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.
I thought it was pretty hilarious that ANYONE would make the claim that it is because these guys 'monetized' their positions.
Are they kidding? How stupid is anyone who accepts or accuses them of 'monetizing' their positions, while Trump gets away with murder.
This president and his family have monetized the office of POTUS like nobody ever before them. How idiotic and totally hypocritical of anyone accusing people other than Trump--the most serious abuser of 'monetizing.'
Ask Rand Paul and all the other cowardly congressional GOP flunkies if they ever heard of the Emoluments clause. Ask them how Trump gets away with enriching himself through his properties. Ask them how Trump gets away with having infomercials for his properties. Ask them how Trump's doofus kids get away with selling access to their father. Ask them how Javanka gets away with enriching themselves using the office of president.
This immature mercenary moronic dictator has to go. And thankfully, he would take his family and Huckasanders with him.
This has been addressed a number of times, but i know certain posters are deliberately obtuse, so I’ll dumb it down for them: Revoking security clearances as a matter of systemic review is fine. Having the White House press secretary single out specific political adversaries and threaten to have their clearances revoked... totally different.
As another poster succinctly put it:
That doesn't explain why someone that no longer works for government in any capacity, has top level clearance?
They could knock it down a few levels upon termination? Or why them have it at all?
lol no it's not. As long as one has the clearance, one has access.
We don't know if he has clearance or doesn't have clearance. It's an investigation in search of a crime. Just like Russiagate. The left was played beautifully by Rand Paul. He still cares about rights.
You're only enforcing the fact you know nothing about how it works.
Clearance just means you're not deemed a threat to national security.
To have access means you need to be employed by a federal agency and given login credentials. Everyone has unique credentials. Every credential is limited by their clearance to what they can have access.
No employment, means no login, means no access. When you're no longer employed, you lose your login.
If a background check is a pin prick, national security clearance is a background check equivalent of a body cavity search. If you're not employed, that background check means nothing.
But please, continue to be ignorant instead of taking two seconds to look something up to avoid proving the fact further.
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.
The question is, Do networks of former heads of CIA, NSA, & the other spook agencies serve a purpose? I think they do - the people who had successful careers & are now outside of current intel & operations can say things that those on the inside can't say.
It's foolish to throw away all that expertise & judgment & institutional memory. & it's unwise to cut ties with the old school - it's tantamount to a declaration of war. They might not take it well.
& on access - former US presidents still get daily intel briefs, I believe, even when Pres. Bush & W were on the board of directors of the Carlyle Group, which had holdings in lots of defense-related industries in the US. Where was the monetizing secure information charge then?
If you no longer work for the government, you have no right or need to see secret information. The revoking of clearance should be automatic. Let these people pay to obtain their own clearances on a limited basis.
Sandy Berger was able steal records from the National Archives and destroy and/or alter others related to Bill Clinton.
It amazes me that people no longer working for the government still have clearances, that's insane.
You're only enforcing the fact you know nothing about how it works.
You're only enforcing the fact you know nothing about the topic. Brennen
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
Clearance just means you're not deemed a threat to national security.
And? So?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
To have access means you need to be employed by a federal agency and given login credentials. Everyone has unique credentials. Every credential is limited by their clearance to what they can have access.
lol Brennen isn't anyone. He's not Bob from accounting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
No employment, means no login, means no access. When you're no longer employed, you lose your login.
Yet you have no proof of that when it comes to Brennen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
If a background check is a pin prick, national security clearance is a background check equivalent of a body cavity search. If you're not employed, that background check means nothing.
Agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
But please, continue to be ignorant instead of taking two seconds to look something up to avoid proving the fact further.
The only one ignorant here is you. You actually think that Brennen having clearance means he has no access to security? LMAO I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Whatever you do, don't reply to my comments, just like you did in this post. Instead post some garbage that has nothing to do with Brennen specifically.
And more importantly don't mention the fact that the left was played by Rand Paul who exposed the left for doing just what he did, an investigation in search of a crime.
The partisan left was just exposed. We can do it but you can't.
I've yet to see any of the Leftists say WHY they think that Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Hayden, Rice and other ex-employees of the Federal Government should have Secret/Top Secret Security Clearances. Hayden may work at a think tank and need one - if so, there is a process in place to retain a Security Clearance for "need". They rest of them are either unemployed, employed by CNN or on a Board of Directors somewhere. No "need to know" and that is the criteria.
It's shocking to find that all these ex-employees retain a Security Clearance .... and worse, that those clearances are automatically reauthorized. Why should Clinton or Abedin have a clearance??? and yet Clinton retained hers and so did Abedin - you can bet that John Kerry still has a Top Secret Clearance and the boy wonder novelist has one also.
What is the advantage to these ex-employees retaining their clearance???
Simple - they have deep ties to their former Agencies and you can bet that that some of their old buddies are feeding them Classified information - they feel perfectly safe doing this because of the retained Security Clearance.
The Rules are clear on this - Courts have even weighed in on it. NONE of these folks have a leg to stand on to retain a Government Security Clearance. The Federal Bureaucracy needs to clean this up and fast.
I totally agree. Security clearances are usually good for 5 years with renewals at that time and renewals are less costly. If one leaves or is leaving government service then the clearance is a huge benefit for that person to find work in the private sector as the initial cost has been paid. Security clearances are extremely expensive to perform on the outside so getting someone with one already is a savings. These idiots like Clapper and Brennan are using theirs to gain $ working for whomever. Though it doesn't mean they have direct access to information. But they could view information obtained by other sources. The clearances should not be automatically renewed for them though as they have no reason for it if they are not employed with a contractor with reason to have it. Renewal costs should be borne by the contractor.
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.
Expertise is always in demand
