trump could fire anyone who gets in the way and no real options to prevent him from doing so. What a mess. Perhaps the most honorable thing is to resign.

Tugger wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I don't have enough information upon which to make a judgement as to his intent.

So then you should agree that further investigation and review to determine the intent is fair and appropriate?

Tugg

Of course. And it will be investigated by special prosecutor Mueller. But more than that, it will be Mueller's task to determine if Sen. Session's (and other's) conduct broke any laws.

BobPatterson wrote:

Were you once a Federal employee? I was for almost 10 years.

No, but signing up for a clearance requires you to disclose the countries you've visited. I remember as soon as I put Canada there were a slew of questions just for Canada.

einsteinboricua wrote:

How do you distinguish your meetings as a Senator from those on a personal basis?

For starters meeting location is a good indicator. Capitol Hill office vs George Town Restaurant. Is there any US politician who didn't meet Kislyak in public or private capacity? He is here since 2008.

I hate to say this, but it's not at all uncommon to lie on the SF-86.

It's when you're caught in a lie (e.g., you go to take a polygraph, and say you say "No, I have never lied to (insert gov agency here).") that you get immediately shit canned.

If you say "Yes, I lied on question such and such"., you're given a chance to explain yourself, and you're looked at much more favorably.

Granted, I've never heard of this being done for a TS/SCI clearance, but it works fine with public trust/secret.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Is there any US politician who didn't meet Kislyak in public or private capacity? He is here since 2008.

You can invite Kislyak to your office, say that you're having an official meeting, and carry out a bit of private business as well. How can you tell which meetings were purely about Senate topics and which were intertwined with other topics?

And if you met Kislyak, congratulations. However failure to disclose it and/or denying it does raise suspicions.

einsteinboricua wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Is there any US politician who didn't meet Kislyak in public or private capacity? He is here since 2008.

You can invite Kislyak to your office, say that you're having an official meeting, and carry out a bit of private business as well. How can you tell which meetings were purely about Senate topics and which were intertwined with other topics?

And if you met Kislyak, congratulations. However failure to disclose it and/or denying it does raise suspicions.

But those meeting dates,agenda and transcripts are already with the government. What is he hiding?

HRC as SoS(public capacity) and as spouse(private capacity) of CGI founder would have met lot of people from lot of countries. Can she list every one of those.

You can say I am using whataboutery by quoting HRC, but media screaming OMG like a teenage girls for meetings happened in Capitol Hill???

Like John Oliver put it, this Russian connection is stupid version of Watergate. Sure Trump campaign did lot of stupid things any professional politician would have avoided like plague.

Give the Keebler klansman a break. He can't remember a darn thing post civil rights act!

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Rather a murkey area here isn't it?

"Sessions initially listed a year's worth of meetings with foreign officials on the security clearance form, according to Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores. But she says he and his staff were then told by an FBI employee who assisted in filling out the form, known as the SF-86, that he didn't need to list dozens of meetings with foreign ambassadors that happened in his capacity as a senator."

Might it not be better to curb your hate until more complete information is available?

Read the second paragraph in the link. He did NOT disclose meeting with a Russian official in the last year. He was required to disclose that. He did not. Probably because it would raise red flags, no pun intended.

No kidding? Read the paragraph that I posted from the linked article. You can interpret it two ways:

1. After listing a year's worth of meetings he stopped listing additional ones after being advised they were not necessary.

2. The list of meetings were re-listed, omitting meetings in his capacity as a Senator.

In either case, the meetings of interest were not listed on the form(s) that were submitted. His intent in omitting them is in question.

I don't have enough information upon which to make a judgement as to his intent.

But he omitted them. That should be enough to remove him. Too many appointees never finished filling out their applications. Republicans in Congress simply approved them, site unseen. This is how the swamp was never drained, but filled to overflowing.

BobPatterson wrote:

In either case, the meetings of interest were not listed on the form(s) that were submitted. His intent in omitting them is in question.

I don't have enough information upon which to make a judgement as to his intent.

I believe this is an example of "extreme vetting", except administration officials are upset that's it not happening to the evil, brown people as they intended. Since the Senate decided to forgo that responsibility by fast-tracking nominees, I'm perfectly content with seeing these things come up now.