(04-07-2017 03:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 03:08 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:49 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

Quote:Mr. Kushner’s omissions were described by people with direct knowledge of them who asked for anonymity because the questionnaire is not a public document.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us...clearance/

It's nice to know that the New York Times has a contact willing to divulge some of the most highly confidential personal information of applicants for Security Clearances for political purposes. Information that only the applicant, OPM and China are privy too. The only people guilty of malfeasance here is the New York Times and their contacts at OPM.

Maggie Haberman penned the article, she is the one of 2 who sat on the Susan Rice story. So predictable.

She's also one of two at the NYT who Trump just gave a sit down interview to.

(04-07-2017 03:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 03:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 03:08 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:49 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

Quote:Mr. Kushner’s omissions were described by people with direct knowledge of them who asked for anonymity because the questionnaire is not a public document.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us...clearance/

It's nice to know that the New York Times has a contact willing to divulge some of the most highly confidential personal information of applicants for Security Clearances for political purposes. Information that only the applicant, OPM and China are privy too. The only people guilty of malfeasance here is the New York Times and their contacts at OPM.

Maggie Haberman penned the article, she is the one of 2 who sat on the Susan Rice story. So predictable.

She's also one of two at the NYT who Trump just gave a sit down interview to.

4D chess? MAGA Mindset

The Russia stuff is just absurd and desperate. Laughable. I hope every Democrat runs on the "Russian collusion" platform just to see you guys completely melt down

(04-07-2017 03:23 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 03:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:49 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us...clearance/

It's nice to know that the New York Times has a contact willing to divulge some of the most highly confidential personal information of applicants for Security Clearances for political purposes. Information that only the applicant, OPM and China are privy too. The only people guilty of malfeasance here is the New York Times and their contacts at OPM.

I love it. This guy keeps secrets about meetings with the Russians to gain Security Clearance and you are concerned about the Times?

I can tell youve never had security clearance for anything. You really think Kushner had secrets before he got clearance. Dude they know the time and date of each time he took a leak for the last 20 years.

"They" know this yet you're worried about the New York Times????

You're embarrassing yourself now.

Repeating Fit's posts? You're embarrassing yourself now.

Game, set, and match to DefCONNOne.

If lack of disclosure was intentional (actually for security clearance, better be sure you're remembering EVERYTHING), this would be cause for his clearance to be revoked.

Don't know what happens if you truthfully tried to give a complete disclosure and came up a little short. Owl# or some of the experts could weigh in maybe.

Edit: would add if this is true.

(04-07-2017 02:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:49 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

Quote:Mr. Kushner’s omissions were described by people with direct knowledge of them who asked for anonymity because the questionnaire is not a public document.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us...clearance/

It's nice to know that the New York Times has a contact willing to divulge some of the most highly confidential personal information of applicants for Security Clearances for political purposes. Information that only the applicant, OPM and China are privy too. The only people guilty of malfeasance here is the New York Times and their contacts at OPM.

I love it. This guy keeps secrets about meetings with the Russians to gain Security Clearance and you are concerned about the Times?

His non disclosure of contacts with Russian government officials is confidential and a part of an official federal investigation. He should most certainly be punished if he was trying to deceive. But that information has no place in the public domain unless his clearance has been indeed revoked. At that point the reasons why it was revoked is fair game. You are completely ignorant, non-informed and flat out unaware about anything involving clearances and the processes involved with dealing with classified information. You have no idea of the disastrous impact of an indivividual(s) at the OPM willfully divulging this information. The same agency that was already duped and hacked of ALL its records by China. This means anyone is fair game, all the NYT has to do is make a phone call. You do know these same people have access to the backgrounds of everyone with cover identities as well? Don't you? Who else are they leaking info to? Did you ever think of that? It's disgusting.

It's not the Times I'm worried about. It's the employees at OPM leaking info on background investigations, not even 5 years after they were pwned by China. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

Ridiculous smear and distraction. Useless. Losing