Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well if Clapper and Brennan come back to work for the government or a contractor who do you think ends up paying for a new security clearance from scratch, the taxpayer.
If anyone hired them again where they needed a security clearance, that person should be brought up on treason charges.
Trump going after people who served in the last 2 administration.
Trump is in trouble as people start seeing what he really is. A weak small minded person influenced by the last person he talks to on any given day.
Wouldn't it be a great TV show------probably No. 1 in the ratings------if they gave truth serum to the politicians and their supporters who were guests? They'd all be telling us what they really thought about everything and what their real agendas were. There'd probably be no more than one in ten Trump supporters, who would speak in his favor, if truth-telling was the only thing they could do.
The Latest: Congress pushes back against revoking clearances
Members of Congress are pushing back against a floated White House idea of pulling the security clearances of top former intelligence officials in the Obama administration who have criticized President Donald Trump.
The No. 2 Republican, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, said Monday that he can understand Trump's aggravation at some former officials who "have obviously donned the uniform of the opposition team." But he says, "I don't know whether they've been abusing their security clearance at all. That's a very serious allegation."
The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, says revoking the clearances would be "ironic" considering the questions raised about granting them to Trump's family. https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-co...-politics.html
Because we care more about the First Amendment than GOPers care about the Second. This isn't about taking away clearances from former employees, this is about getting back at people who criticized Trump. SHS said this. That equals an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment by the White House.
Trump must have talked with Rand Paul and is considering removing security clearances from some Obama intel officials.
Sarah Sanders announced it in the WH briefing. Sounds like a great idea to me.
Officials have been politicizing and monetizing secure information. It hurts the country as a whole when they are politicizing it for personal gain. They no longer need access once out of office.
Great. Goes for everyone regardless of political affiliation.
If you are a pundit, buh-bye.
Oh- I guess that won’t apply to ex-Presidents seeing as though they remain outside the media fray, huh?
Well if Clapper and Brennan come back to work for the government or a contractor who do you think ends up paying for a new security clearance from scratch, the taxpayer. So what have you accomplished and what exactly is the problem you are addressing. It's hysterical to listen to Trumps supporters claim this was based on a security problem, did Homeland or the DOJ raise this as an issue or was this just Trump retaliating. Where exactly are Clapper and Brennan viewing Top Secret information.
Many people are brought back into positions requiring security clearances, think about Mueller and Petraeus and other military officers that are brought into positions. People are just attempting to rationalize this and it is certainly not based on facts.
If their clearance has expired and they are not working for a contractor that requires it then they do not need it. Period. Pundits don't need one. I can see not allowing renewal of one for someone who is blatantly at odds with the WH (if they are no longer employed by government) as they, the WH, are the military arm (sword) of the three legged stool.
If their clearance has expired and they are not working for a contractor that requires it then they do not need it. Period. Pundits don't need one. I can see not allowing renewal of one for someone who is blatantly at odds with the WH (if they are no longer employed by government) as they, the WH, are the military arm (sword) of the three legged stool.
Because as I already explained they come back into Service. It has never been a problem in the past, do you know of any current issues with retaining clearances.
Former employees don't have security clearance once they are out of office so it's a moot point. Per the NY Times article: "Mr. McCabe does not have an active security clearance. Mr. Comey has also had no security clearance for about a year, according to a person briefed on the matter." Comey even admitted he had no clearance himself in a TV interview some weeks back. And as for current employees gaining financially from their position, Trump's hypocrisy astounds me. The guy doubled his Mar-a-Lago fees once in office, made who knows how many millions off his MAGA hats and other items, used his office as a way to pimp Ivanka's clothing line, and now he complains about others using their positions for financial gain? Besides, there isn't any evidence other that's even happening. It's just wild accusations from Trump's personal mouth and mouthpiece Sarah Huckasanders.
Because as I already explained they come back into Service. It has never been a problem in the past, do you know of any current issues with retaining clearances.
Are the ones in question back in service of something? I have not heard that they are.
I looked through approximately five pages on this thread hoping to see why officials keep their security clearance after leaving office but I haven't see one answer; does anyone care to elaborate? And no, I'm not a Trump supporter, I am simply interested in why anyone would be allowed to keep it and what can they do with it after office? Can John Brennan, for instance, still enter the CIA HQ and view sensitize documents? The only thing I can understand having security clearance for is to talk with Congress about sensitive information, but I truly do not understand how he, or anyone else, can monetize their security clearance if they aren't in government any longer. Wouldn't any job they apply for from there require new credentials/security clearance?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
