Whistleblower Says Security Clearances Process Corrupted

[DC Tom]

7 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Oh, I don't doubt his knowledge one bit. It's just that what he's saying is a crock. Too many people accept too much of what is said by our public servants at face value. As long as it resonates, they'll run with it.

 

 

 

I've had some interaction with Cummings, and know his prejudices.  He hates Trump, obviously.  But he also hates OPM (a real, deep-seated hate), and those there responsible for the BI processes.  

 

With all three, he's like a kid in a candy store.  

[Azalin]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I've had some interaction with Cummings, and know his prejudices.  He hates Trump, obviously.  But he also hates OPM (a real, deep-seated hate), and those there responsible for the BI processes.  

 

With all three, he's like a kid in a candy store.  

 

I'm genuinely curious - why hatred for the OPM and background investigations?

[LB3]

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

I think so. If I remember correctly it was a prominent part of some movie I once saw, "A Beautiful Mind".

"A Beautiful Mind"....hmmmmm? This poster's style reminds me of BeginnersMind...

Bob in Michigan is 15 characters.

 

BeginnersMind, properly punctuated, is Beginner's Mind which is also 15 characters.

 

Take out all letters not capitalized.

 

Bob in Michigan = BM

BeginnersMind = BM.

 

Holy *****!

Edited April 3, 2019 by LBSeeBallLBGetBall

[Tiberius]

43 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Cummings knows this ***** pretty well.

 

Which means he's intentionally lying, playing politics.

Sure is. Which is good. He will show the corrupt nature of handing out security clearances to people that are unworthy of that. That's good politics 

[DC Tom]

31 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I'm genuinely curious - why hatred for the OPM and background investigations?

 

I honestly don't know.  At a guess, it's because he was dead-set against consolidating the BI process from the disparate departments under OPM.

 

Which made sense - used to be departments had their own clearances, and they didn't map.  Bush standardized them on DoD definitions across the government, then moved the background investigation processes to OPM.  But it was hugely unpopular with the departments themselves (because who wants to give up power and appropriations), and with some in Congress, of which I think Cummings may have been one.  

 

But while that's an educated guess...it's still a guess.

[Bob in Mich]

18 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

You're being more charitable than I am. I don't have the patience for willful ignorance. I tried to have a dialogue, but once the idiot movie line replies come out, then it's time for the thinkers to leave the conversation.

 

What a steaming pile of horseshit!  The ignorant one would be the fool that keeps repeating the same conceded point.  Unless, wait, how old are you?  If you are a preteen, I am sincerely sorry.  Your way of constantly kind of shouting the same point again and again....well, I get it now.  You're a cute kid.  What grade are you in?

 

If you want to have a dialogue and you are an adult, let me give you some advice.  Read (or listen), think about what was said, and then consider what might be gained by a further response.  If responding, try to perhaps draw more out of your partner or to add some new slant or information to the discussion.

 

If you just want to sort of shout out your opinion with no push back, perhaps something closer to a blog would better suit you.  Posting on a board like this opens one up to hearing other opinions, fortunately, or not. 

 

Now I think I just heard the bell.  Best run along to 1st period.

 

[Bob in Mich]

21 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

My characterization of your posts is accurate.

 

The fact that you disagree means you dont understand the law or it’s intent.  The President has complete discretion in choosing his own advisors, and assigning them the security clearances necessary to best advise him.  There is absolutely nothing scandalous about his choices or actions here.  Full stop.

 

 

I tell you that you have missed my point and you tell me that you haven't.  You then proceed immediately to again misstate my point.  So, let me say again, you have missed my point.  Full stop.

 

I don't like that Trump is overriding the clearance recommendations but that wasn't the point I was making.  I have known throughout this thread and have said repeatedly that Trump broke no laws with these overrides.  Where the 'scandalous' came from one can only guess but it wasn't anything from my posts.  So, no, you weren't accurately characterizing my posts.  Full Stop

 

I was pointing out the hypocrisy in those that claimed to be worried about potential exposure of state secrets in Hillary's case but were just fine with potential exposure of state secrets in Trump's case.  Full Stop

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

18 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I tell you that you have missed my point and you tell me that you haven't.  You then proceed immediately to again misstate my point.  So, let me say again, you have missed my point.  Full stop.

 

I don't like that Trump is overriding the clearance recommendations but that wasn't the point I was making.  I have known throughout this thread and have said repeatedly that Trump broke no laws with these overrides.  Where the 'scandalous' came from one can only guess but it wasn't anything from my posts.  So, no, you weren't accurately characterizing my posts.  Full Stop

 

I was pointing out the hypocrisy in those that claimed to be worried about potential exposure of state secrets in Hillary's case but were just fine with potential exposure of state secrets in Trump's case.  Full Stop

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton was granted clearance along the way and was revealed to be an extremely careless guardian of our national secrets. Reckless, and negligent according to her supporters, worthy of criminal referral according to some insiders. 

 

Perhaps the challenge there was the system, and the folks that suggest the system that allowed folks like these whistleblowers too much power. Complacency is one of  the natural consequences of unfettered power. 

 

If only there was a process to override the system...

[Azalin]

29 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

What a steaming pile of horseshit!  The ignorant one would be the fool that keeps repeating the same conceded point.  Unless, wait, how old are you?  If you are a preteen, I am sincerely sorry.  Your way of constantly kind of shouting the same point again and again....well, I get it now.  You're a cute kid.  What grade are you in?

 

If you want to have a dialogue and you are an adult, let me give you some advice.  Read (or listen), think about what was said, and then consider what might be gained by a further response.  If responding, try to perhaps draw more out of your partner or to add some new slant or information to the discussion.

 

If you just want to sort of shout out your opinion with no push back, perhaps something closer to a blog would better suit you.  Posting on a board like this opens one up to hearing other opinions, fortunately, or not. 

 

Now I think I just heard the bell.  Best run along to 1st period.

 

 

I'm not shouting anything Bob, I was simply trying to get you to stay on course and explain, for once, how you can logically equate security clearance overrides with illegally storing federal government correspondence. The best you could do was cite a soundbite of Chairman Cummings. If that's all you've got, then fine.

 

As for having a dialogue with an adult, try answering my direct questions in specifics. You accuse me of repetition, but I'm only doing so because you keep answering me with the same old bull$#@%. You won't address it, so the conversation would appear to be pointless.

 

But you're the mature one in this exchange, right?

[3rdnlng]

28 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I tell you that you have missed my point and you tell me that you haven't.  You then proceed immediately to again misstate my point.  So, let me say again, you have missed my point.  Full stop.

 

I don't like that Trump is overriding the clearance recommendations but that wasn't the point I was making.  I have known throughout this thread and have said repeatedly that Trump broke no laws with these overrides.  Where the 'scandalous' came from one can only guess but it wasn't anything from my posts.  So, no, you weren't accurately characterizing my posts.  Full Stop

 

I was pointing out the hypocrisy in those that claimed to be worried about potential exposure of state secrets in Hillary's case but were just fine with potential exposure of state secrets in Trump's case.  Full Stop

FIFY. See how easy that was?

[Bob in Mich]

33 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I'm not shouting anything Bob, I was simply trying to get you to stay on course and explain, for once, how you can logically equate security clearance overrides with illegally storing federal government correspondence. The best you could do was cite a soundbite of Chairman Cummings. If that's all you've got, then fine.

 

As for having a dialogue with an adult, try answering my direct questions in specifics. You accuse me of repetition, but I'm only doing so because you keep answering me with the same old bull$#@%. You won't address it, so the conversation would appear to be pointless.

 

But you're the mature one in this exchange, right?

 

I have repeatedly answered your question of how the situations are similar.  Once again, the chief similarity is that both actions may have resulted in some of our national secrets being exposed to our adversaries.

 

And, yes, I do appear to be one of the few mature posters in this entire thread.  Recall you claimed that I didn't know the definition of hypocrisy.  Recall then how I showed you the ***** dictionary definition?  Recall then how you said, gee, I guess I was wrong on that?  No, you don't remember that part?  Know why?  Because you weren't mature enough to admit that mistake.  Recall how you claimed that it didn't make sense to compare the two situations?  After I pointed out how a whole lot of folks came to the same comparison that you said, gee I strongly disagree with that comparison but I guess it was not all that crazy?  No, me either.  Know why?

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Bob in Mich

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I tell you that you have missed my point and you tell me that you haven't.  You then proceed immediately to again misstate my point.  So, let me say again, you have missed my point.  Full stop.

 

I don't like that Trump is overriding the clearance recommendations but that wasn't the point I was making.  I have known throughout this thread and have said repeatedly that Trump broke no laws with these overrides.  Where the 'scandalous' came from one can only guess but it wasn't anything from my posts.  So, no, you weren't accurately characterizing my posts.  Full Stop

 

I was pointing out the hypocrisy in those that claimed to be worried about potential exposure of state secrets in Hillary's case but were just fine with potential exposure of state secrets in Trump's case.  Full Stop

 

If this is true, then it’s a complete indictment of your understanding of the subject matter.  You’d have probably been better off begging mea culpa.

 

The President has complete discretion over who he’s vests with clearances.  He has full authority to name his advisors, and to then equip them with the prescribed tools they need to advise him.  This is the standard and accepted practice, and is not a national security risk.

 

What Secretary Clinton did was a violation of the law, which will be shown to have been committed for the purpose of circumventing oversight in order to commit even more egregious violations of the law; the entire point of which was to intentionally compromise national security in exchange for personal profit.

 

These two things are entirely dissimilar, and you’re an abject moron if you think they are not.

[row_33]

Kids, the President has very wide sweeping powers, hopefully harmful excess is checked by Congress or other bodies put in place.

 

[3rdnlng]

22 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I have repeatedly answered your question of how the situations are similar.  Once again, the chief similarity is that both actions may have resulted in some of our national secrets being exposed to our adversaries.

 

And, yes, I do appear to be one of the few mature posters in this entire thread.  Recall you claimed that I didn't know the definition of hypocrisy.  Recall then how I showed you the ***** dictionary definition?  Recall then how you said, gee, I guess I was wrong on that?  No, you don't remember that part?  Know why?  Because you weren't mature enough to admit that mistake.  Recall how you claimed that it didn't make sense to compare the two situations?  After I pointed out how a whole lot of folks came to the same comparison that you said, gee I strongly disagree with that comparison but I guess it was not all that crazy?  No, me either.  Know why?

 

You're a trip! Or on one. You just recalled stuff that you admitted Azalin didn't say. And to think imbibing in weed is innocent.

[Taro T]

7 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I have repeatedly answered your question of how the situations are similar.  Once again, the chief similarity is that both actions may have resulted in some of our national secrets being exposed to our adversaries.

 

And, yes, I do appear to be one of the few mature posters in this entire thread.  Recall you claimed that I didn't know the definition of hypocrisy.  Recall then how I showed you the ***** dictionary definition?  Recall then how you said, gee, I guess I was wrong on that?  No, you don't remember that part?  Know why?  Because you weren't mature enough to admit that mistake.  Recall how you claimed that it didn't make sense to compare the two situations?  After I pointed how how a whole lot of folks came to the same comparison that you said, gee I strongly disagree with that comparison but I guess it was not all that crazy?  No, me either.  Know why?

 

 

Not sure why I'm responding to this other than I have a couple of minutes waiting for a phone call.

 

Can't / won't speak for others and many have already explained well their interpretation of why the 2 situations are not similar.  But here's my take.  Clinton's home server was an issue for several reasons.  The first being the almost certainty that when it was unsecured it was hacked by myriad organizations.  The second, and the one that makes it illegal (regardless of what AG Lynch got FBI Director Comey to say regarding said server), is that she was conducting government business on non-government equipment with the express purpose of circumventing Congressional (and departmental via the IG) oversight.  The third, which is grayer as in her role as SoS she had the authority to determine at least a portion of the "classified" messages that were on her server weren't/wouldn't be classified, is that she was handling classified information in manners outside of accepted protocols which is also illegal.  Others, even high ranking officials (hello General Petraeus), have faced repercussions for much lesser violations of classified document handling protocols.  Justice should be equal for all, even Clintons.  There's probably more that's concerning, but that should be enough for the purposes of this discussion.

 

The accusations about giving out clearances to people that were flagged as possible security risks are concerning on their surface, but there are several items that mitigate those concerns.  The first is that though Newbold didn't name the 25 or so individuals that had "disqualifying issues" (at least in the article I read) it has been reported that some of those individuals include people such as Michael Flynn, Rob Porter, and John Bolton.  It is preposterous that any of those 3, who have previously held clearances, should be denied them at the time they were vetted to serve in the current administration.  As we know those were flagged for political reasons rather than national security questions, all the disqualifications are called into question.  The second is that this is standard operating procedure for all administrations (R&D); while there is concern or question about them, it doesn't equate to them actually leaking classified information nor does it equate to them being compromised.  And, as others have mentioned, overriding the recommendations of the staff isn't illegal (whereas conducting government business on private equipment certainly appears to be illegal).  That's just the 1st 3.

 

So, to make a long story short, as others have stated, things that are different are not the same. 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

I'm not shouting anything Bob, I was simply trying to get you to stay on course and explain, for once, how you can logically equate security clearance overrides with illegally storing federal government correspondence. The best you could do was cite a soundbite of Chairman Cummings. If that's all you've got, then fine.

 

As for having a dialogue with an adult, try answering my direct questions in specifics. You accuse me of repetition, but I'm only doing so because you keep answering me with the same old bull$#@%. You won't address it, so the conversation would appear to be pointless.

 

But you're the mature one in this exchange, right?

 

"I conceded the point, but I'm still disagreeing with it, and you're misrepresenting me!"

 

Never argue with a stoner.  You're wasting your time.

[Azalin]

52 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I have repeatedly answered your question of how the situations are similar.  Once again, the chief similarity is that both actions may have resulted in some of our national secrets being exposed to our adversaries.

 

And, yes, I do appear to be one of the few mature posters in this entire thread.  Recall you claimed that I didn't know the definition of hypocrisy.  Recall then how I showed you the ***** dictionary definition?  Recall then how you said, gee, I guess I was wrong on that?  No, you don't remember that part?  Know why?  Because you weren't mature enough to admit that mistake.  Recall how you claimed that it didn't make sense to compare the two situations?  After I pointed out how a whole lot of folks came to the same comparison that you said, gee I strongly disagree with that comparison but I guess it was not all that crazy?  No, me either.  Know why?

 

 

You're certainly one of the most mature people in your own mind. Outside, not so much.

[row_33]

37 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You're a trip! Or on one. You just recalled stuff that you admitted Azalin didn't say. And to think imbibing in weed is innocent.

 

weed normalizes the expectation of getting high every time you use it

 

and if you are dependent on drugs you  basically lie every time you communicate with someone

 

[Foxx]

22 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Not sure why I'm responding to this other than I have a couple of minutes waiting for a phone call.

 

Can't / won't speak for others and many have already explained well their interpretation of why the 2 situations are not similar.  But here's my take.  Clinton's home server was an issue for several reasons.  The first being the almost certainty that when it was unsecured it was hacked by myriad organizations.  The second, and the one that makes it illegal (regardless of what AG Lynch got FBI Director Comey to say regarding said server), is that she was conducting government business on non-government equipment with the express purpose of circumventing Congressional (and departmental via the IG) oversight.  The third, which is grayer as in her role as SoS she had the authority to determine at least a portion of the "classified" messages that were on her server weren't/wouldn't be classified, is that she was handling classified information in manners outside of accepted protocols which is also illegal.  Others, even high ranking officials (hello General Petraeus), have faced repercussions for much lesser violations of classified document handling protocols.  Justice should be equal for all, even Clintons.  There's probably more that's concerning, but that should be enough for the purposes of this discussion.

 

The accusations about giving out clearances to people that were flagged as possible security risks are concerning on their surface, but there are several items that mitigate those concerns.  The first is that though Newbold didn't name the 25 or so individuals that had "disqualifying issues" (at least in the article I read) it has been reported that some of those individuals include people such as Michael Flynn, Rob Porter, and John Bolton.  It is preposterous that any of those 3, who have previously held clearances, should be denied them at the time they were vetted to serve in the current administration.  As we know those were flagged for political reasons rather than national security questions, all the disqualifications are called into question.  The second is that this is standard operating procedure for all administrations (R&D); while there is concern or question about them, it doesn't equate to them actually leaking classified information nor does it equate to them being compromised.  And, as others have mentioned, overriding the recommendations of the staff isn't illegal (whereas conducting government business on private equipment certainly appears to be illegal).  That's just the 1st 3.

 

So, to make a long story short, as others have stated, things that are different are not the same. 

/endofBob'sargument,period,fullstop

 

[Bob in Mich]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You're a trip! Or on one. You just recalled stuff that you admitted Azalin didn't say. And to think imbibing in weed is innocent.

 

I'd have to suspect a lot escapes your 'capture ability'.

5 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Not sure why I'm responding to this other than I have a couple of minutes waiting for a phone call.

 

Can't / won't speak for others and many have already explained well their interpretation of why the 2 situations are not similar.  But here's my take.  Clinton's home server was an issue for several reasons.  The first being the almost certainty that when it was unsecured it was hacked by myriad organizations.  The second, and the one that makes it illegal (regardless of what AG Lynch got FBI Director Comey to say regarding said server), is that she was conducting government business on non-government equipment with the express purpose of circumventing Congressional (and departmental via the IG) oversight.  The third, which is grayer as in her role as SoS she had the authority to determine at least a portion of the "classified" messages that were on her server weren't/wouldn't be classified, is that she was handling classified information in manners outside of accepted protocols which is also illegal.  Others, even high ranking officials (hello General Petraeus), have faced repercussions for much lesser violations of classified document handling protocols.  Justice should be equal for all, even Clintons.  There's probably more that's concerning, but that should be enough for the purposes of this discussion.

 

The accusations about giving out clearances to people that were flagged as possible security risks are concerning on their surface, but there are several items that mitigate those concerns.  The first is that though Newbold didn't name the 25 or so individuals that had "disqualifying issues" (at least in the article I read) it has been reported that some of those individuals include people such as Michael Flynn, Rob Porter, and John Bolton.  It is preposterous that any of those 3, who have previously held clearances, should be denied them at the time they were vetted to serve in the current administration.  As we know those were flagged for political reasons rather than national security questions, all the disqualifications are called into question.  The second is that this is standard operating procedure for all administrations (R&D); while there is concern or question about them, it doesn't equate to them actually leaking classified information nor does it equate to them being compromised.  And, as others have mentioned, overriding the recommendations of the staff isn't illegal (whereas conducting government business on private equipment certainly appears to be illegal).  That's just the 1st 3.

 

So, to make a long story short, as others have stated, things that are different are not the same. 

 

Thanks for a reasonable reply.  Yeah, this board can sometimes provide a good distraction.  The only times I post on here is when my pain levels are high and I am desperate for distractions.  Lol, just stating that in case you were thinking that a person would need to be crazy to continue to battle all of the opposition.

 

If we are watching the Bills together and I say, that back reminds me of OJ.  That likely means his size, speed, cutback ability, vision, and/or etc.  It doesn't have to mean all of those factors and that he is a double murderer.  Just as clearly, two 'comparable' situations can have both similarities and differences.  Identical was never claimed but there were enough similarities to allow several reasonable people to independently draw the exact same comparison.  I allowed that Trump's overrides were legal all along.

 

Second, I am uncertain how frequently security clearances are denied and I don't know how often the denials are strictly political.  I doubt though that each and every denial is political.  I don't think we should just assume that they all fall into the same category and so are nothing to be concerned about.  Oversight of this process is reasonable, imo.  We don't know who among the overrides may be compromised.  We don't know who has already or who may someday, divulge state secrets.  To say it hasn't happened is naive.  Information from spies often doesn't immediately come to light back in his home country. 

 

Also, back to OJ.  Back in the 70's I would have no problem with him dating my sister.  Today, no.  People change.  To say we don't need to investigate a person's CURRENT situation because we investigated him years ago, would be a mistake too, imo.