What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Revoking a Security Clearance (2 Viewers)

Why are you here?
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 

 
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 
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 hope it doesn't become too much for you to bear.  Your contributions would be sorely missed.
This guy wtf. Can't believe he got elected! He's ruining our country! And don't get me started on his base!!!

There. I've contributed as much you ?

 
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.
You mean in all your experience dealing with high level intelligence and national security issues?

 
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:

“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
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.   :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
I presume that having clearance is different from being on an approved distribution list.  I can see maybe where an ex-President or National Security advisor would be a valuable consultant in certain instances, but I presume they are not in the general flow of information.  Perhaps I am mistaken.  Frankly with all that's going on some issues do not get my full attention.  Perhaps if there were chicks kissing somewhere in this issue I would pay more attention.  I like it when they do that while trailing their hands along some side boob, slowly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.   :shrug:
I don't think security clearance is a big deal. I mean they gave me top secret security clearance, how important can it be?

 
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.
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.

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.

 
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.
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).  

 
Matthias 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.
Bingo

 
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).  
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.

 
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.
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.  

 
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.  
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.

 
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?

Is it just another case of, "Trump is bad....Obama is good"?

Maybe instead of being "political retribution" it was Brennan's big blowhole that brought this to the Trump WH's attention and caused them to ask the question..."why does this ###-clown still have a security clearance anyway?"

 
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.
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.  

 
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.  
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.

 
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?!!?!??!
Hey, in the '60s Charlie Manson was responsible for deaths several people and was charged with murder.
In the '60s, Marines in Vietnam were responsible for the deaths of a lot more people. So why weren't all those Marines charged?

 
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.
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!   :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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!
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.

 
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.
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 (on multiple occasions), is irrelevant.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Ok, fine but that Obama comp you raised doesn't apply for that reason.

Though, what has Susan Rice said, exactly? I really don't know why she is on this list.

As for your second point, I even wonder if this is even happening anymore. Hillary Clinton has a clearance, so does Albright, Rumsfeld, etc.

 
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?


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.
I think you know this by now but I am genuinely interested in this subject.

See, I wish Trump - or DNI Coats - would do this. I think given all the hacks and leaks at OPM, DOD, State, and even the WH, this is a really big national security risk. And actually if you want to take what is a partisan issue, while I don't think cabinet officials and intelligence directors should have their clearances revoked, I do think it would be good to have a sweep of personal email use. That includes the current administration and past administrations. That was a Hillary issue and one way you can tell that Trump People really don't care about what Hillary did is they don't care that anyone else may have had the same absolutely lousy personal operational security. Like I would appreciate it if Trump took that approach, but he doesn't, he doesn't actually care. Same guy has fired the White House cyber security director and the cyber security expert for the NSC, etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
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.

 
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.
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.

As for the other three, ok granted, say they are under investigation and they are considered a security risk, then the administration should say that. In fact I’d consider that at least a normal justification for revoking clearance, instead of what they are claiming here, which is that they say mean things (btw that’s what I was referring to with Rice because actually I don’t recall her being critical at all, at least not in the news). We don’t do double secret probation in this country, if this is the reason then the administration should just say so, in fact I’m sure Trump would love to announce this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And the case specifically that I’m talking about right now is this threat that he made to strip some of these cable news pundits and national security robber barons of their security clearances. I’m, of course, talking about so-called former intelligence officials, former CIA directors and senior CIA officers and FBI personnel and DNI officials and generals and national security advisors — these are among the worst class of people in American politics. Not just today, but always. The overwhelming majority of them use their previous posts to rake in huge amounts of corporate cash for influence peddling or to profit from wars that they helped sell that just happened to benefit the war corporations on whose boards they sit. Now, it’s not all of them, but it’s a lot of them.

And in this current moment, many of these former senior intelligence officials have basically taken up residency in the studios of cable news channels and on cable news sets. And they are constantly pushing a propaganda campaign disguised as opposition to Trump that really is about grooming the public to embrace the most authoritarian and secretive institutions in the United States government as somehow being the protectors of our democracy.

Last year, I raised this issue, which by the way was the very last time I was allowed on CNN’s airwaves. Here it is:

Jeremy Scahill: Alright, how about this Brian, when you have these retired generals and colonels on, let’s hear what defense companies they’re on the boards of. Let’s hear how they have their own private companies that benefited off of the Iraq war like Spider Marks.

Brian Stelter: I think CNN is quite careful about those disclosures, but I agree it’s important to have those disclosures.

Jeremy Scahill: Well, I mean, look: The fact is that when you talk about famous generals, and this is a different network, but Barry McCaffrey, you have your own Spider Marks, I think that the American people deserve to know what was the private sector record of these individuals when it came to the weapons industry or profiting in the private sector off of the proliferation of U.S. wars that happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere there is not the kind of transparency that is required of a truly democratic process when you’re not revealing the extent to which these people have benefited in the private sector from these wars.

JS: Privatizing your supposedly national service, service that is constantly held up with no sense of irony or hypocrisy as evidence of the impeccable character of the pundit or corporate board member who is running their mouth off, that’s legalized corruption and it should be abolished — not for political reasons, not because these people are speaking publicly about Donald Trump, but because they are using their previous positions for private agendas, whether that be lucrative consulting gigs or to engage in historical revisionism in an effort to mislead the public into trusting the most dangerous institutions in our society. Or worse: viewing these people, because they were former senior CIA people, as above criticism or that they represent the very definition of patriotism and to oppose them makes you a traitor. It would be one thing if these people were being challenged when they go on TV or investigated, called out, exposed as part of their cushy lives in the private sector. But that never happens — ever. Instead, this has been a literal and political cash cow, for people, some of whom are responsible for some of the worst crimes committed in the name of the United States when they were doing their official jobs. Allowing these people now to engage in what amounts to insider trading with the most sensitive information possessed by the United States while never holding them accountable for their tenure while they were in office is undemocratic and worse.

Now, it’s clear that Trump wants his political opponents stripped of their clearances. We get that and that is a sophomoric reason to do this. But it does raise a real issue: Why do we as a society accept this monetization and politicization of so-called public service? Why should these private citizens be able to privatize intelligence for their own personal and political benefit, or the benefit of their former employers at the CIA, NSA, FBI, DNI, on and on and on? The answer is: They shouldn’t be able to.

Most of Congress is also wrapped up in this racket; so don’t expect them to get around to addressing this any time soon. But it is something that all of us should be aware of when we watch these former spooks selling their goods on the public airwaves.

https://static.theintercept.com/amp/double-negative-trump-putin-and-the-destruction-of-political-intelligence.html?campaign=homepage-podcast-intercepted&__twitter_impression=true

 
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.
I guess that "full stop" is your way of saying "nuff said" which basically means, "that's it...end of discussion"?

 
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.
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.  

This is the problem with neolibs.  They can't seem to acknowledge a very basic problem- that broadcasting national security propaganda on cable television with no challenge or pushback is dangerous- without making it about Trump. 

Scahill and Kiriakou both acknowledge that Trump's reasons for doing so are misguided.  And that to apply the clearance revocations unevenly is wrong.  But that doesn't make it acceptable for intelligence personnel to use the long broadcast arm of the media to brainwash cable tv viewers because it comes in antiTrump packaging.  Or to essentially play both sides of the contractor/insider fence.  

Wrong: https://youtu.be/aCi-P2j0G5EMaddow gets run over by retired colonel saying the US can "release" Afghan minerals

Right: Hassan challenges retired general on Iraq

 
Matthias said:
Any reasonable rebuttal. Feel free to carry on.
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?

 
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?
This is completely reasonable, and not in any way irrational or hyperbolic.

 
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.
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!

Take heart....only 6.5 years to go.

We have that long to get rid of President Trump.

Hey...hope springs eternal!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 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. 

 
Whistle-Blower Tells Congress of Irregularities in White House Security Clearances

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.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top