Trump Wants To Take Away Former Intelligence Agency Employees Security Clearances

[dave p]

Nobody has a First Amendment right to a security clearance. I'm ambivalent on this action, but it may not be a bad idea. Clapper should be in prison over the fact he lied to Congress and the American people over illegal NSA spying and they're still doing it. Rice lied about the motive behind the Benghazi attacks and Comey was grossly incompetent. If this had been the private sector these people would have been out on their ass almost immediately and some of them prosecuted for what they did.

I didn't say that. I said that by him taking away from only people that say things he doesn't like IS. If you only take it away from people that say things you don't like, and let those that say things you agree with, it does violate their first amendment rights.

That’s not what he is doing. You alarmist are quite comical.

It's exactly what he is trying to do. Look at the list of people.

You are wrong.

Wow that's a deep rebuttal.

A rebuttal doesn’t need to be deep to be correct. When someone ( you ) is wrong, they are wrong. Your thesis and conclusion is incorrect. We all get it, you hate Trump. I’m not a fan, but just because you don’t like him doesn’t mean every ifiolish post you make proves your point.

 

[Lewdog]

I didn't say that. I said that by him taking away from only people that say things he doesn't like IS. If you only take it away from people that say things you don't like, and let those that say things you agree with, it does violate their first amendment rights.

That’s not what he is doing. You alarmist are quite comical.

It's exactly what he is trying to do. Look at the list of people.

You are wrong.

Wow that's a deep rebuttal.

A rebuttal doesn’t need to be deep to be correct. When someone ( you ) is wrong, they are wrong. Your thesis and conclusion is incorrect. We all get it, you hate Trump. I’m not a fan, but just because you don’t like him doesn’t mean every ifiolish post you make proves your point.

No, if you are going to say I'm wrong, if you want your reply to hold any water, you need to elaborate. Fact is, Trump IS targeting only certain people that have either come out on tv and opposed him, or those he fear will in the future... in order to undermine their credibility for if/when it happens. Not a single person on the list was anyone who supports Trump.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sooo he wants to take away the 1st Amendment rights of former federal employees to be able to talk about their life experiences because he doesn't like what they have to say. His excuses is they are making money off of it and that what they are saying is lies.

So a couple of things here... Almost EVERY former higher up federal employee have done interviews, done speeches, and written books after their retirement. That includes former Presidents. Why is Trump picking on ONLY people saying bad things about him? Shouldn't this be a universal decision to take it away from ALL FORMER federal employees?

The second and largest thing is, they are using the excuse that it is inappropriate to criticize Trump because of their former position and that they are doing so without any evidence. Well then does Trump want them to instead go on air and tell the truth and all the stuff they know whether it is Top Secret information? What a chicken shit thing for the White House to say... "You can't criticize the President about something you aren't showing proof of" when they KNOW that they can't share the Top Secret information they DO KNOW.

Nobody has a First Amendment right to a security clearance. I'm ambivalent on this action, but it may not be a bad idea. Clapper should be in prison over the fact he lied to Congress and the American people over illegal NSA spying and they're still doing it. Rice lied about the motive behind the Benghazi attacks and Comey was grossly incompetent. If this had been the private sector these people would have been out on their ass almost immediately and some of them prosecuted for what they did.

I didn't say that. I said that by him taking away from only people that say things he doesn't like IS. If you only take it away from people that say things you don't like, and let those that say things you agree with, it does violate their first amendment rights.

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A CLEARANCE, one gets one when one needs it and loses it when they no longer need it, NO RIGHT is involved in the process ANYWHERE.

 

[dave p]

That’s not what he is doing. You alarmist are quite comical.

It's exactly what he is trying to do. Look at the list of people.

You are wrong.

Wow that's a deep rebuttal.

A rebuttal doesn’t need to be deep to be correct. When someone ( you ) is wrong, they are wrong. Your thesis and conclusion is incorrect. We all get it, you hate Trump. I’m not a fan, but just because you don’t like him doesn’t mean every ifiolish post you make proves your point.

No, if you are going to say I'm wrong, if you want your reply to hold any water, you need to elaborate. Fact is, Trump IS targeting only certain people that have either come out on tv and opposed him, or those he fear will in the future... in order to undermine their credibility for if/when it happens. Not a single person on the list was anyone who supports Trump.

I really don’t need to do any of the things you say. You threw something out I disagreed. These threads are nothing but opinions. No one is going to change their minds here. This is a place to blow off steam. If you think otherwise or if you think the conversations here will change anything, you are woefully mistaken.

 

[Lewdog]

Sooo he wants to take away the 1st Amendment rights of former federal employees to be able to talk about their life experiences because he doesn't like what they have to say. His excuses is they are making money off of it and that what they are saying is lies.

So a couple of things here... Almost EVERY former higher up federal employee have done interviews, done speeches, and written books after their retirement. That includes former Presidents. Why is Trump picking on ONLY people saying bad things about him? Shouldn't this be a universal decision to take it away from ALL FORMER federal employees?

The second and largest thing is, they are using the excuse that it is inappropriate to criticize Trump because of their former position and that they are doing so without any evidence. Well then does Trump want them to instead go on air and tell the truth and all the stuff they know whether it is Top Secret information? What a chicken shit thing for the White House to say... "You can't criticize the President about something you aren't showing proof of" when they KNOW that they can't share the Top Secret information they DO KNOW.

Nobody has a First Amendment right to a security clearance. I'm ambivalent on this action, but it may not be a bad idea. Clapper should be in prison over the fact he lied to Congress and the American people over illegal NSA spying and they're still doing it. Rice lied about the motive behind the Benghazi attacks and Comey was grossly incompetent. If this had been the private sector these people would have been out on their ass almost immediately and some of them prosecuted for what they did.

I didn't say that. I said that by him taking away from only people that say things he doesn't like IS. If you only take it away from people that say things you don't like, and let those that say things you agree with, it does violate their first amendment rights.

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A CLEARANCE, one gets one when one needs it and loses it when they no longer need it, NO RIGHT is involved in the process ANYWHERE.

I'M NOT SAYING IT IS ABOUT THAT.

WTF is so hard to understand? If he makes it a rule to take away the clearances of ALL individuals when they leave government that's fine, BUT when you only do so to people that say things politically you don't like, THAT'S a violation of their first amendment rights. So when you take away the clearance of someone on CNN that says you looked like an idiot supporting Putin and saying you don't believe your own intelligence agencies, but you let a guy on Fox news that says you are a great leader... you are violating the rights of the guy on CNN because you punishing him for him expressing his opinion which is given to him by the First Amendment.

This isn't a fucking complicated concept.

 

[Lewdog]

It's exactly what he is trying to do. Look at the list of people.

You are wrong.

Wow that's a deep rebuttal.

A rebuttal doesn’t need to be deep to be correct. When someone ( you ) is wrong, they are wrong. Your thesis and conclusion is incorrect. We all get it, you hate Trump. I’m not a fan, but just because you don’t like him doesn’t mean every ifiolish post you make proves your point.

No, if you are going to say I'm wrong, if you want your reply to hold any water, you need to elaborate. Fact is, Trump IS targeting only certain people that have either come out on tv and opposed him, or those he fear will in the future... in order to undermine their credibility for if/when it happens. Not a single person on the list was anyone who supports Trump.

I really don’t need to do any of the things you say. You threw something out I disagreed. These threads are nothing but opinions. No one is going to change their minds here. This is a place to blow off steam. If you think otherwise or if you think the conversations here will change anything, you are woefully mistaken.

Yeah you're right you don't HAVE to, but you look like an idiot when you don't explain yourself.

Oh and you are one of THOSE people. I love it when people spend the time to come somewhere and be around some people, just to say they don't have to be there or be around them and how unimportant it is.

How cool of you. My bad for being such a burden on you making you read my posts and respond to them. Please accept my apology.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sooo he wants to take away the 1st Amendment rights of former federal employees to be able to talk about their life experiences because he doesn't like what they have to say. His excuses is they are making money off of it and that what they are saying is lies.

So a couple of things here... Almost EVERY former higher up federal employee have done interviews, done speeches, and written books after their retirement. That includes former Presidents. Why is Trump picking on ONLY people saying bad things about him? Shouldn't this be a universal decision to take it away from ALL FORMER federal employees?

The second and largest thing is, they are using the excuse that it is inappropriate to criticize Trump because of their former position and that they are doing so without any evidence. Well then does Trump want them to instead go on air and tell the truth and all the stuff they know whether it is Top Secret information? What a chicken shit thing for the White House to say... "You can't criticize the President about something you aren't showing proof of" when they KNOW that they can't share the Top Secret information they DO KNOW.

Nobody has a First Amendment right to a security clearance. I'm ambivalent on this action, but it may not be a bad idea. Clapper should be in prison over the fact he lied to Congress and the American people over illegal NSA spying and they're still doing it. Rice lied about the motive behind the Benghazi attacks and Comey was grossly incompetent. If this had been the private sector these people would have been out on their ass almost immediately and some of them prosecuted for what they did.

I didn't say that. I said that by him taking away from only people that say things he doesn't like IS. If you only take it away from people that say things you don't like, and let those that say things you agree with, it does violate their first amendment rights.

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A CLEARANCE, one gets one when one needs it and loses it when they no longer need it, NO RIGHT is involved in the process ANYWHERE.

I'M NOT SAYING IT IS ABOUT THAT.

WTF is so hard to understand? If he makes it a rule to take away the clearances of ALL individuals when they leave government that's fine, BUT when you only do so to people that say things politically you don't like, THAT'S a violation of their first amendment rights. So when you take away the clearance of someone on CNN that says you looked like an idiot supporting Putin and saying you don't believe your own intelligence agencies, but you let a guy on Fox news that says you are a great leader... you are violating the rights of the guy on CNN because you punishing him for him expressing his opinion which is given to him by the First Amendment.

This isn't a fucking complicated concept.

Look you LOON having a clearance is NOT a right and it as sure as hell has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

 

[justinacolmena]

No doubt.

The entire database of the federal government's Office of Personnel Management, including fingerprints and intimate psychological profiles, was maintained on a centralized computer system - SAP, if I recall correctly, and all of it was leaked to the Russians, Chinese, and no doubt the Iranians under the directorship of Katherine Archuleta during the Obama administration.

There is a lot more nonsense going on here than your stereotypical eccentric H.R. lady. It was an enormous set-up to hire some of those people in the first place.

 

[JGalt]

The fact is that those people whose security clearances are being revoked, no longer work for the government. Why should they even have those clearances, except to use them to carry on their deep-state's goal of denigrating a duly-elected President?

 

[dave p]

You are wrong.

Wow that's a deep rebuttal.

A rebuttal doesn’t need to be deep to be correct. When someone ( you ) is wrong, they are wrong. Your thesis and conclusion is incorrect. We all get it, you hate Trump. I’m not a fan, but just because you don’t like him doesn’t mean every ifiolish post you make proves your point.

No, if you are going to say I'm wrong, if you want your reply to hold any water, you need to elaborate. Fact is, Trump IS targeting only certain people that have either come out on tv and opposed him, or those he fear will in the future... in order to undermine their credibility for if/when it happens. Not a single person on the list was anyone who supports Trump.

I really don’t need to do any of the things you say. You threw something out I disagreed. These threads are nothing but opinions. No one is going to change their minds here. This is a place to blow off steam. If you think otherwise or if you think the conversations here will change anything, you are woefully mistaken.

Yeah you're right you don't HAVE to, but you look like an idiot when you don't explain yourself.

No I don’t. It’s you projecting. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. Have fun there jr.

 

[Lewdog]

Sooo he wants to take away the 1st Amendment rights of former federal employees to be able to talk about their life experiences because he doesn't like what they have to say. His excuses is they are making money off of it and that what they are saying is lies.

So a couple of things here... Almost EVERY former higher up federal employee have done interviews, done speeches, and written books after their retirement. That includes former Presidents. Why is Trump picking on ONLY people saying bad things about him? Shouldn't this be a universal decision to take it away from ALL FORMER federal employees?

The second and largest thing is, they are using the excuse that it is inappropriate to criticize Trump because of their former position and that they are doing so without any evidence. Well then does Trump want them to instead go on air and tell the truth and all the stuff they know whether it is Top Secret information? What a chicken shit thing for the White House to say... "You can't criticize the President about something you aren't showing proof of" when they KNOW that they can't share the Top Secret information they DO KNOW.

Nobody has a First Amendment right to a security clearance. I'm ambivalent on this action, but it may not be a bad idea. Clapper should be in prison over the fact he lied to Congress and the American people over illegal NSA spying and they're still doing it. Rice lied about the motive behind the Benghazi attacks and Comey was grossly incompetent. If this had been the private sector these people would have been out on their ass almost immediately and some of them prosecuted for what they did.

I didn't say that. I said that by him taking away from only people that say things he doesn't like IS. If you only take it away from people that say things you don't like, and let those that say things you agree with, it does violate their first amendment rights.

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A CLEARANCE, one gets one when one needs it and loses it when they no longer need it, NO RIGHT is involved in the process ANYWHERE.

I'M NOT SAYING IT IS ABOUT THAT.

WTF is so hard to understand? If he makes it a rule to take away the clearances of ALL individuals when they leave government that's fine, BUT when you only do so to people that say things politically you don't like, THAT'S a violation of their first amendment rights. So when you take away the clearance of someone on CNN that says you looked like an idiot supporting Putin and saying you don't believe your own intelligence agencies, but you let a guy on Fox news that says you are a great leader... you are violating the rights of the guy on CNN because you punishing him for him expressing his opinion which is given to him by the First Amendment.

This isn't a fucking complicated concept.

Look you LOON having a clearance is NOT a right and it as sure as hell has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

How do you tie your shoes each day? You can't fucking comprehend a simple concept.

 

[Lewdog]

Wow that's a deep rebuttal.

A rebuttal doesn’t need to be deep to be correct. When someone ( you ) is wrong, they are wrong. Your thesis and conclusion is incorrect. We all get it, you hate Trump. I’m not a fan, but just because you don’t like him doesn’t mean every ifiolish post you make proves your point.

No, if you are going to say I'm wrong, if you want your reply to hold any water, you need to elaborate. Fact is, Trump IS targeting only certain people that have either come out on tv and opposed him, or those he fear will in the future... in order to undermine their credibility for if/when it happens. Not a single person on the list was anyone who supports Trump.

I really don’t need to do any of the things you say. You threw something out I disagreed. These threads are nothing but opinions. No one is going to change their minds here. This is a place to blow off steam. If you think otherwise or if you think the conversations here will change anything, you are woefully mistaken.

Yeah you're right you don't HAVE to, but you look like an idiot when you don't explain yourself.

No I don’t. It’s you projecting. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. Have fun there jr.

Man I'm sorry you are forced to hang out with us here on the forum. I know you have more important things to do because you're such a cool guy. I can't stand people like you.

You take the time to come here and reply, and then act like it's a burden and wasting your time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Careful with that laundering allegation.

And then you should be doubly careful about your wild speculation, about what people would do for power and money

 

[ABikerSailor]

Nobody has a First Amendment right to a security clearance. I'm ambivalent on this action, but it may not be a bad idea. Clapper should be in prison over the fact he lied to Congress and the American people over illegal NSA spying and they're still doing it. Rice lied about the motive behind the Benghazi attacks and Comey was grossly incompetent. If this had been the private sector these people would have been out on their ass almost immediately and some of them prosecuted for what they did.

I didn't say that. I said that by him taking away from only people that say things he doesn't like IS. If you only take it away from people that say things you don't like, and let those that say things you agree with, it does violate their first amendment rights.

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A CLEARANCE, one gets one when one needs it and loses it when they no longer need it, NO RIGHT is involved in the process ANYWHERE.

I'M NOT SAYING IT IS ABOUT THAT.

WTF is so hard to understand? If he makes it a rule to take away the clearances of ALL individuals when they leave government that's fine, BUT when you only do so to people that say things politically you don't like, THAT'S a violation of their first amendment rights. So when you take away the clearance of someone on CNN that says you looked like an idiot supporting Putin and saying you don't believe your own intelligence agencies, but you let a guy on Fox news that says you are a great leader... you are violating the rights of the guy on CNN because you punishing him for him expressing his opinion which is given to him by the First Amendment.

This isn't a fucking complicated concept.

Look you LOON having a clearance is NOT a right and it as sure as hell has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

How do you tie your shoes each day? You can't fucking comprehend a simple concept.

Q: What do you call a Marine with half a brain?
A: Gifted.


Q: What do you call a Sailor with half a brain?
A: Marine.

(Marines hate that joke because they don't like being reminded that they are a division of the Navy.)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nobody has a First Amendment right to a security clearance. I'm ambivalent on this action, but it may not be a bad idea. Clapper should be in prison over the fact he lied to Congress and the American people over illegal NSA spying and they're still doing it. Rice lied about the motive behind the Benghazi attacks and Comey was grossly incompetent. If this had been the private sector these people would have been out on their ass almost immediately and some of them prosecuted for what they did.

I didn't say that. I said that by him taking away from only people that say things he doesn't like IS. If you only take it away from people that say things you don't like, and let those that say things you agree with, it does violate their first amendment rights.

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A CLEARANCE, one gets one when one needs it and loses it when they no longer need it, NO RIGHT is involved in the process ANYWHERE.

I'M NOT SAYING IT IS ABOUT THAT.

WTF is so hard to understand? If he makes it a rule to take away the clearances of ALL individuals when they leave government that's fine, BUT when you only do so to people that say things politically you don't like, THAT'S a violation of their first amendment rights. So when you take away the clearance of someone on CNN that says you looked like an idiot supporting Putin and saying you don't believe your own intelligence agencies, but you let a guy on Fox news that says you are a great leader... you are violating the rights of the guy on CNN because you punishing him for him expressing his opinion which is given to him by the First Amendment.

This isn't a fucking complicated concept.

Look you LOON having a clearance is NOT a right and it as sure as hell has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

How do you tie your shoes each day? You can't fucking comprehend a simple concept.

You are the ignorant one, be VERY SPECIFIC and explain slowly how revoking a clearance about material they can not talk about stops them from going on shows to talk about OTHER stuff?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I didn't say that. I said that by him taking away from only people that say things he doesn't like IS. If you only take it away from people that say things you don't like, and let those that say things you agree with, it does violate their first amendment rights.

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A CLEARANCE, one gets one when one needs it and loses it when they no longer need it, NO RIGHT is involved in the process ANYWHERE.

I'M NOT SAYING IT IS ABOUT THAT.

WTF is so hard to understand? If he makes it a rule to take away the clearances of ALL individuals when they leave government that's fine, BUT when you only do so to people that say things politically you don't like, THAT'S a violation of their first amendment rights. So when you take away the clearance of someone on CNN that says you looked like an idiot supporting Putin and saying you don't believe your own intelligence agencies, but you let a guy on Fox news that says you are a great leader... you are violating the rights of the guy on CNN because you punishing him for him expressing his opinion which is given to him by the First Amendment.

This isn't a fucking complicated concept.

Look you LOON having a clearance is NOT a right and it as sure as hell has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

How do you tie your shoes each day? You can't fucking comprehend a simple concept.

Q: What do you call a Marine with half a brain?
A: Gifted.


Q: What do you call a Sailor with half a brain?
A: Marine.

(Marines hate that joke because they don't like being reminded that they are a division of the Navy.)

So you agree that revoking a clearance for ANY reason is a 1st amendment violation?

 

[flacaltenn]

Trump Wants To Take Away Former Intelligence Agency Employees Security Clearances

The question begs why any FORMER employee would still have a security clearance in the first place? When I quit a job, I no longer keep keys, passwords and the like! What if they are now working for the Russians? And what the hell does any of this to do with 1st amendment rights? Jees, what a CRACKPOT.

Because not everything classified is written down. MOST classified knowledge is actually in people's heads. (believe or not it's true). Extend you imagination to cases where these folks need to be consulted after they leave.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and it as sure as hell has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment

penalizing somebody for criticizing the president certainly does have a lot to do with the first amendment

 

[Lewdog]

Wow that's a deep rebuttal.

A rebuttal doesn’t need to be deep to be correct. When someone ( you ) is wrong, they are wrong. Your thesis and conclusion is incorrect. We all get it, you hate Trump. I’m not a fan, but just because you don’t like him doesn’t mean every ifiolish post you make proves your point.

No, if you are going to say I'm wrong, if you want your reply to hold any water, you need to elaborate. Fact is, Trump IS targeting only certain people that have either come out on tv and opposed him, or those he fear will in the future... in order to undermine their credibility for if/when it happens. Not a single person on the list was anyone who supports Trump.

I really don’t need to do any of the things you say. You threw something out I disagreed. These threads are nothing but opinions. No one is going to change their minds here. This is a place to blow off steam. If you think otherwise or if you think the conversations here will change anything, you are woefully mistaken.

Yeah you're right you don't HAVE to, but you look like an idiot when you don't explain yourself.

Oh and you are one of THOSE people. I love it when people spend the time to come somewhere and be around some people, just to say they don't have to be there or be around them and how unimportant it is.

How cool of you. My bad for being such a burden on you making you read my posts and respond to them. Please accept my apology.

Your self importance and believe that these threads are nothing more than amusing is a bit concerning. I and most everyone else come here for comic relief. I guess you think your post will change the world.

It's political forum where people discuss politics. Do I think my post are reflective of my self importance? Are you fucking kidding? No, my work at the university and the way I treat those in my community, and the needy I help in my community is how I work to change the world. Get over yourself. What a fucking ridiculous statement to make. Just because my posts isn't going to change the world doesn't mean I'm not going to discuss a serious topic. If you came to this forum for jokes, you might want to get your head checked. Go read some comic strips.

It's obvious you are the one with delusions of grandeur.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I didn't say that. I said that by him taking away from only people that say things he doesn't like IS. If you only take it away from people that say things you don't like, and let those that say things you agree with, it does violate their first amendment rights.

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A CLEARANCE, one gets one when one needs it and loses it when they no longer need it, NO RIGHT is involved in the process ANYWHERE.

I'M NOT SAYING IT IS ABOUT THAT.

WTF is so hard to understand? If he makes it a rule to take away the clearances of ALL individuals when they leave government that's fine, BUT when you only do so to people that say things politically you don't like, THAT'S a violation of their first amendment rights. So when you take away the clearance of someone on CNN that says you looked like an idiot supporting Putin and saying you don't believe your own intelligence agencies, but you let a guy on Fox news that says you are a great leader... you are violating the rights of the guy on CNN because you punishing him for him expressing his opinion which is given to him by the First Amendment.

This isn't a fucking complicated concept.

Look you LOON having a clearance is NOT a right and it as sure as hell has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

How do you tie your shoes each day? You can't fucking comprehend a simple concept.

You are the ignorant one, be VERY SPECIFIC and explain slowly how revoking a clearance about material they can not talk about stops them from going on shows to talk about OTHER stuff?

Revoked or not Gunny, but you can never talk about classified material, clearance or not. I know that when I retired they gave me 3 different non disclosure sheets that said I had held a TS clearance, and that I was to not talk about anything I'd seen or done that was classified for at least 10 years.

And, what is it exactly that makes having a clearance something you need to be a news pundit? Even if they no longer had a clearance, they could still use their job as a springboard to being an "expert" talking to news heads. You don't need a clearance for that. It was the job that made them the expert, not the clearance.