And why should we believe THIS statement?
[quote]âI did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sectorâŚI have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form, above and beyond what is required."
[/quote]
Riiiiiiiight.
I want to know why he said he would do this in private and not be sworn in under oath? Why did the Senate agree to this? They could have subpoenaed him. This is starting out all wrong to begin with. I donât see the Senate taking their responsibility seriously. Private? Fine. But not under oath? Not OK. Not in the slightest. Our security as a country should come first. This person had a backdoor relationship to Russia and already heâs being given a major pass by Congress. Sickening.
I read a comment that even without swearing in, lying ro Congress would be a felony. Regardless, I agree completely with you
Totally explains why you sought a back channel to Russia hosted on their comms networks.
So he âforgotâ not one, but four encounters. Should someone with a memory that bad be trusted to run all the things heâs supposed to be running?
Full transparency: My SF-86 form is totally complete except for the $1 billion in debt held by foreign banks.
âI do not recallâ having phone calls with the Russian Ambassador, but I remember that I met with 4 different ambassadors last year at a speech, and the exact details of what was said by me during thatâŚ
Someone needs to teach the Trumps and their buddies that the âfuzzy memoryâ defense isnât as effective when you have laser-like memories of everything BUT the controversial incidentâŚ
Also, why would an Americanâs first thought be âhey, I donât have secure capabilities at my place, how about we use the Russian embassyâ, and not, âGee, letâs go down to one of the million Federal buildings around New York or D.CâŚââŚ
âI have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form (and amended form 1, amended form 2 and amended form 3), above and beyond what is requiredâŚexcept, of course, for fully and completely disclosing all the information required by the SF-86 form, especially anything having to do with meetings or contacts with Russians or huge loans from foreign banks."
Before: What Washington needs is freethinkers and outsiders like Trump.
After: We broke the law because weâre new and were overwhelmed by the job.
What do you think Kushnerâs claim that he didnât have to disclose debts. This seems crazy to me.
That damn sewer it backed up againâŚ
Perhaps - superficially believable - to those who want to believe it.
But the pesky body of tricked out information exists. Including the revelation that one of those meetings involved a solicitation of a back channel comm to the Kremlin - with the suggested idea that this could be done using lines in a Russian secure facility.
Perhaps he came in late to that meeting, too, and that discussion had been conducted by Flynn, and was concluded by the time he arrived? Right.
Because Republicans. And Hillaryâs emails.
Uhm, did anyone tell him what âcolludeâ means?
And if heâs so âinexperiencedâ about the world of politics why is he playing such a central role for Trump?
Iâm actually okay with it being in private. When in public, there is too much grandstanding on both sides and ârunning out the clockâ with inane questions by the GOP. My hope is that in the absence of cameras, the questioning is more substantive and maybe even the answers. I do think it should be under oath, although I agree that you can still get in trouble lying to congress with or without an oath.
âI did not have collusion with that government.â
âIt depends what your definition of collusion isâ
No collusion, whatsoever. Just full blown treason, clandestine communications, military secrets and cuckolding.
First thing that crossed my mind:
The headline should read
Kushner Says He Had Only 4 Encounters With Russian Officials, No CollusionâŚ
Says Proven Liar
