Trump Wants To Take Away Former Intelligence Agency Employees Security Clearances

[RetiredGySgt]

What is long black and full of seamen?

 

[ABikerSailor]

What is long black and full of seamen?

I know! A submarine! (Surface Navy folks like to make fun of bubble heads).

Never volunteered for sub service, because I don't want to be on a boat that sinks on purpose!

 

[Lewdog]

Yes it does... especially when he announces it on national television.

BE VERY SPECIFIC and list for us what a person loses is penalized for or is harmed in any way by losing a security clearance when they have NO JOB that requires one?

It effects their reputation. I'm not sure how you couldn't figure that out when I kept telling you it was negative by pointing them out by name on national television?

NO ONE knows if they have a current clearance and it has no effect on their reputation dumb ass. WITHOUT ACCESS a clearance means NOTHING and is USELESS. It has no bearing on the reputation of the person at all.

EVERYONE knows now. Trump and his PR team went out of the way to announce and and then say they were going to take it away because he feels they are misusing it.

AGAIN you fucking RETARD having a clearance is MEANINGLESS unless you have a job that requires one.

Are you even paying attention? I've said a dozen times now... I have no problem with him taking their security clearances away... as long as he takes EVERYONE'S away and doesn't just single out and do it to his political opponents.

 

[Lewdog]

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.

You are the delusional one. I m not the one talking about my university. And trying to get kudos for what I do, that’s you in your last post. Calm down there buckwheat and realize these threads aren’t what gets things done. This forum is full of jokes, as your self importance shows. Lighten up , I don’t want to hear about you climbing the clock tower naked with a gun.

All that being said, your inability to effectively prove your shows that you aren’t correct.

No, you are the one that thinks you are so cool that you have to come to a political forum just to point out you are too cool for the forum. Seriously... go hang out with people you think you are worthy of hanging out with.

At what point did I say this thread was going to change the world? Why do you keep repeating that strawman?

I never said I was cool ( whatever that means). Seriously, calm down you are going to give yourself a heart attack. It’s nice you have all the words like Strawman. You have read well and indoctrinated yourself. Lighten up, really it’s just a website where people spout off. Calm the fuck down.

I'm fine, I just don't understand why you are still responding to me and posting here. Go somewhere you can have whatever you think is fun.

 

[Lewdog]

When he lists their names specifically on national television and announces a punitive action like this one, based on their views on him and his White House, not only does that undermine their freedom of speech, it undermines their political stances.

Like I said, he could have accomplished his goal by simply saying he would change the policy as a whole, and do it to EVERYONE and not just them.

NO it does not. And it is NOT punitive, it effects them in no way.

Yes it does... especially when he announces it on national television.

BE VERY SPECIFIC and list for us what a person loses is penalized for or is harmed in any way by losing a security clearance when they have NO JOB that requires one?

It effects their reputation. I'm not sure how you couldn't figure that out when I kept telling you it was negative by pointing them out by name on national television?

Lewdog, on the reputation thing you might be correct. It's not right to publicize whether or not someone has a clearance.

But, like I have said in this thread a few times, when you leave government service, you clearance should be revoked just like it is when you are discharged from the military.

The public shaming I agree with you on, but not on the fact that they are no longer in government service and no longer need a clearance.

I'm not arguing about taking it away. I'm saying if he wants to do it, he should do it to EVERYONE and not just single out people that say negative things about him and announce his plans on national tv to do so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A Marine Recon, a SEAL, a Army Special Forces and an Air force Air rescue were all sitting around a fire. The SEAL was telling how he was the baddest man around, the Special forces guy said no HE WAS, and the air rescue guy said NO WAIT I am. The Marine said nothing as he stirred the fire with his dick.

 

[ABikerSailor]

NO it does not. And it is NOT punitive, it effects them in no way.

Yes it does... especially when he announces it on national television.

BE VERY SPECIFIC and list for us what a person loses is penalized for or is harmed in any way by losing a security clearance when they have NO JOB that requires one?

It effects their reputation. I'm not sure how you couldn't figure that out when I kept telling you it was negative by pointing them out by name on national television?

Lewdog, on the reputation thing you might be correct. It's not right to publicize whether or not someone has a clearance.

But, like I have said in this thread a few times, when you leave government service, you clearance should be revoked just like it is when you are discharged from the military.

The public shaming I agree with you on, but not on the fact that they are no longer in government service and no longer need a clearance.

I'm not arguing about taking it away. I'm saying if he wants to do it, he should do it to EVERYONE and not just single out people that say negative things about him and announce his plans on national tv to do so.

Like I said, I agree with you about singling them out and embarrassing them on national television, but because they are no longer in government service, they don't need (or, in my opinion deserve to keep) their clearances. The military doesn't do it like that, so why do the politicians and other DC types get to? Makes no sense to me, but that is because it goes against everything that the Navy taught me about clearances.

 

[ABikerSailor]

A Marine Recon, a SEAL, a Army Special Forces and an Air force Air rescue were all sitting around a fire. The SEAL was telling how he was the baddest man around, the Special forces guy said no HE WAS, and the air rescue guy said NO WAIT I am. The Marine said nothing as he stirred the fire with his dick.

Another one that I've never heard. That was funny as hell too. Good thing I'd already put my coffee down or my monitor would be soaked when I read that.

 

[easyt65]

Ignorance and the lack of intent to break laws are not legal defences for such crimes

Of course it is, when intent is what makes it a crime. And that is why no prosecution was the recommendation.

i am not going to pander to your idiotic fantasies any longer. If you want to talk about Hillary Clinton, go slither into one of the 10,000 forgettable copypasta threads you have started on the topic.

No, sorry. If you accidently kill someone but had no intention of doing it you're saying you don't get charged with a crime?

And again, no reasonable, sane person can make an argument of 'no intent' when she used Bleachbit and destroyed / tried to destroy over 15,000 pieces of evidence of her crimes.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

It's not for criticizing the Prez. It's for lying, and conspiring to interfere with a political campaign. Not something a DNIntelligence or ex-DIA chief should EVER be involved in. And then USING his influence to get a seat on TV on which to be vindictive and evil.

NONE of those behaviors befit a person with his clearances. He can still USE that CNN gigue to BE an asshole and vindictive and evil --- until he's frog marched in cuffs.

 

[Borillar]

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.

IMHO, people should only have the necessary clearances to perform their duties, and they should only be privy to information they have a national security interest in knowing (ie need to know). They should all sign non disclosure agreements. Once they leave that position, they no longer have a need to know and access should be revoked. This is more about compromising national security than about a politician wanting to shut down criticism.

 

[Lewdog]

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

It's not for criticizing the Prez. It's for lying, and conspiring to interfere with a political campaign. Not something a DNIntelligence or ex-DIA chief should EVER be involved in. And then USING his influence to get a seat on TV on which to be vindictive and evil.

NONE of those behaviors befit a person with his clearances. He can still USE that CNN gigue to BE an asshole and vindictive and evil --- until he's frog marched in cuffs.

Clapper and Brennan aren't the only 2 people. McCabe has made very few to any public statements. I only think I remember Susan Rice doing one? Not sure how much Hayden has really been saying though I know he's said Trump is wrong to keep denying the Russian meddling. So it is more than the idea of lying or saying Trump has committed treason. Trump is trying to discredit as many people as possible that could be asked to testify if Trump were to go through impeachment proceedings, or if higher ups in the White House were to go through future legal issues due to the collusion investigation.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

It's not for criticizing the Prez. It's for lying, and conspiring to interfere with a political campaign. Not something a DNIntelligence or ex-DIA chief should EVER be involved in. And then USING his influence to get a seat on TV on which to be vindictive and evil.

NONE of those behaviors befit a person with his clearances. He can still USE that CNN gigue to BE an asshole and vindictive and evil --- until he's frog marched in cuffs.

Clapper and Brennan aren't the only 2 people. McCabe has made very few to any public statements. I only think I remember Susan Rice doing one? Not sure how much Hayden has really been saying though I know he's said Trump is wrong to keep denying the Russian meddling. So it is more than the idea of lying or saying Trump has committed treason. Trump is trying to discredit as many people as possible that could be asked to testify if Trump were to go through impeachment proceedings, or if higher ups in the White House were to go through future legal issues due to the collusion investigation.

The concept of him being impeached never passed thru Trump's brain. Trump has shown more reservation about commenting on the massive INTERNAL conspiracy against him than ANY of those people. Otherwise all the fit would have hit the shan long ago. McCabe made a few taunting statements. Mostly addressed to Comey. But NO ONE's behavior is as grossly irresponsible as Clapper and Brennan. PROBABLY because they were coordinating the election interference.

According to my theory, Putin spied on DNC DCCC, but Putin did not RELEASE those emails. I've told you why. And the main suspects for "sanitizing" the future Madame President would be Clapper, and Brennan. They ASSUMED they'd get away with leaking the emails to prevent Russian blackmail -- with her being a shoe-in and all. And when the surprise on election night happened, these guys simply lost their minds and whatever principles they ever had.

 

[Lewdog]

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

It's not for criticizing the Prez. It's for lying, and conspiring to interfere with a political campaign. Not something a DNIntelligence or ex-DIA chief should EVER be involved in. And then USING his influence to get a seat on TV on which to be vindictive and evil.

NONE of those behaviors befit a person with his clearances. He can still USE that CNN gigue to BE an asshole and vindictive and evil --- until he's frog marched in cuffs.

Clapper and Brennan aren't the only 2 people. McCabe has made very few to any public statements. I only think I remember Susan Rice doing one? Not sure how much Hayden has really been saying though I know he's said Trump is wrong to keep denying the Russian meddling. So it is more than the idea of lying or saying Trump has committed treason. Trump is trying to discredit as many people as possible that could be asked to testify if Trump were to go through impeachment proceedings, or if higher ups in the White House were to go through future legal issues due to the collusion investigation.

The concept of him being impeached never passed thru Trump's brain. Trump has shown more reservation about commenting on the massive INTERNAL conspiracy against him than ANY of those people. Otherwise all the fit would have hit the shan long ago. McCabe made a few taunting statements. Mostly addressed to Comey. But NO ONE's behavior is as grossly irresponsible as Clapper and Brennan. PROBABLY because they were coordinating the election interference.

According to my theory, Putin spied on DNC DCCC, but Putin did not RELEASE those emails. I've told you why. And the main suspects for "sanitizing" the future Madame President would be Clapper, and Brennan. They ASSUMED they'd get away with leaking the emails to prevent Russian blackmail -- with her being a shoe-in and all. And when the surprise on election night happened, these guys simply lost their minds and whatever principles they ever had.

Come on man you can't be serious. Trump was talking about the investigation into him at the Boy Scouts camp out. He says "No Collusion" more than Dave talks about chem trails.

 

[Wry Catcher]

''bout damn time

He's getting ready to Wag the Dog. The closer Trump gets to being impeached, the closer Trump will get to put our military into harms way.

More "The sky is falling" nonsense. President Trump has done more for the military and the security of this country, than Obama ever dreamed of.

Thanks so much for sharing, of course the reader is left curious since nothing in your post supports your claim.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A Marine Recon, a SEAL, a Army Special Forces and an Air force Air rescue were all sitting around a fire. The SEAL was telling how he was the baddest man around, the Special forces guy said no HE WAS, and the air rescue guy said NO WAIT I am. The Marine said nothing as he stirred the fire with his dick.

Another one that I've never heard. That was funny as hell too. Good thing I'd already put my coffee down or my monitor would be soaked when I read that.

well I originally heard it when I was in the Army so the Green Beret was stirring the fire then )

 

[MisterBeale]

If they can't keep their mouths shut they should lose their clearance and it's a stretch for the OP to say Trump wants to take away their first amendment rights. That's ridiculous but then look who is saying it.

There are people with Security Clearances on Fox network who use their positions to make money there... but they aren't on Trump's list. THAT'S why it is a First Amendment issue.

Trump is only doing this to his political opponents, NOT ALL people with former positions and Security Clearances that are making money from it.

You sure Clapper or one of them isn't an analyst or something for CNN? I could be wrong.

Yes I am sure. Sanders listed Brennan, Clapper, Haden, Rice, Comey, and McCabe. All people he doesn't like and who question him. He didn't list a single adviser from Fox News.

Maybe that should be a clue.

Maybe he is only listing folks that are lying about him?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

There's no link to source this thread.
No one has a right to classified info. This has nothing to do with speech. Get back to the 60's and stay there.

 

[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.

There's no link to source this thread.
No one has a right to classified info. This has nothing to do with speech. Get back to the 60's and stay there.

It's all over the news and was referenced by Sarah Sanders in her daily press conference. Maybe you should actually pay attention to politics if you are going to come to a political forum to comment?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Ll

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.

There's no link to source this thread.
No one has a right to classified info. This has nothing to do with speech. Get back to the 60's and stay there.

It's all over the news and was referenced by Sarah Sanders in her daily press conference. Maybe you should actually pay attention to politics if you are going to come to a political forum to comment?

The forum usually demands a link for source. Why they haven't in this case is beyond me.