Sessions didn’t disclose meetings with Russian officials on security clearance form

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whywhynot

Lying on a security clearance form is less important than an ice cream story? Are you nuts?

PS: You don't believe WaPo? Here's the Hill. Deny some ignorance for a change and don't just blindly dismiss something you find to be inconvenient.

Dude you could just put the link to the google news search that has every major outlet on the planet and people will still scoff at it. Me included.
Let me give you an example...
Did a simple search into the author of the article in your OP.

Sari Horwitz, a 27-year veteran, three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The Post, a woman almost universally liked and respected here, violated that standard twice within a week, copying and pasting material from the Arizona Republic on March 4 and March 10 in online stories (published in print on March 5 and 11) about Jared Lee Loughner, the man accused of shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January. As a result, she was suspended from The Post for three months without pay.

WAPO
These people are not genuine ethical reporters.
Every source you cling to or cite I can take less than 5 minutes to discredit.
One would think you all would eventually learn this after the sky has not fallen for the umtheenth time.

Great post,

And this is how ALL of us have to not get deceived by posting and believing crap news reports without a little due diligence. In this case the SF-86 is sensitive information and very difficult to believe that a reporter has seen it. Leaked? Well I'm not interested in believing a report based on illegally leaked material that some unnamed person read a portion of over the phone to a reporter. These news outlets and reporters have lost all of their integrity. No more than the National Enquirer anymore (no offense intended to Batboy). Show me the evidence so that I can make my on decision.

Not letting the clown media tell me what I believe.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Failing to properly fill out a form is NOT the same as intentionally committing perjury under oath. It's not even a close comparison. Try again.

I suggest you read the following:

www.opm.gov...

starting with page 62,,, the actual form is 127 pages long:

Section 19 - Foreign Contacts 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, not previously listed in Section 18.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whywhynot

Your unsubstantiated allegation is that Sessions committed an error of omission on his SF-86. The way you would begin to substantiate your allegation would be to produce his SF-86. Can you do that? No? Then it is unsubstantiated and makes for a worthless post.

Except no one is denying it. You are just trying to stick your head in the sand because it's bad news for your side of the partisan aisle.

Is it not sticking your head in the sand to demand actual evidence of an allegation. I'm just unwilling to allow myself to be lead around and given my beliefs by a corrupt and dishonest media which have been exposed as liars. You may like that however.

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whywhynot

Your unsubstantiated allegation is that Sessions committed an error of omission on his SF-86. The way you would begin to substantiate your allegation would be to produce his SF-86. Can you do that? No? Then it is unsubstantiated and makes for a worthless post.

Except no one is denying it. You are just trying to stick your head in the sand because it's bad news for your side of the partisan aisle.

Is it not sticking your head in the sand to demand actual evidence of an allegation. I'm just unwilling to allow myself to be lead around and given my beliefs by a corrupt and dishonest media which have been exposed as liars. You may like that however.

So instead of using critical thinking skills to analyze the news being reported intelligently you've decided to embrace ignorance. Gotcha.

originally posted by: RickinVa
I suggest you read the following:

www.opm.gov...

starting with page 62,,, the actual form is 127 pages long:

Section 19 - Foreign Contacts 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, not previously listed in Section 18.

Ok... And? What's your point? That's the part that he didn't fill out. Last I checked the election last year fell within the last seven years and Sessions has now admitted to having met with the Russian Ambassador last year. So he should have written that on the form at a minimum.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

provide ANY proof he did this intentionally

so you will be for barak being prosecuted for breaking the law for spying on everyone

and you are now for prosecuting hillary for her national security lapses as well?

or you only scream for prosecution when the right makes a mistake?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RickinVa
I suggest you read the following:

www.opm.gov...

starting with page 62,,, the actual form is 127 pages long:

Section 19 - Foreign Contacts 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, not previously listed in Section 18.

Ok... And? What's your point? That's the part that he didn't fill out. Last I checked the election last year fell within the last seven years and Sessions has now admitted to having met with the Russian Ambassador last year. So he should have written that on the form at a minimum.

How do you know that he didn't write that on the form? Now admit it, you don't know do you?

I support anything that removes drug war dinosaur and private prison supporter Session's from government.

Hopefully he'll get canned before he ruins any more lives..

Where's the Form

Where's the Form

Where's the Form

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whywhynot

Your unsubstantiated allegation is that Sessions committed an error of omission on his SF-86. The way you would begin to substantiate your allegation would be to produce his SF-86. Can you do that? No? Then it is unsubstantiated and makes for a worthless post.

Except no one is denying it. You are just trying to stick your head in the sand because it's bad news for your side of the partisan aisle.

Is it not sticking your head in the sand to demand actual evidence of an allegation. I'm just unwilling to allow myself to be lead around and given my beliefs by a corrupt and dishonest media which have been exposed as liars. You may like that however.

So instead of using critical thinking skills to analyze the news being reported intelligently you've decided to embrace ignorance. Gotcha.

I assert that it is you who blindly follows an unsourced news report. It is indeed my critical thinking skills that demand, yes demand, to due diligence on a news report and find that the underlying evidence is real.

Your pathetic

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RickinVa
I suggest you read the following:

www.opm.gov...

starting with page 62,,, the actual form is 127 pages long:

Section 19 - Foreign Contacts 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, not previously listed in Section 18.

Ok... And? What's your point? That's the part that he didn't fill out. Last I checked the election last year fell within the last seven years and Sessions has now admitted to having met with the Russian Ambassador last year. So he should have written that on the form at a minimum.

How do you know that he didn't write that on the from? Now admit it, you don't know do you?

I know that not a soul (including Sessions) is denying this or demanding CNN print a retraction. That is evidence enough to say that it is likely true.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RickinVa
I suggest you read the following:

www.opm.gov...

starting with page 62,,, the actual form is 127 pages long:

Section 19 - Foreign Contacts 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, not previously listed in Section 18.

Ok... And? What's your point? That's the part that he didn't fill out. Last I checked the election last year fell within the last seven years and Sessions has now admitted to having met with the Russian Ambassador last year. So he should have written that on the form at a minimum.

You conveniently left out this in your reply:

Section 19 - Foreign Contacts Do you have, or have you had,

Section 19 - Foreign Contacts 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, not previously listed in Section 18.

.

Meeting someone one time or even two times would not fall under :

Section 19 - Foreign Contacts 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, not previously listed in Section 18.

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whywhynot

Your unsubstantiated allegation is that Sessions committed an error of omission on his SF-86. The way you would begin to substantiate your allegation would be to produce his SF-86. Can you do that? No? Then it is unsubstantiated and makes for a worthless post.

Except no one is denying it. You are just trying to stick your head in the sand because it's bad news for your side of the partisan aisle.

Is it not sticking your head in the sand to demand actual evidence of an allegation. I'm just unwilling to allow myself to be lead around and given my beliefs by a corrupt and dishonest media which have been exposed as liars. You may like that however.

So instead of using critical thinking skills to analyze the news being reported intelligently you've decided to embrace ignorance. Gotcha.

I assert that it is you who blindly follows an unsourced news report. It is indeed my critical thinking skills that demand, yes demand, to due diligence on a news report and find that the underlying evidence is real.

Your pathetic

Yes yes. I got it. You embrace ignorance because you don't have to use your brain to think and it is easier to just deny instead of carefully analyze the information presented for the words' credibility. Also you can't spell "you're".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The expression that comes to mind is " I'm not justifying that trash with an answer"

Your pathetic

a reply to: Krazysh0t

lol
nobody has refuted this yet so it has to be true

that is some standard

a reply to: RickinVa

Oh I see what you are attempting here and it doesn't work like that. One or two meetings in the past year count as close or continuing contact within seven years.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So your rebuttal is now reduced to pointing out typos?

Your pathetic

Oh excuse me you are pathetic

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

lol
nobody has refuted this yet so it has to be true

that is some standard

I quote myself:

That is evidence enough to say that it is likely true.

Do you not know what the definition of the word "likely" is?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
If true he needs to be in line with Hillary for an indictment.