Tiberius Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: The practice of leaving security clearances in place for former intelligence people or other insiders is questionable at best. What good can come from it except for utilizing those that can truly be trusted and of future assistance? Any incoming administration should review who from previous administrations has them and make a determination who shall keep them and for how long. Otherwise the potential for leaks and abuse just grows every year. Certainly if one is an outspoken political adversary of a new administration and/or doesn't have a good working relationship and/or was part of a group of people who conspired against an incoming administration - that person should not retain clearance. Brennan, clapper and the rest should have had their clearances revoked very early in 2017. Trump's an idiot for waiting this long. But they now don't have access to their materials if they get called in to testify before congress. Oh wait, that's probably the point
Keukasmallies Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 20 minutes ago, row_33 said: I have a job that eats up the best I can give this stuff around here is for fun and sometimes to learn things Same here; I see it as $#!ts and giggles. I just can't get lathered up over comments made in an offshoot segment of a football forum. 1
row_33 Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 35 minutes ago, Keukasmallies said: Same here; I see it as $#!ts and giggles. I just can't get lathered up over comments made in an offshoot segment of a football forum. Kinda like shooting the **** over a few beers with like minds while watching a game? 1
oldmanfan Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 52 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: The practice of leaving security clearances in place for former intelligence people or other insiders is questionable at best. What good can come from it except for utilizing those that can truly be trusted and of future assistance? Any incoming administration should review who from previous administrations has them and make a determination who shall keep them and for how long. Otherwise the potential for leaks and abuse just grows every year. Certainly if one is an outspoken political adversary of a new administration and/or doesn't have a good working relationship and/or was part of a group of people who conspired against an incoming administration - that person should not retain clearance. Brennan, clapper and the rest should have had their clearances revoked very early in 2017. Trump's an idiot for waiting this long. Congress should pass a law saying that security clearances are revoked the day of inauguration of a new administration. Then the new administration can decide who to let in as needed. Sort of like when a new CEO comes in a lot of executives formally provide a resignation letter, which the CEO can ignore if he'd like. It would take the politics out of it to a significant degree.
Tiberius Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 Let's not forget that this is an attempt to obstruct justice by Trump. He admitted this was in response to Clappers role in trying to defend us from a Russian attack on our republic
outsidethebox Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 17 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Let's not forget that this is an attempt to obstruct justice by Trump. He admitted this was in response to Clappers role in trying to defend us from a Russian attack on our republic Lets not forget gator is paid to troll message boards and spew shite. He has an agenda. 1
3rdnlng Posted August 17, 2018 Author Posted August 17, 2018 15 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Congress should pass a law saying that security clearances are revoked the day of inauguration of a new administration. Then the new administration can decide who to let in as needed. Sort of like when a new CEO comes in a lot of executives formally provide a resignation letter, which the CEO can ignore if he'd like. It would take the politics out of it to a significant degree. This has already been proposed by you in this thread. It was explained to you why it is not workable in its present form. Why do you attempt to litigate it again?
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: This has already been proposed by you in this thread. It was explained to you why it is not workable in its present form. Why do you attempt to litigate it again? I'm not entirely sure it wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment.
Tiberius Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, westside said: Lets not forget gator is paid to troll message boards and spew shite. He has an agenda. Oh brother
row_33 Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 You can't fire everyone Day One, the process of rehiring can be long and dragged out there is too much to do in the transition period to make everything work perfectly of course I'm considering the real world, not a fantasy where anything you can dream up can happen instantly....
oldmanfan Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 38 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: This has already been proposed by you in this thread. It was explained to you why it is not workable in its present form. Why do you attempt to litigate it again? Because it would make sense
DC Tom Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Because it would make sense No, it wouldn't. You'd have to do a gap investigation and readjudicate the clearances of nearly everyone, which would mean shutting down the government for as much as two years. 1
row_33 Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No, it wouldn't. You'd have to do a gap investigation and readjudicate the clearances of nearly everyone, which would mean shutting down the government for as much as two years. oldman needs a nap, back in his day they whisked out the entire judicial branch as well and rehired new judges in 3 minutes or at least that's what the media told people President Wilson did, and they liked it that way besides, there are usually excellent people appointed by the prior admin that are worth keeping on, even though the parties have changed in power
Tiberius Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: What garbage.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: That guy is such a scumbucket. I sincerely hope they find the things needed to make him pay within the confines of our "justice" system.
Buffalo_Gal Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, joesixpack said: That guy is such a scumbucket. I sincerely hope they find the things needed to make him pay within the confines of our "justice" system. I am sure you mean John Brennan is the scumbucket. For those that do not know who Kris Paronto is, this is his wiki. Edited August 17, 2018 by Buffalo_Gal
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I am sure you mean John Brennan is the scumbucket. For those that do not know who Kris Paronto is, this is his wiki. That is correct. I mean Brennan.
row_33 Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 LOL, thank goodness for Twitter so Trump can get the truth out to MAGA
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I am sure you mean John Brennan is the scumbucket. For those that do not know who Kris Paronto is, this is his wiki. He had me at "80's porn stache" 1 1 2
Recommended Posts