Trump Wants To Take Away Former Intelligence Agency Employees Security Clearances

[RetiredGySgt]

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 is NOT a penalty dumb ass. It is a convenience to let a clearance ride for a period of time in case they get another job that needs it then the FBI won't have to investigate between the time they lost the job till they got the new one. NOTHING happens to a person that loses a clearance NOTHING. They are not barred from speaking about none secret matters they are not docked pay and they are not prevented from getting another clearance if they need one.

 

[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.

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 ******* 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 ******* 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?

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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.

Exactly yet here you are defending Lewdog who claims it is a 1st amendment violation to revoke a clearance.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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?

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.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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?

If you check this whole thread, you will see that I never said anything about the 1st.

I have repeatedly said that when you leave government service, your clearance should be revoked. If you are recalled back to a government position that requires one, well, the investigation stays on file, and the only investigations that would need to be done is one that would cover the period you were absent. The previous investigation that was done already covers the person up to the time they left the government.

Was a PN for 20 years in the Navy. I had to deal with that stuff on a regular basis.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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?

If you check this whole thread, you will see that I never said anything about the 1st.

I have repeatedly said that when you leave government service, your clearance should be revoked. If you are recalled back to a government position that requires one, well, the investigation stays on file, and the only investigations that would need to be done is one that would cover the period you were absent. The previous investigation that was done already covers the person up to the time they left the government.

Was a PN for 20 years in the Navy. I had to deal with that stuff on a regular basis.

And yet you made fun of me for pointing out to Lewdog it is NOT a 1st amendment problem. Go figure.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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.

Exactly yet here you are defending Lewdog who claims it is a 1st amendment violation to revoke a clearance.

I'm not defending him dude. I saw an opportunity to tell a Marine joke in the hopes of stirring up a response from you.

I see that it worked.

Q: Why do Sailors allow Marines on their ships?
A: Sheep are too obvious.

 

[dave p]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 ******* 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.

Exactly yet here you are defending Lewdog who claims it is a 1st amendment violation to revoke a clearance.

I'm not defending him dude. I saw an opportunity to tell a Marine joke in the hopes of stirring up a response from you.

I see that it worked.

Q: Why do Sailors allow Marines on their ships?
A: Sheep are too obvious.

A group of sailors saw a lone marine over a hill, their senior rating ordered 10 of the sailors to go beat up the Marine, the sailors went over the hill and never came back. The Senior rating ordered 15 sailors to go beat him up, they went over the hill. A short while later one sailor crawled back beaten to a pulp. The senior sailor asked the sailor what happened.... He said "it was a trap Chief, there were two of them".

 

[Lewdog]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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?

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 ******* 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?

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?

 

[Lewdog]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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?

 

[Lewdog]

How do you tie your shoes each day? You can't ******* 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?

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?

 

[ABikerSailor]

How do you tie your shoes each day? You can't ******* 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.

Exactly yet here you are defending Lewdog who claims it is a 1st amendment violation to revoke a clearance.

I'm not defending him dude. I saw an opportunity to tell a Marine joke in the hopes of stirring up a response from you.

I see that it worked.

Q: Why do Sailors allow Marines on their ships?
A: Sheep are too obvious.

A group of sailors saw a lone marine over a hill, their senior rating ordered 10 of the sailors to go beat up the Marine, the sailors went over the hill and never came back. The Senior rating ordered 15 sailors to go beat him up, they went over the hill. A short while later one sailor crawled back beaten to a pulp. The senior sailor asked the sailor what happened.... He said "it was a trap Chief, there were two of them".

Congratulations! You have told me a Sailor/Marine joke that I've never heard before.

That was ******* funny Gunny.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

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?

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.

 

[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?

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 it and then say they were going to take it away because he feels they are misusing it.

 

[dave p]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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 **** down.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

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

 

[ABikerSailor]

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?

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.

 

[Rambunctious]

Please Trump do it...your poll numbers would skyrocket to see those seditious pricks get racked in public....