Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually, they said precisely the opposite, as they said there was no evidence of intent. Once again, reality does not match up with your fantasies....but of course, that's everyone else's fault, not yours....So you are an idiot who heard the FBI declare they gpu d over 15,000 pieces of evidence proving Hillary broke the FOIA & FRA and still claim she is innocent.How odd that the republican presidents and congressed and law enforcement appointees have not acted on your fantasies, given that you are so certain they are true. I wonder which explanation is simpler?Democrats protect
1) these Republicans are all part of a vast, Democratic party conspiracy to protect Hillary Clinton
Or
2) you are a delusional freak, peddling fantasy
Hmm, tough call...
'Nuff said.
Whoooooooooosh! Right over your little trumpanzee head....You snowflakes have been saying that for 3 years...Any day now...any day now...any day now...Obama's goon squad should be in prison let alone be stripped of their clearances........any day now...any day now...any day now....
^^Put Obama's goon squad in prison...bury them in the darkest hole in Leavenworth....fing traitorous scum....
Too easy.Actually, they said precisely the opposite, as they said there was no evidence of intent. Once again, reality does not match up with your fantasies....but of course, that's everyone else's fault, not yours....So you are an idiot who heard the FBI declare they gpu d over 15,000 pieces of evidence proving Hillary broke the FOIA & FRA and still claim she is innocent.How odd that the republican presidents and congressed and law enforcement appointees have not acted on your fantasies, given that you are so certain they are true. I wonder which explanation is simpler?Democrats protect
1) these Republicans are all part of a vast, Democratic party conspiracy to protect Hillary Clinton
Or
2) you are a delusional freak, peddling fantasy
Hmm, tough call...
'Nuff said.
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.
As far as I know the only way they get to keep their clearance is if they take on a government or government contract job and the clearance is transferred to the appropriate agency.Unless different rules apply to them that don't apply to the typical federal employee they don't retain their clearances when those clearances lapse.I'm still wondering why it is okay for civilian government officials to retain their clearance after leaving their job, when the military cancels your clearance when you are discharged or retired.
It does kind of make me wonder though, do they do that with ALL military personnel? When a person leaves the military, in certain positions that may be under high demand, they can be called back to active duty if they are needed up until they reach a certain age. I had a buddy that was in intelligence and could speak Spanish, Russian, and another one. I forget what it was, but I think he said he could get called back into service until up age 45 I believe.
How is he in any legal jeopardy whatsoever? this is the first I have heard of this.He's fighting to stay out of cuffs at the moment.
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.
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.
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.
He's pretty much wreck any reputation or legacy. He's fighting to stay out of cuffs at the moment. And CNN is an accomplice to his criminal sedition. He looks like loony bin material accusing the Prez of treason and STILL lying his ass off as an analysis for CNN.
America can't stop him from looking like a moron. But -- this guy should not have continuing access to spy on anything.
How about lying to a FISA judge to get a surveillance warrant on an American citizen???? thought that libs were sickened by that kind of law enforcement corruption....guess not...How is he in any legal jeopardy whatsoever? this is the first I have heard of this
Of course, nobody actually believes this, not even you.It's about cutting off his access to national security secrets because he's acting deranged.
Unless different rules apply to them that don't apply to the typical federal employee they don't retain their clearances when those clearances lapse.I'm still wondering why it is okay for civilian government officials to retain their clearance after leaving their job, when the military cancels your clearance when you are discharged or retired.
It does kind of make me wonder though, do they do that with ALL military personnel? When a person leaves the military, in certain positions that may be under high demand, they can be called back to active duty if they are needed up until they reach a certain age. I had a buddy that was in intelligence and could speak Spanish, Russian, and another one. I forget what it was, but I think he said he could get called back into service until up age 45 I believe.
How about... no such jeopardy exists, and you just made that up? Seems like my version is aligned with reality, unlike your fantasy...How about lying to a FISA judge to get a surveillance warrant on an American citizen????
It's the way the government set up getting and retaining clearances. The only way he could have kept his was if his new employer had authorization to "pick his up".As far as I know the only way they get to keep their clearance is if they take on a government or government contract job and the clearance is transferred to the appropriate agency.Unless different rules apply to them that don't apply to the typical federal employee they don't retain their clearances when those clearances lapse.I'm still wondering why it is okay for civilian government officials to retain their clearance after leaving their job, when the military cancels your clearance when you are discharged or retired.
It does kind of make me wonder though, do they do that with ALL military personnel? When a person leaves the military, in certain positions that may be under high demand, they can be called back to active duty if they are needed up until they reach a certain age. I had a buddy that was in intelligence and could speak Spanish, Russian, and another one. I forget what it was, but I think he said he could get called back into service until up age 45 I believe.
Well my buddy did keep his because he ended up getting a part time job of translating court transcripts, but was curious why certain people like those in his position wouldn't just keep their's.
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.
Ignorance and the lack of intent to break laws are not legal defences for such crimes.Actually, they said precisely the opposite, as they said there was no evidence of intent. ....
For the slow and STUPID, a Clearance does not of and in itself grant access to classified information. Nor does having one or not effect ones 1st Amendment rights. When you leave a Job with a clearance the clearance is put on hold until a certain amount of time has passed and is then eliminated. One only keeps a clearance if they get another job that requires one.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.
