- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump names government officials who are "Officially Under Review for Security Clearance"
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:15 pm to 90proofprofessional
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:15 pm to 90proofprofessional
Secret is 10 years. Same logic applies except no one is clamoring to hire you because it's not TS.
1
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:17 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
yes, if benign. but it causes them harm, which is its purpose, so it's can't be benign as you said. if it were in fact benign, it'd be pointless.
Yikes, drunk?
Locking my door is a benign act. Is it pointless? Is it meant to harm intruders?
My point, as simply as possible, is that removing these clearances should not move the needle one bit for anyone outside of the people on that list (i.e. a benign act). It should only matter to the Brennan and co. if they were using it outside the scope of intended use, right? It can also serve a purpose that isn't punitive, though anyone can think it is punitive if that's their wish.
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:25 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Locking my door is a benign act. Is it pointless? Is it meant to harm intruders?
it's not meant to harm your political enemies either
quote:
My point, as simply as possible, is that removing these clearances should not move the needle one bit for anyone outside of the people on that list (i.e. a benign act).
Well this isn't the case for IC veterans, as I have explained to others in the main thread. GreenChili gets at the issue somewhat ITT as well
quote:
It should only matter to the Brennan and co. if they were using it outside the scope of intended use, right?
No.
quote:
It can also serve a purpose that isn't punitive, though anyone can think it is punitive if that's their wish.
If it isn't part of a policy where such revocations are issued in an evenhanded manner, it's punitive
This post was edited on 8/15/18 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:28 pm to MrLSU
Hillary should be on that list, too.
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:29 pm to SlidellTiger
Look, I'm not defending these people, but you guys don't seem to understand what a security clearance is. It is tied to a person, not a job. You can get sponsored by an agency, but that doesn't mean you only have clearance for that agency.
So if you have a clearance, and leave the White House, you may still need that clearance to get a job with a private firm that requires a security clearance.
It is NOT restricted to people when they only work at/for a federal agency.
If I get a clearance, and take a job at the White House, my clearance doesn't go away when I quit. It's mine for 10 years. Employers can't take it away. I have to be found guilty of failing to uphold the requirements.
Jeebus.
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:30 pm to MrLSU
quote:Now that's what one calls a telegraphed punch
Bruce Ohr, former Associate Deputy Attorney General
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:31 pm to BayouBlitz
quote:
if you have a clearance, and leave the White House, you may still need that clearance to get a job with a private firm that requires a security clearance.
yep, it's a resume asset. one that the president has the apparent authority to take away arbitrarily
This post was edited on 8/15/18 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:33 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:or non-arbitrarily
yep, it's a resume asset. one that the president has the authority to take away arbitrarily
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:38 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
or non-arbitrarily
i'd expect the authority to do something arbitrarily would be inclusive of the authority to do things non-arbitrarily
fwiw, in all seriousness i don't know that he actually can do that kind of thing arbitrarily, which is why i felt the need to edit above to "apparent authority"
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:49 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
i don't know that he actually can do that kind of thing arbitrarily
I don't believe he can, which is why they are under review. If they leaked classified info, then they will have their clearance pulled.
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:51 pm to MrLSU
trump is a thin skinned whiney little beotch. if you don't suck up he finds a way to frick you over. you trumpkins remember karma is a bitch.
Posted on 8/15/18 at 4:54 pm to MrLSU
What about this bitch?
Posted on 8/15/18 at 5:00 pm to BayouBlitz
quote:
If they leaked classified info, then they will have their clearance pulled.
you can have them "suspended-pending" for some pretty cheesy reasons for extended periods of time
Posted on 8/15/18 at 9:25 pm to Green Chili Tiger
Vetting is a long and laborious process.
Posted on 8/15/18 at 9:57 pm to Green Chili Tiger
Just dick slapping them a bit
Posted on 8/15/18 at 10:07 pm to The Blind Side
TS is now 6 years due to OPM not being able to catch up on investigations
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News