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.
I can totally accept that except when they leave their jobs, it assumes:
A). That they know things which no one else knows!
B). Why not just ask them to write down or tell anything they exclusively know to someone else.
C). A security clearance opens the way for someone to CONTINUE to receive classified info, not give it. Why would a person no longer working a security job need that?
I can't imagine a nation where there are top secrets held by people that only THEY know alone. Nor one where such people still need to receive security info when they are longer part of the government.
A is obviously true. B is impossible and sometimes more risky than just keeping it in the head that it NEEDS to reside in. C is not true. It swings both ways.
Then these people no longer need security clearances. When they leave government, they are charged with keeping secrets secret and revealing any info they have to anyone qualified that needs it. They don't need to continue receiving updates. Further, I'm still hard pressed to believe we are a government where individuals alone know important things that no one else knows. Not only is that dangerous, but it is stupid.
Can't go that far. Makes me uncomfortable to explain it.
Then let me put it this way: I retire from my CIA or whatever job and take with me all that I know. No one asks me to quantify these facts, and since I alone know these things, no one else even knows I know them! So I might as well not know them at all. But if they know I know them without knowing what it is that I know, and don't want to know what I know until some later date, when the time comes that they need these things, then they will call me up to ask about them! Then they will know them too. So they could have asked before I left. That is assuming I don't die, get in a car crash or defect to a foreign power---- then that knowledge is lost.
Government is a machine. The very best machines have a built in reliability (parallel redundancy). The worst machines are serially mapped so that any one part can take down the entire system which no other part can replace. This is the government. Is it any wonder why we are in the mess we are in where it cost $80 for a 5¢ nut?
The Deep State doesn't just happen, we manufacture it. Out there is an entire body of people whom no one elects and they pretty much operate above the law. Can't afford to arrest or charge them, they have secrets we need! And therein lies the Clinton conundrum: the only reason why she walks free on the street while other burn (literally) for her crimes is that she holds secrets too powerful over others to ignore.
Think how dangerous that might be though. Can you imagine what a person like Trump would do to you, if he knew that you knew things about him that he doesn't want the world to know?
Or even worse, if it was documented somewhere that you knew things about a guy like Putin that he obviously didn't want the world to know... and he KNEW your name, where you lived, your family... etc.
It's one thing for a foreign government to know you worked for the U.S. intel agency, it is another for them to know specific information... or specific information they might want to know.
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.
Says you. It appears to rational people that this is retribution for criticism of the president. I think you probably agree.It is NOT a penalty
Nah, I don't think you believe that at all. I admit, it is fascinating to watch you guys parrot the marching orders. Trump is trying to penalize those who are criticizing him. It's only obvious.It's not for criticizing the Prez. It's for lying, and conspiring to interfere with a political campaign.
Nah, I don't think you believe that at all. I admit, it is fascinating to watch you guys parrot the marching orders. Trump is trying to penalize those who are criticizing him. It's only obvious.It's not for criticizing the Prez. It's for lying, and conspiring to interfere with a political campaign.
None of these ex Intelligence clowns should have an active clearance. Those are the very clear rules regarding clearances. If they are active, they should immediately be put to inactive status and thus their access to TS information blocked as it should be.
That is not the way it works. Clearances have nothing to do with which side of the political spectrum you are in. There are rules and no one has violated them.
Anyone who thinks just because someone works for an intelligence agency that they are completely unbiased and don't have their own political prejudices, is not thinking clearly.
There are rules, but the fact is that several high-ranking intelligence officials have attempted to circumvent and abuse those rules. This is by now general knowledge, a proven fact, and to claim otherwise, is either ignorance or sheer denial.
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
Never happened. The evidence clearly shows that they had sufficient grounds to obtain a FISA warrant,
This is a flat out lie. The only grounds they had was that fucking Steele dossier that was based on Russian sources and totally unverified then and now, and paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. How can anyone possibly say the FBI/DOJ had sufficient grounds? Bull fucking shit!
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.
As already stated, it's not a first amendment issue. You can't keep protecting criminals you know.They do concerning security issues. If people like you had been in charge we would have been wiped out in WW2.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.
They don't have to keep their mouths shut. Security clearances should not be politicized.
View attachment 206621
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Security clearances should not rely on politics as long as they use the information properly. Their politics should have nothing to do with it.
Exactly yet here you are defending Lewdog who claims it is a 1st amendment violation to revoke a clearance.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?Look you LOON having a clearance is NOT a right and it as sure as hell has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.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.
How do you tie your shoes each day? You can't fucking comprehend a simple concept.
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.
They abused their privilege, they used their positions to undermine a political opponent's campaign and they used illegal tactics. Lied to a FISA judge to get a warrant to spy on him. They abused their positions and they cannot be trusted to have security clearances.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.
Doesn't that piss you off?You sure Clapper or one of them isn't an analyst or something for CNN? I could be wrong.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.
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.
If they don't have to keep their mouths shut, what's the point in having a security clearance in the first place, dumbass?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.
They don't have to keep their mouths shut. Security clearances should not be politicized.
Haha..I invite him to do so. Instead he tries to obstruct investigations into that very thing, so your comments are delusional, at best.Like I said, he has the power to out the truth anytime he wants on all the dastardly things that the conspirators did to him and his campaign.
Doesn't that piss you off?You sure Clapper or one of them isn't an analyst or something for CNN? I could be wrong.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.
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.
Doesn't that piss you off?You sure Clapper or one of them isn't an analyst or something for CNN? I could be wrong.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.
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.
....and the beauty of it is, it was Tucker Carlson on "FAUX NEWS" who broke the story.
Now thanks to "FAUX NEWS", Brennan, Clapper, Haden, Rice, Comey, and McCabe are all going to lose their special government ability to leak sensitive information to the press and spread disinformation and lies.
"FAUX NEWS"
Security clearances have nothing to do with First Amendment.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.
Brennan supported Soviet Union during Cold War.These folks can be important sources of information.
Brennan served under several presidents, both Democratic and republican.
