Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Who are the Trump Supporters in this thread? TIAWhat? I thought Opie would digest an explanation from a Trump supporter instead of someone who clearly is not one.
Triggered much?
Who are the Trump Supporters in this thread? TIAWhat? I thought Opie would digest an explanation from a Trump supporter instead of someone who clearly is not one.
Triggered much?
Sorry, Mr. Gary Johnson supporter.Who are the Trump Supporters in this thread? TIA
Why are you here?Triggered![]()
I shouldn't expect more from the sewer forum
I'll never learn I guess
He doesn't nor has any president.It’s amazing that Trump has security clearance.
I like to read certain posters here. DW, HF, a few others.Why are you here?
I hope it doesn't become too much for you to bear. Your contributions would be sorely missed.I like to read certain posters here. DW, HF, a few others.
Unfortunately , that means I have to wade through the same drivel from some posters that keep posting the same thing day after day after day.
I've noticed lately that the posters I enjoy reading don't post much here anymore. I assume they're getting sick of the sewer too
Just use the ignore function for users that repeatedly post drivel you don't want to read. Very simple to do and if someone happens to quote them you can just scroll right past the post. Really makes the place much more tolerable.I like to read certain posters here. DW, HF, a few others.
Unfortunately , that means I have to wade through the same drivel from some posters that keep posting the same thing day after day after day.
I've noticed lately that the posters I enjoy reading don't post much here anymore. I assume they're getting sick of the sewer too
This guy wtf. Can't believe he got elected! He's ruining our country! And don't get me started on his base!!!I hope it doesn't become too much for you to bear. Your contributions would be sorely missed.
You mean in all your experience dealing with high level intelligence and national security issues?I just cannot recall this ever happening and I cannot imagine a situation where this would happen.
Would you happen to have a link, an example, or something that you could base it on?
I can base my beliefs only on my own experience when it comes to a clearance. IF IF IF I had ever been called to talk about anything to do with a document that I saw, even when I had a clearance, I could not view it again unless my security clearance was reinstated.
Seeing that Brennan is now, nothing more than a political hack and on CNN's payroll, I still don't understand why he would hold a clearance of any kind...and in 2013, during Obama's administration, James Clapper, who also currently holds a clearance without any apparent need, would have seemed to agree with me.“I write to express my concern about threats to national security resulting from the increasing number of people with eligibility for access to classified national security information, particularly Top Secret (TS) and Top Secret/Secure Compartmented Information (TS/SCI). I ask that agency heads… conduct a comprehensive review validating that each government employee or contractor who has been granted a security clearance continues to require such eligibility for access to classified national security information in support of their current position or your agency’s mission. Agencies should debrief all government and contractor personnel who no longer require such access and update the appropriate national security database or repository.” - James Clapper, October 31, 2013
I don't think security clearance is a big deal. I mean they gave me top secret security clearance, how important can it be?Seeing that it was an "open hearing" I seriously doubt that any clearance was needed so I saw no reason to respond to only receive the inevitable "oh yeah...Trump is evil".
But I'm sure that you read this:
Seeing that Brennan is now, nothing more than a political hack and on CNN's payroll, I still don't understand why he would hold a clearance of any kind...and in 2013, during Obama's administration, James Clapper, who also currently holds a clearance without any apparent need, would have seemed to agree with me.
Oh...but that was then...this is now.![]()
This is like saying it's OK to throw the Jews on Wall Street in prison because everyone on Wall Street is a criminal anyway.Sometimes Trump is right, but for the wrong reasons. It is clear he wants to revoke clearance for Brennan et al. because they obviously hold great contempt for him.
But I don't think it's appropriate for there to be a revolving door between intelligence agencies and MSNBC contracts, to essentially peddle bilateral influence between news outlets and whatever thinktank boards they sit on, steeped in weapons industry cash, long after their tenure is over.
Anyway, I liked this take from John K:
Why are these people saying anything at all? And why do they have active Top Secret security clearances if they have no governmental positions? The first question is easier to answer than the second. Before answering, though, I want to say that I don’t think this issue is specific to Donald Trump. Former officials of every administration criticize those who have replaced them. That’s the way Washington works. It’s a way for those former officials to remain relevant. Donald Trump happens to be an easy target. His actions are so wildly unpredictable—and frequently so disingenuous on the surface of things—that he proves wrong the oft-quoted observation by the late Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser: “The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves. You only make complicated stupid moves, which make the rest of us wonder at the possibility that we might be missing something.”
Cashing In
I’ve known John Brennan for 30 years. He was my boss in the CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence decades ago. John was hard to get along with. His superiors generally didn’t like him. He was once fired from a job at the CIA. He’s not particularly bright. And then he found a patron in former CIA director George Tenet, who saved his career. Brennan has had his run. He succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He’s been CIA Director, deputy National Security Advisor, director of the Transnational Terrorism Information Center, and deputy Executive Director of the CIA. That’s pretty heady stuff for a kid from Bergen, New Jersey.
He also has very low self-esteem from those early days at the CIA. Almost everybody else had more degrees, spoke more languages, and went to better schools. Until Tenet, Brennan never had a political rabbi and was stuck at the GS-15 (journeyman) level for years. Now, all these years later, he again doesn’t have anyone to help his career. Barack Obama isn’t president anymore. And Brennan desperately wants to be Secretary of Defense. He says it to anybody willing to listen. That is what’s supposed to be his legacy, at least in his mind.
Besides legacy, Brennan and the others have cashed in on their government service. They’ve all become rich by sitting on corporate boards. Brennan is on the board of directors of a company called SecureAuth + CORE Security. He also serves on the board of The Analysis Corporation, which he helped found before joining the Obama Administration. Finally, and most importantly, Brennan is now the official talking head and “Intelligence Consultant” for NBC News and MSNBC.
To me, this is the point that is the most obviously wrong. How is it that former officials who now have no role in government are able to keep their active security clearances? This has abuse written all over it. First, these officials run the risk of exposing classified information in a television interview, either inadvertently or not. Second, and more cynically, what is to keep them from propagandizing the American people by simply spouting the CIA line or allowing the CIA to use them to put out disinformation? What’s to keep them from propagandizing the American people by selectively leaking information known only to the intelligence agencies and Congress? Or to release information passed to them by the FBI?
No former intelligence officials should have a security clearance. There’s no purpose for it other than propaganda and personal enrichment. And if Brennan or Hayden or Clapper or any other former intelligence official becomes an employee of a media company, he or she should not have a security clearance. Period. Donald Trump ought to act right now.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration’s torture program.
That's what he's saying, and I agree. Maybe streamline the process for granting clearances to retired operatives for consulting work, etc. That Trump would enforce a policy for purely vindictive reasons doesn't make the policy itself wrong, so long as it's applied fairly (but it probably won't be).If the policy needs fixing, fix it. Don't use the fact that the policy needs fixing as thinly veiled cover for targeted, spiteful, unwarranted action.
BingoMatthias said:I kind of hate bump'ing an Opie thread, but again he's attacking something unrelated to the point to try to draw attention away from what is.
IRS -> Let's look at auditing anyone who makes more than $1mm/yr.
This is ok.
IRS -> Let's look at auditing anyone who has contributed more than $20,000 to Republican candidates in the last 5 years.
This is not ok.
There is nothing in this issue on whether or not to consider removing security clearances from people who are no longer active. This is everything in this issue in that it's being done, and done exclusively, as political retribution. So people can bloviate all they want about this, that, and the other about how much clearances are needed or at what point they get stale or how people can use them. That has 1% to do with this story. If that. The entire meat of the story is that Trump is only doing it for a very, very select, few number of people who are going on the media and criticizing him.
And to the extent that this merits a discussion, that's what the discussion should and exclusively be focused on.
80% of the article is just shots at Brennan. Anyone who cared about the issue would have written about it before Trump floated the idea of cutting off people he doesn't like a couple days ago.That's what he's saying, and I agree. Maybe streamline the process for granting clearances to retired operatives for consulting work, etc. That Trump would enforce a policy for purely vindictive reasons doesn't make the policy itself wrong, so long as it's applied fairly (but it probably won't be).
Well, Brennan is a horrible person who presided over tons of reprehensible ####. One of the biggest cheerleaders for Trump's torturer pick. It is yet another terrible hill liberals have chosen to die on.80% of the article is just shots at Brennan. Anyone who cared about the issue would have written about it before Trump floated the idea of cutting off people he doesn't like a couple days ago.
I have no idea what larger point you're trying to make. Liberals don't care about Brennan.Well, Brennan is a horrible person who presided over tons of reprehensible ####. One of the biggest cheerleaders for Trump's torturer pick. It is yet another terrible hill liberals have chosen to die on.
Ok, Brennan is about the least credible person on earth to cry about democracy falling. He has a prime analyst position on MSNBC, so he obviously has some weight to throw around with tv liberals.I have no idea what larger point you're trying to make. Liberals don't care about Brennan.
And if your reaction to targeted revoking of security clearances as revenge for political dissent is to point to one of the targets whom you happen to hate and say "well that one guy sucks anyway" instead of saying something along the lines of "holy #### the President is using the power of his office to take unprecedented targeted revenge on those who speak out against him or do things he doesn't like, this is completely insane," you're part of the problem.
Except the president didn't do something broad like end the wars, so the analogy makes no sense. He did something targeted and spiteful without a broader purpose, and you and the guy you quoted are rushing to ignore the targeted and spiteful part (which is the whole story) so you can lobby for some broader policy change that nobody ever discussed or cared about before.Ok, Brennan is about the least credible person on earth to cry about democracy falling. He has a prime analyst position on MSNBC, so he obviously has some weight to throw around with tv liberals.
I'm not taking the president's position, I'm agreeing with Kiriakou that all clearances should be revoked. If Trump ended the wars and brought the troops home, just to spite Bill Kristol and 'use the power of his office to take unprecedented targeted revenge on those who speak out against him or do things he doesn't like,' I'm not going to disagree with or act horrified by the policy just because it's Trump.
Hey, in the '60s Charlie Manson was responsible for deaths several people and was charged with murder.Matthias said:The two aren't even in the same universe of comparable.
Someone was killed.
Someone else was killed.
Person A was given capital punishment for a string of brutal murders.
Person B was one of those people killed.
How can people not realize that these are the same thiNG?!!?!??!
So.again, the lesson here is.... "Obama was good and honest, filled with nothing but good intentions....Trump is bad and evil, demonstrating all that is bad in man and beast".Matthias said:Because it involved millions of people as part of a systematic and unbiased review. Not a laser focus on 3 or 4 because they are being politically critical. Even by your own standards, this is a breathtaking denial of obvious truths.
Matthias said >>Because it involved millions of people as part of a systematic and unbiased review. Not a laser focus on 3 or 4 because they are being politically critical.<< Do you agree or disagree with that statement? It was your own comp. You asked for a distinction and you got one.So.again, the lesson here is.... "Obama was good and honest, filled with nothing but good intentions....Trump is bad and evil, demonstrating all that is bad in man and beast".
I'm catching on!
I am sure that it was the loud, anti-Trump rhetoric coming from some of these blowhards that raised eyebrows int the Trump administration.Matthias said >>Because it involved millions of people as part of a systematic and unbiased review. Not a laser focus on 3 or 4 because they are being politically critical.<< Do you agree or disagree with that statement? It was your own comp. You asked for a distinction and you got one.
Ok, fine but that Obama comp you raised doesn't apply for that reason.I am sure that it was the loud, anti-Trump rhetoric coming from some of these blowhards that raised eyebrows int the Trump administration.
The bottom line is that clearances should be handed out like candy and taken with you when you no longer need them. How we got to this conclusion, is irrelevant.
Opie said:So, why wasn't it "political retribution" in 2013 when the Obama WH made it a point to revoke clearances that were no longer needed?
I think you know this by now but I am genuinely interested in this subject.Included on Clapper’s list of “highest-risk” groups worthy of frequent reinvestigation: “Privileged Users, or other information technology specialists involved with information sharing activities.” The category includes “Data Transfer Officers, System Administrators (Sys Admins) with unlimited access, Sys Admins who can access more than a local system, or Sys Admins with localized permissions.”
At Wednesday’s hearing, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) suggested the number of Americans with security clearances has grown far too large.
“I don’t know about you, but 5 million seems like a heck of a lot of folks to have security clearance. And 1.4 million top-secret security clearances seems like a pile,” Tester said. “That’s more than live in the state of Montana by about 40 percent.”
Initially, ODNI official Brian Prioletti defended the system that has delivered a security clearance to roughly one in every 61 Americans.
Wait, I thought Mueller had nothing and needed to shut down the investigation. Those who said we only know 5% of what Mueller knows were scoffed at for presuming there was something else. Now, he suddenly has information that we don't know about on all kinds of people who are "enemies" of Trump AND is sharing it with Trump? And despite that, Trump continues to call it a Witch Hunt and scream that it should be shut down? If Mueller is going to indict all of these enemies of Trump, why would he want the investigation stopped? Jeez, I go to bed and wake up to discover the world has completely spun off its axis and is now rotating around the equator.There is a possibility that everyone on the revoke list is under investigation.
Nobody on this board or CNN or fox has a clue what is actually happening right now with the Mueller, Congressional, IG, or Huber investigations.
We do know that Comey and McCabe were fired, and as Tim mentioned they may already have had their clearances revoked, although I thought I heard Comey had his while he was writing his book. Both are on record lying to the FBI and/or Congress. No surprise their clearance would be revoked.
As for Clapper, Brennan, and Rice, well we have leaked info that they were involved with spying/infiltrating/whatever you want to call it a political opponent's campaign. And involved with unmasking members of a political opponent's campaign. And conspired with foreign agents (GCHQ, Steele) to spy on and/or interfere with an opponent's campaign. And possibly lied under oath. And according to the FISA report issued April 2017 improperly used 702 about queries to spy on political opponents.
All 5 of the above could be indicted by Mueller, Huber, or the DOJ.
Most on this board will scoff at all of the above, despite the fact there is more evidence already made public of the above than anything implicating Trump-russia colehusion.
You have to assume Trump knows everything. Admiral Mike Rogers visited him within weeks of the election to inform him of inappropriate NSA spying. Since taking office Trump has had access to literally everything. Texts, emails, video, encryptions, servers, domestic and foreign intelligence, literally everything. The news and public knows maybe 5% of what is actually happening.
There are potentially very valid reasons to revoke the clearance of Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan, and Rice.
Rather than accuse Trump of targeting his opponents (lol) a wise man would be asking what might these people have done.
And (lmao) at the notion of anyone asking Clapper or Brennan or Comey for their expertise on any national security issues. You don't ask a rapist in prison for dating advice do you?
As for Comey and McCabe, the amazing thing is the administration doesn’t seem aware they have already lost their clearance. So they know everything but they don’t know that.Nobody on this board or CNN or fox has a clue what is actually happening right now with the Mueller, Congressional, IG, or Huber investigations.
We do know that Comey and McCabe were fired, and as Tim mentioned they may already have had their clearances revoked, although I thought I heard Comey had his while he was writing his book. Both are on record lying to the FBI and/or Congress. No surprise their clearance would be revoked.
As for Clapper, Brennan, and Rice, well we have leaked info that they were involved with spying/infiltrating/whatever you want to call it a political opponent's campaign. And involved with unmasking members of a political opponent's campaign. And conspired with foreign agents (GCHQ, Steele) to spy on and/or interfere with an opponent's campaign. And possibly lied under oath. And according to the FISA report issued April 2017 improperly used 702 about queries to spy on political opponents.
I guess that "full stop" is your way of saying "nuff said" which basically means, "that's it...end of discussion"?Matthias said:When this gets discussed right now, the issue and framework of the discussion should be misuse of political power for personal fancy and agenda. Full stop.
How is it a dumb argument to say journalists should be more discerning about letting retired spooks use their platform? It's the journalist's job to hold them accountable. Or at least make it a point to disclose any conflicts of interest, like if they stand to make boatloads of money off tensions they are (almost always) ratcheting up.Matthias said:So what's that guy's solution? If you've served in public office, you're prohibited from taking any job for 5 years? Or is he going to say, hey, you can be a carpenter. But you can't be a carpenter for a defense contractor. Or you can own part of a business, as long as it's a carpentry business. Unless they do business with the government.
The biggest conflict is in lobbyists. Which there already are rules addressing. And which this administration has been waiving.
This is just a dumb argument. And, to avoid muddying the waters, should be had 2 months from now. Because otherwise, "Oh, sure, this is happening as political vedettaism", which is really where the story starts and stops, gets buried on the 8th paragraph of a 11-paragraph diatribe.
But that's the point. Show me where those on the left are one bit "reasonable" when it comes to Trump. It is all "Trump is bad....anything that may hurt him is good".Matthias said:Any reasonable rebuttal. Feel free to carry on.
This is completely reasonable, and not in any way irrational or hyperbolic.Opie said:But that's the point. Show me where those on the left are one bit "reasonable" when it comes to Trump. It is all "Trump is bad....anything that may hurt him is good".
Your hatred for the man has you blinded your are welcoming of anything that puts him a bad light.
Reasonable or not, every piece of news that MAY hurt President Trump, gives you all hope and a reason to live another day. Detrimental news about him (or anyone even remotely connected to him), has become your life's blood.
Just count how many times we were supposed to face "armageddon" since November, 8, 2016?
Hell...it all started with reports of the "end of the world as we know it" on election night then flowing immediately into the impending stock market crash that was supposed to start on November 9, 2016!
Exactly how many false "ends of the world as we know it" is the left going to believe before they actually stop believing the hype?
Exactly as you see it. We KNOW that he has committed a crime. All we have to do is find out exactly what crime that was and get him out of office because of it. When exactly does Stormy finish her $650,000, Celebrity Big Brother gig? It warms my heart to see a washed-up porn star make good before her B(oYo)BS reach her knees!Matthias said:What is important about this story: The President of the United States singled out people who spoke up about him unfavorably and took government action against them. A malicious abuse of power to put down free speech that is critical of him personally.
What is not important about this story: the specifics of how he was vindictive, how it concerns a million other people, the media-government complex, or an election almost 2 years ago.
Abuse of power and an attempt to put down criticism of the President. The last "President" who did this was Nixon.
"Armageddon" (Nancy Pelosi) and "the end of the world as we know it" (Chris Matthews) was exactly the hyperbole that the left has been using.This is completely reasonable, and not in any way irrational or hyperbolic.
"Armageddon" (Nancy Pelosi) and "the end of the world as we know it" (Chris Matthews) was exactly the hyperbole that the left has been using.
Another unidentified YouTube video that I won't click on. Could you summarize the outrage you feel about this?Remember when Obama NEVER abused his power? Remember the outrage that you felt??
This is great. Thanks.Remember when Obama NEVER abused his power? Remember the outrage that you felt??
Pelosi didn’t say “Armageddon.” If you have a clip of her saying that I’d be interested to see it. Same with the quote you attribute in quotes to Chris Matthews. The link you provided was of a Fox contributor using those words."Armageddon" (Nancy Pelosi) and "the end of the world as we know it" (Chris Matthews) was exactly the hyperbole that the left has been using.
A long time ago, when I was 17 and a very new driver, I turned right onto a busy highway, drove less than 50 feet, and stopped, with my left turn turn signal on. Every move I made was legal. But the first driver to pass me on the right (and in the dirt of the shoulder) yelled "###", and in that moment I learned several valuable lessons. Driving lessons aside, I also learned that treating a55holes with respect isn't always the best approach. Sometimes telling an ### that they're an ### needs to happen.That said, let's remember the most important thing: being civil to people who spread misleading information on the internet either deliberately or because they can't be bothered to do even 30 seconds of research. Their complete ignorance/bad faith arguments deserve to be heard and treated with respect!
A whistle-blower working inside the White House has told a House committee that senior Trump administration officials granted security clearances to at least 25 individuals whose applications had been denied by career employees, the committee’s Democratic staff said Monday.
The whistle-blower, Tricia Newbold, a manager in the White House’s Personnel Security Office, told the House Oversight and Reform Committee in a private interview last month that the 25 individuals included two current senior White House officials, in additional to contractors and other employees working for the office of the president, the staff said in a memo it released publicly.
Mr. Cummings said he planned to issue a subpoena for the testimony of Carl Kline, who until recently served as the head of the personnel security division and was Ms. Newbold’s boss, and he identified five other senior White House officials whose testimony he planned to seek.
He requested summaries of the security clearance adjudication process and any related documents for nine current and former officials, including Mr. Kushner; Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and White House adviser; and John Bolton, the national security adviser. Mr. Cummings also asked for a document Ms. Newbold said she assembled on the 25 individuals whose clearance denials she said were reversed.
Ms. Newbold gave the committee details about the cases of two senior White House officials whom she said were initially denied security clearances by her or other nonpolitical specialists in the office that were later overturned.
In one case, she said that a senior White House official was denied a clearance after a background check turned up concerns about possible foreign influence, “employment outside or businesses external to what your position at the EOP entails,” and the official’s personal conduct. Mr. Kline stepped in to reverse the decision, she said, writing in the relevant file that “the activities occurred prior to Federal service” without addressing concerns raised by Ms. Newbold and another colleague.
Stopped here because I couldn't stop laughing. "Another day, another indication that @WhiteHouse officials knowingly increased the risk that foreign intelligence services could inappropriately access our most private places"