The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[nonobaddog]

It would be dubious. It is a fine line to walk since gen 1 may or may not be fully in the public domain.

Can I talk about what went on at Los Alamos even though there have been movies about it and information on nuclear physics is in the public domain? I don't think that is possible.

So, to circle back to the point about withdrawing clearances from people no longer in the employ of the govt....it should have relatively little meaning. Brennan really can't talk about much beyond what he had for lunch without violating his oath.

True, but violating oaths is becoming much more common and like mentioned already - not prosecuted unless it is part of some other agenda.

 

[Leadeye]

People used to ask Christopher Lee about his work during WW2 which was covered by the British Official Secrets Act. He would say.. "Can you keep a secret?... Well so can I."

I think that about sums it up.

 

[Trigger Time]

Brennan was involved in this bogus fisa warrant.
We know from released information that him and Clapper and Comey KNEW the information they based their probably cause for a fisa.warrant on wasbogus. They knew it.
But let's say they didnt know it, they were just that incompetent. Do we really want those people heading up our intelligence services and LE agencies?
I believe Congress needs to immediately pass legislation that all former government employees and appointees and special envoys or advisors, lose all security clearance 6 months after leaving their positions.

This will never be done because Congress is corrupt and they use these clearances to pat their friends on the backs. Its sickening.

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hit...-asian-opponent-dont-vote-for-the-ching-chong
Detroit Rep. Bettie Cook Scott on Asian opponent: 'Don't vote for the ching-chong!'

 

[actaeon277]

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/...nives-didnt-work-london-mayor-wants-ban-cars/
Since Banning Guns And Knives Didn’t Work, London Mayor Wants To Ban Cars

 

[Trigger Time]

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/...nives-didnt-work-london-mayor-wants-ban-cars/
Since Banning Guns And Knives Didn’t Work, London Mayor Wants To Ban Cars

I know one ban that would at least put a dent in things there

 

[Trigger Time]

I gotta agree with nonobaddog here. I don't see anything skanky about her.

Ok maybe I used the wrong terminology. Better have a big bank account to date that chick and share.

 

[Trigger Time]

I figure your clearances are for the job, when you leave it, they stay.

i thought the same thing......you leave you out of the loop....

When you retire or leave that job your access stops, your clearance doesnt. Clearance stays active for up to 24 months. If you get a new govt or contractor job then your clearance will continue and possibly new access. This is why so many contractors LOVE ex military or govt with active clearances because it saves a lot of time and money.
This ******* will have to have a whole new investigation to regain a clearance now. Where as before he and others are just read out. The clearance doesnt get revoked (see what I said above). Now his is revoked lol. It's a very extensive process to get a clearance. It's an investigation done by the FBI or at least that's who did it back when I was aware.

 

[Hawkeye]

Sigh. I'll be speaking for both Indi and I a little bit, I hope he feels free to call me on it if I get it wrong

There are already plenty of people vociferously calling out Trump on every little [or big] thing. The fact that we don't feel the need to add our voices to the chorus howling for his destruction/failure does not mean we approve of any behavior we fail to join the pack in condemning. If someone wants to know how I [or Indi] feel about a particular shortcoming, they could ask that particular, specific, limited in scope question

I'm very much a "dance with the one that brung ya'" kind of a guy, when I married I pledged my life to another for the duration of that life. My vow before God very much matters to me. Trump's behavior in this area disgusts me and I certainly couldn't see myself pursuing a friendship with the man. I don't feel that disqualifies him from my support in doing the job as president that I elected him to do. I suspect that each little crack in a man's backbone of righteousness can add up to an eventual loss of moral spine but I suspect where and when the load gets great enough to do so varies according to the man

I prefer to wait for the actual betrayal [which may never come] before awarding him his 30 pieces, rather than treat each deviation from what I would do as a sign of the [coming] apocalypse. The alternative to Trump, in candidate as well as trajectory of country, were very horrifying. I will overlook or forgive quite a bit of personal failings in service of turning the country from a downward path

Trump's lack of morality does not impugn my own morality because I fail to denounce it often enough or vociferously enough [in the judgement of others]

I know you said you were commenting for yourself and maybe one other. But you hit the nail pretty much square on the for me as well. Good post!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[T.Lex]

I'm going to use ending DACA as a parallel argument to attempt to clarify

DACA began at the whim of one president; it is a program of selective enforcement of existing law, never enacted by congress. As an executive order it should be just as easily undone by (this) other President and is squarely within his power to do so

But when he attempts to take such corrective action, suddenly there is a purity (of motivation) test imposed by the courts. Suddenly he must have a clearly articulable, non-discriminatory rationale that meets SJW approval in order to exercize his authority. Whether many people see this as right or wrong depends not on the nature of the presidential authority but on whether they see the expected result of the policy as right/wrong good/bad. It is an erosion of presidential authority

People in many top government jobs serve at the pleasure of the president. Their clearances derive from the needs of the job they are appointed to. There is little dispute of the presidential authority to terminate an appointee's employment by the administration; but because, in select cases, it was traditional for prior appointees to retain their clearances in case they could provide useful information or advice to the duly elected authorities - people again feel presidential exercise of legitimate authority should now be second-guessable by the public at large. This also is an erosion of presidential authority, and people are guided in their opinion of it by their feels, whether they feel it is fair or not
I don't think leveraging access to information not publicly available should be available to support ex-employees in their desires to get cushy jobs consulting to fortune 500 companies on global security nor obtaining employment by a news network. Neither one falls under the proffered rationale of providing information continuity or advice to an administration. The former was likely tolerated much as lobbying after elective careers are over is, the other is adversarial. Neither should really be tolerated going forward. This has all the hallmarks of trying to impose a "fairness" test on executive discretion and establish a new protected class. Again people judge the appropriateness of the exercize of undisputed presidential authority by whether they agree with the results, not whether the authority exists

It is a bad idea to try to put presidential authority under judicial review for abstract, extra-legal concepts like fairness. That is also not traditional

None of this is any different than what I've said.

The only issue I see with it is the hypocrisy of only applying it when the favored candidate got elected.

Trump's lack of morality does not impugn my own morality because I fail to denounce it often enough or vociferously enough [in the judgement of others]

You keep coming back to this notion that there's an expectation that Trump supporters should criticize him. I don't understand that. At least for me, that's a non-issue. There are plenty of topics/threads/people that I don't respond to.

The problem comes with the active, hypocritical defense of Trump's actions, including statements, just because he is Trump and not HRC. That's the pet peeve.

 

[T.Lex]

I realize there is a bit of nuance here, but bear with me. It isn't a question of talking about what is actually known AND classified. It is speaking about a subject that might be classified that the speaker may not know anything about or only know what happened historically during their tenure.

For example, I know a lot about certain types of XXXX and their locations which normally don't show on Google Earth maps. That may still be classified. It might not be. I assume that it is, so I don't talk about them with anyone.

If an XXX or certain frequency band happened to come up on a board such as this or in some other fora, I wouldn't normally respond. I know others who wouldn't feel so morally constrained even though they might have held clearances way back when.

Since Alpo is jumping in on nuance, and this is the internet, I'll go ahead and share my view on it.

There are some good, compelling reasons that 2 things happen: security clearances are time-limited, but that former employees with clearances keep them until they expire. The reasons for the time limitation are self-evident, I think. The latter is where the discussion is.

First, the actual DOING of clearances is time consuming. There's a relatively significant amount of resources dedicated to looking for something that probably isn't there. But, you have to look anyway. That's an important thing to understand: it takes manpower to do it right, and it is inefficient because it kinda needs to be. These are exercises that if we can avoid doing them 2x, then that's probably a good thing. That investment of resources creates value in the individual.

Second, that leads to a couple real-world situations. Scenario A, a cleared individual has a job in the government making... not much. The services are discounted because it is in service to the country. Eventually, though, there is an opportunity to consult. Make more money for doing something the government still requires. In that situation, there are self-serving motivations to keep that person's clearance intact. Those involved don't want to make it more difficult for them to follow the same path. Plus, because it is likely a necessary role, it doesn't make sense to revoke the clearance, then re-do it because the person now has a contract.

Third, the whims of politics are fickle. That cleared employee who left last year, might come back in a couple years with a new administration or even just a new director. Re-doing the clearance is an institutional burden that doesn't make sense to the institution.

Finally, there's value to that institutional knowledge. Using Alpo's Gen 1/Gen 2 framework, if the Gen 2 people have issues that Gen 1 solved, they can't go back and talk to the Gen 1 guys unless those guys are still cleared. Even the topics, the questions, could be classified information. It is just easier to let them keep their clearance (for a period of time). Think of Dan Coats and the 9/11 commission. It was easier for him to step into a role which required clearance, because he already had it.

(Also, and this is the most tenuous, the stupid tradition element is because of "respect" for the person who held the role. When you get to the higher levels, there's an aspect of "Since the person dedicated themselves in service to the country, the least we can do is keep them in the loop on stuff." I find that the LEAST compelling reason.)

Now, I don't expect this to convince anyone of the utility of keeping them post-employment. I'm just offering a different perspective - the one that exists. Ultimately, I come down on a case-by-case basis. If someone doesn't do anything to jeopardize their clearance, it is worth keeping them cleared in case we need them. That's risk management. If someone does something, even short of a criminal act, then it should be revoked. The action in question, though, should involve jeopardy to the compartmentalized information. IMHO.

 

[Aeroflame]

She should be my wife. I am still in love with that woman.

 

[T.Lex]

She should be my wife. I am still in love with that woman.

Why thank you.

But... we should probably at least have coffee, maybe drinks, first.

 

[T.Lex]

Donnelly isn’t a far left nutbag. He’s more of a traditional pro-union, suck-up-to-working-class pretender kind of democrat. But anyway, why does he vote 84% with nutbags?

I would hardly equate that with saying everyone on the right is literally Hitler. Like I said, the right does it too. But right now the left is far more dangerous.

Hey j, I picked this post because it was at the top of a page and related to what I'm posting. Not singling you out.

So, for reasons not worth explaining, I know who this guy is - Jonathan Van Ness. He's the most flamboyantly gay dude on the Netflix re-launch of Queer Eye. He's also from Illinois.

https://www.newswars.com/liberals-attack-queer-eye-star-for-tweeting-not-all-republicans-are-racist/

What happens is, he goes on Twitter and says not all Repiublicans are racist, and that Democrats should avoid going too far left. Both assertions are true, IMHO. Turns out, many of his peers disagree, and do so in very aggressive ways.

ETA Snowflake warning:

Some of the language may be disturbing to some INGOers. For instance, HRC is described as being "center." Fair warning.

 

[nonobaddog]

ETA Snowflake warning:

What does the ETA mean here?

 

[T.Lex]

What does the ETA mean here?

"Edited To Add"

Sorry - that's a shorthand on forums that goes back a long time.

 

[nonobaddog]

"Edited To Add"
Sorry - that's a shorthand on forums that goes back a long time.

Thanks.
I tried looking it up before asking but found 101 different meanings for ETA at acronymfinder. The main one of course being Estimated Time of Arrival.
https://www.acronymfinder.com/ETA.html

 

[jamil]

Hey j, I picked this post because it was at the top of a page and related to what I'm posting. Not singling you out.

So, for reasons not worth explaining, I know who this guy is - Jonathan Van Ness. He's the most flamboyantly gay dude on the Netflix re-launch of Queer Eye. He's also from Illinois.

https://www.newswars.com/liberals-attack-queer-eye-star-for-tweeting-not-all-republicans-are-racist/

What happens is, he goes on Twitter and says not all Repiublicans are racist, and that Democrats should avoid going too far left. Both assertions are true, IMHO. Turns out, many of his peers disagree, and do so in very aggressive ways.

ETA Snowflake warning:

Some of the language may be disturbing to some INGOers. For instance, HRC is described as being "center." Fair warning.

Politically, I’d classify Hillary as center-left opportunist/Satan’s spawn.

 

[jamil]

Oh. One more thing. It’s interesting to hear the exact phrasing we heard from the right not long ago “...candidates that actually stand for something are how we win.”

 

[Hawkeye]

Thanks.
I tried looking it up before asking but found 101 different meanings for ETA at acronymfinder. The main one of course being Estimated Time of Arrival.
https://www.acronymfinder.com/ETA.html

Context is important!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk