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.
Except that they explicitly said it was was payback for criticism, not standard procedure. Ooops. Try again.
no they didn't.
Quote:
Sanders said Trump is “exploring mechanisms” to remove the security clearances “because [the former officials] politicized and in some cases actually monetized their public service and their security clearances in making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia."
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America...America will triumph over you."
Maybe someday you'll learn the difference between the truth and partisanship nonsense. As of now, it's clear you don't understand that.
and again, where is the threat? To say that someone will end up with a bad reputation in history is not a threat.
True, Rand Paul mentioned a few people, I am not sure about all the other names being tossed about on this thread.
Regardless however, as others said, security clearances should be automatically revoked once the individual leaves government. If however, a President wants to give new clearances to people who advise him (such as former Presidents, National Security Advisors, Secretary of Defense etc.) then he or she should be allowed too.
In other words, there should be a good reason why someone has security clearances, either you are actively working in the government or you are actively advising them.
I've been trying to figure out exactly whats up. If something else is behind this.
Going after Brennans security clearance through an investigation in search of a crime. Sound familiar? If this is what it's about, its brilliant.
True, Rand Paul mentioned a few people, I am not sure about all the other names being tossed about on this thread.
Regardless however, as others said, security clearances should be automatically revoked once the individual leaves government. If however, a President wants to give new clearances to people who advise him (such as former Presidents, National Security Advisors, Secretary of Defense etc.) then he or she should be allowed too.
In other words, there should be a good reason why someone has security clearances, either you are actively working in the government or you are actively advising them.
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.
Some of us are capable of understanding context and nuance, we can't help it if some people aren't. But yes, to say you are looking into removing clearances because you claim people politicized their comments and you go on to say that they made baseless claims with zero proof of that would absolutely be saying it's payback for saying things the administration does not like.
I'll make it easy - the non-political payback way would have to simply say "We are looking into putting administrative processes in place so that all people with a security clearance have it revoked when they leave governmental service." See the difference? The reality is that many of the people named did in fact have their clearance revoked - but SHS still got in a little attack on them, because that's what this administration does.
Are you really shocked ? This is typical wannabe dictator Trump. Republicans sit there and do nothing. No push back whatsoever. Rand the worm Paul is kissing up to Trump for who knows what reason. Don’t ever think this can’t happen here. It is. The constitution is just writing on paper. With his band of crooks Trump could decide not to honor it despite his swearing in on the Bible.
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.
