|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 24 2018 07:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 07:01 Plansix wrote:NPR has a response from Clapper and others: Clapper fired back on CNN, calling the potential revocation of his clearance based only on his comments "a petty thing to do."
There is a formal process by which clearances can be revoked, Clapper said, but it's predicated on wrongdoing or other set procedures. Cutting off access over a disagreement based on speech would "set a terrible precedent," he said, representing "an abuse of the system."
Hayden also responded on Twitter, saying that the move by the White House would have no "effect on what I say or write." SourceThe article also points out there are 4 million people in the US with clearance of different levels who do any number of jobs. Including low level jobs like being a mechanic. Cutting off clearance for publicly criticizing the President is not good cause, even if the critique is hyperbolic. It is another way that the Trump Administration is levying any power they have to attack anyone the see as enemies. roflmao. . he said, representing "an abuse of the system." Clapper blatantly perjured himself on national TV for abusing the shit out of the system to criminally spy on millions of people. This guy... He did perjure himself before congress and was never charged. Though I think folks will be pretty bummed out with how light the penalties are for perjury and how hard it is to prove.
He could just be getting out of prison instead of petty arguments with Trump if we had a remotely functional criminal justice system.
|
On July 24 2018 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:18 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2018 07:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 07:01 Plansix wrote:NPR has a response from Clapper and others: Clapper fired back on CNN, calling the potential revocation of his clearance based only on his comments "a petty thing to do."
There is a formal process by which clearances can be revoked, Clapper said, but it's predicated on wrongdoing or other set procedures. Cutting off access over a disagreement based on speech would "set a terrible precedent," he said, representing "an abuse of the system."
Hayden also responded on Twitter, saying that the move by the White House would have no "effect on what I say or write." SourceThe article also points out there are 4 million people in the US with clearance of different levels who do any number of jobs. Including low level jobs like being a mechanic. Cutting off clearance for publicly criticizing the President is not good cause, even if the critique is hyperbolic. It is another way that the Trump Administration is levying any power they have to attack anyone the see as enemies. roflmao. . he said, representing "an abuse of the system." Clapper blatantly perjured himself on national TV for abusing the shit out of the system to criminally spy on millions of people. This guy... He did perjure himself before congress and was never charged. Though I think folks will be pretty bummed out with how light the penalties are for perjury and how hard it is to prove. He could just be getting out of prison instead of petty arguments with Trump if we had a remotely functional criminal justice system.
I don’t think the case would be that successful, even in the GH dream court where justice is real and the system is fair. They have to prove to a jury that he did it intentionally, and didn’t just fuck up.
|
United States24578 Posts
On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance.
This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes).
Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else.
|
On July 24 2018 07:19 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 06:48 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 24 2018 06:38 xDaunt wrote:
Brennan, Clapper, and Comey have all been way out of line with baseless, hyperbolic political attacks on the president. Brennan has been particularly disgraceful as of late. None of them is fit to have a security clearance. Baseless? Criticism of the president by intelligence officials might be a lot of things, but baseless? It's honestly bloody difficult to make a meritless attack on Cheeto Benito given how superbly he's used his time in office to be terrible in every conceivable way. What have they said which is baseless? Feel free to explain why the following is not baseless: If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. I think you have the words "baseless" and "accurate" mixed up, should look into that. In the meantime if you want to be taken even remotel seriously rather than laughed at and shrugged off as usual, explain in detail why that is baseless and not accurate. Until then you are at the usual xDaunt partisan baseless posting. Edit: the thing you just accused him of doing, is a thing almost everyone in the Trump camp has done, and on a much worse level. So if this is your reasoning then yank trumps clearance for making baseless accusations against Hillary, Comey, muller, and many others. Same with Don the con jr for the things he has tweeted, same with cushner, and jesus christ sa me with Sanders for all her baseless attacks on the press.
You are completely backwards on this one. Have you ever heard of the "presumption of innocence?" Do you even understand how utterly insane it is to simply presume that the president is guilty of treason without any evidence supporting it? So no, it is not my burden -- or anyone else's burden -- to prove Trump's innocence.
|
On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else.
Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance?
|
On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance?
One person’s abuse is another persons freedom of speech.
Edit: also - yes, but I respect the impeachment is the proper way to remove Trump from office.
|
On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? Yes?
So long as he does not abuse his security clearance I don't see why. And if he does there are procedures for that already.
|
United States24578 Posts
On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance?
It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired.
|
On July 24 2018 07:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? One person’s abuse is another persons freedom of speech.
Oh, please. It's not a freedom of speech issue. I'm not saying Clapper should be criminally prosecuted for what he said.
|
On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance?
Nope. For this reason, I'm hoping for Trump's security clearance to be revoked promptly.
|
On July 24 2018 07:41 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired.
So abuse of credentials and position for political purposes, in a vacuum, is okay in your book then. Are you sure you don't want to revisit this position and perhaps consider that irrational Trump hatred is interfering with your better judgment?
|
On July 24 2018 07:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:41 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired. So abuse of credentials and position for political purposes, in a vacuum, is okay in your book then. Are you sure you don't want to revisit this position and perhaps consider that irrational Trump hatred is interfering with your better judgment?
Back at you, Daunty boy. You have to know Trump's abused his position. The fact he uses the Presidency to promote and increase profits at his golf resorts is proof enough of that and there's plenty of other indications.
You're happy to make these declarations on other people, yet you're strangely silent on holding the President accountable for his actions.
|
On July 24 2018 07:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:41 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired. So abuse of credentials and position for political purposes, in a vacuum, is okay in your book then. Are you sure you don't want to revisit this position and perhaps consider that irrational Trump hatred is interfering with your better judgment?
I've gotta tell you, it's getting harder by the day for hatred of Trump to be irrational. Also:
Are you just going off Trump's word when you think Comey still has a clearance of any sort? The man is retired. I can only assume this is the pre-programmed smokescreen for the Manafort trial which is incoming.
|
United States24578 Posts
On July 24 2018 07:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:41 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired. So abuse of credentials and position for political purposes, in a vacuum, is okay in your book then. Are you sure you don't want to revisit this position and perhaps consider that irrational Trump hatred is interfering with your better judgment?
No, I do not consider abuse of credentials and position for political purposes to be okay. However, I don't think that revoking security clearances is the correct response, either (for example, I suggested firing that person as one possible response). Similarly, I don't think that the civil servant in question should be forced to attend alcoholics anonymous meetings. In some situations that is an appropriate thing to force someone to do, but not in this case. Same with revoking security clearances. It's what you do in very specific circumstances, and not as a punishment.
|
On July 24 2018 07:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 07:18 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2018 07:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 07:01 Plansix wrote:NPR has a response from Clapper and others: Clapper fired back on CNN, calling the potential revocation of his clearance based only on his comments "a petty thing to do."
There is a formal process by which clearances can be revoked, Clapper said, but it's predicated on wrongdoing or other set procedures. Cutting off access over a disagreement based on speech would "set a terrible precedent," he said, representing "an abuse of the system."
Hayden also responded on Twitter, saying that the move by the White House would have no "effect on what I say or write." SourceThe article also points out there are 4 million people in the US with clearance of different levels who do any number of jobs. Including low level jobs like being a mechanic. Cutting off clearance for publicly criticizing the President is not good cause, even if the critique is hyperbolic. It is another way that the Trump Administration is levying any power they have to attack anyone the see as enemies. roflmao. . he said, representing "an abuse of the system." Clapper blatantly perjured himself on national TV for abusing the shit out of the system to criminally spy on millions of people. This guy... He did perjure himself before congress and was never charged. Though I think folks will be pretty bummed out with how light the penalties are for perjury and how hard it is to prove. He could just be getting out of prison instead of petty arguments with Trump if we had a remotely functional criminal justice system. I don’t think the case would be that successful, even in the GH dream court where justice is real and the system is fair. They have to prove to a jury that he did it intentionally, and didn’t just fuck up.
I mean I don't know anyone who thinks it wasn't perjury so I don't know why it would be hard to convince people it was intentional (provided they weren't absurdly biased to start).
Setting aside our different views of "legal justice" he shouldn't have security clearance, should he?
|
On July 24 2018 07:48 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:41 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired. So abuse of credentials and position for political purposes, in a vacuum, is okay in your book then. Are you sure you don't want to revisit this position and perhaps consider that irrational Trump hatred is interfering with your better judgment? Back at you, Daunty boy. You have to know Trump's abused his position. The fact he uses the Presidency to promote and increase profits at his golf resorts is proof enough of that and there's plenty of other indications. You're happy to make these declarations on other people, yet you're strangely silent on holding the President accountable for his actions.
Abused it how? No one even knows what the emoluments clause means. That's something that's going to be litigated in courts for years until it reaches the US Supreme Court. And I'm not particularly worried about Trump getting a little increased traffic at his resorts as being a source of corruption. Every president has cashed in on his presidency after leaving office. And let's not be so naive as to presume that said cashing in was not, at least partially, rooted in things that occurred during the presidency. Come back when you have some truly flagrant corruption to report.
|
On July 24 2018 07:48 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:41 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired. So abuse of credentials and position for political purposes, in a vacuum, is okay in your book then. Are you sure you don't want to revisit this position and perhaps consider that irrational Trump hatred is interfering with your better judgment? I've gotta tell you, it's getting harder by the day for hatred of Trump to be irrational. Also: https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1021485887383851008Are you just going off Trump's word when you think Comey still has a clearance of any sort? The man is retired. I can only assume this is the pre-programmed smokescreen for the Manafort trial which is incoming.
Here's a spoiler for you: the Manafort trial isn't going to affect Trump at all.
|
On July 24 2018 07:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:48 NewSunshine wrote:On July 24 2018 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:41 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired. So abuse of credentials and position for political purposes, in a vacuum, is okay in your book then. Are you sure you don't want to revisit this position and perhaps consider that irrational Trump hatred is interfering with your better judgment? I've gotta tell you, it's getting harder by the day for hatred of Trump to be irrational. Also: https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1021485887383851008Are you just going off Trump's word when you think Comey still has a clearance of any sort? The man is retired. I can only assume this is the pre-programmed smokescreen for the Manafort trial which is incoming. Here's a spoiler for you: the Manafort trial isn't going to affect Trump at all.
Perhaps, perhaps not. That wasn't my point though. Trump's lunatic rambling has got you by the nose, and you're railing against a retired man for having a clearance he doesn't have.
|
On July 24 2018 07:49 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:41 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired. So abuse of credentials and position for political purposes, in a vacuum, is okay in your book then. Are you sure you don't want to revisit this position and perhaps consider that irrational Trump hatred is interfering with your better judgment? No, I do not consider abuse of credentials and position for political purposes to be okay. However, I don't think that revoking security clearances is the correct response, either (for example, I suggested firing that person as one possible response). Similarly, I don't think that the civil servant in question should be forced to attend alcoholics anonymous meetings. In some situations that is an appropriate thing to force someone to do, but not in this case. Same with revoking security clearances. It's what you do in very specific circumstances, and not as a punishment.
This is more sensible, but security clearance access encompasses far broader considerations than you're giving credit for. As part of the process of assessing whether security clearance should be given, much focus is placed upon the judgment of the individual to see whether that person is a risk for abusing the security clearance for one purpose or another.
|
On July 24 2018 08:00 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:48 NewSunshine wrote:On July 24 2018 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:41 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired. So abuse of credentials and position for political purposes, in a vacuum, is okay in your book then. Are you sure you don't want to revisit this position and perhaps consider that irrational Trump hatred is interfering with your better judgment? I've gotta tell you, it's getting harder by the day for hatred of Trump to be irrational. Also: https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1021485887383851008Are you just going off Trump's word when you think Comey still has a clearance of any sort? The man is retired. I can only assume this is the pre-programmed smokescreen for the Manafort trial which is incoming. Here's a spoiler for you: the Manafort trial isn't going to affect Trump at all. Perhaps, perhaps not. That wasn't my point though. Trump's lunatic rambling has got you by the nose, and you're railing against a retired man for having a clearance he doesn't have.
Whether he has it is really besides the point. All that means is that Trump can move on to other things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
