The US Presidency 2018
- Thread starter FJAG
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 1,417
- Points
- 1,160
Addition to the above post, Secretary Mattis himself on the MSNBC report of a $92M parade cost:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5ISXJPZEQU&rel=0&modestbranding=1&controls=0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5ISXJPZEQU&rel=0&modestbranding=1&controls=0
- Reaction score
- 1,417
- Points
- 1,160
FJAG:
kkwd:
The Director of the CIA is a non partisan position. As soon as he leaves the position, he starts bashing the new administration and POTUS. He recently said to the TV audience, picked up by other media, that Trump had committed treason (punishable by death), but offered no proof. He said in the last several days that losing his security clearance is a violation of his First Amendment rights. He said that on TV, on Twitter, etc then wrote on op-ed. Seems like he doesn't comprehend what the First Amendment says.
On TV, a host stated, second hand, that without a security clearance, he can't go back to check files for his book. Everyone in Washington writes a book. ;D
kkwd:
The Director of the CIA is a non partisan position. As soon as he leaves the position, he starts bashing the new administration and POTUS. He recently said to the TV audience, picked up by other media, that Trump had committed treason (punishable by death), but offered no proof. He said in the last several days that losing his security clearance is a violation of his First Amendment rights. He said that on TV, on Twitter, etc then wrote on op-ed. Seems like he doesn't comprehend what the First Amendment says.
On TV, a host stated, second hand, that without a security clearance, he can't go back to check files for his book. Everyone in Washington writes a book. ;D
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
What's wrong with a parade ? It wont include anything heavy as it might damage the streets.
As to the issue of security clearances you don't own it like a car its on a need to know basis. These former Obama administration types should not rquire one. If they get another top level job in another administration they should be able to pass the background check unless they are advocating the overthrow of the government.
http://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Security-Clearance-Introduction.pdf
As to the issue of security clearances you don't own it like a car its on a need to know basis. These former Obama administration types should not rquire one. If they get another top level job in another administration they should be able to pass the background check unless they are advocating the overthrow of the government.
http://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Security-Clearance-Introduction.pdf
tomahawk6 said:
To be honest nothing. I assume that there are already veteran's day parades in the US. This year does mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the 1st world war as well.
I'm curious how much our own commemoration parades will cost this year. We'll have a contingent in Belgium and various cities across Canada not to mention this year's remembrance day ceremonies as well as an army contingent at Buckingham palace at that time.
- Reaction score
- 6,090
- Points
- 1,160
tomahawk6 said:
See, now that's what I thought. Given FJAG's reply, I would have to assume that the current administration feels that they would have no need to consult. Therefore, no need for them to retain the clearance.
I've seen people, in the CAF, wear their clearance like some sort of status symbol. Perhaps that's the case here? I don't know. It makes sense though. He won't be able to have lunch with colleagues, if they decide to talk government or agency business. I think the animosity shown by the previous administration warrants a move like this. Who wants to let the fox back into the hen house?
let's not try and make this about a simple administrative thing. This is clearly a tit for tat thing with a very specific list of people that the president feels slighted by.
If it was something as simple as them not feeling they need to consult then a lot more people would be on that list.
All that said though, it is well within his right and purview to do this. But don't expect people to not be offended by this.
But if a guy like Admiral McCraven takes issue with this then maybe some people should listen.
If it was something as simple as them not feeling they need to consult then a lot more people would be on that list.
All that said though, it is well within his right and purview to do this. But don't expect people to not be offended by this.
But if a guy like Admiral McCraven takes issue with this then maybe some people should listen.
- Reaction score
- 1,417
- Points
- 1,160
You should read this and compare names the with
https://www.theepochtimes.com/strzok-joins-list-of-25-top-fbi-doj-officials-who-have-been-recently-fired-demoted-or-resigned_2624607.html
List of 25 Top FBI, DOJ Officials Who Have Been Recently Fired, Demoted, or Resigned
https://www.theepochtimes.com/strzok-joins-list-of-25-top-fbi-doj-officials-who-have-been-recently-fired-demoted-or-resigned_2624607.html
List of 25 Top FBI, DOJ Officials Who Have Been Recently Fired, Demoted, or Resigned
- Reaction score
- 2,847
- Points
- 940
Which ignores former-Reagan and Bushx2 administration types retaining clearances.tomahawk6 said:
ps - various Canadian government department 'types' (including retired-CAF) have also retained security clearances, by the way. Not everything is a politicized conspiracy. :boring:
- Reaction score
- 1,417
- Points
- 1,160
Probably to some degree.
This house of cards wrt the investigation is unravelling fast based on the now public emails of the instigators.
This house of cards wrt the investigation is unravelling fast based on the now public emails of the instigators.
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
Some civilian defense contractors need a security clearance hence the need by industry to hire retired officers.Trump has canceled the parade due to cost but he left the door open for maybe next year.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-cancels-military-parade-blames-dc-officials-for-high-cost/ar-BBM36aO?ocid=spartandhp
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-cancels-military-parade-blames-dc-officials-for-high-cost/ar-BBM36aO?ocid=spartandhp
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,747
- Points
- 1,040
Everything McRaven wrote about Brennan can be true, and it can still be true that Brennan deserved to have his clearance revoked. Whatever his alleged integrity, Brennan was caught in several high-profile lies and obfuscations (regarding: the CIA's illegal access of Senate computers, the CIA's illegal acquisition of other protected communications, the allegation of zero drone strike collateral casualties, denial of knowledge of the Steele dossier).
In the previous administration, Brennan (Dir CIA), Comey (Dir FBI), and Clapper (Dir NI) were significant players in the US defense/security establishment responsible for preventing things like foreign interference with US elections. It has been established beyond doubt that the Obama administration knew about the (Russian) attempts but did not pursue the matter as aggressively as it might have. Whether the directors' hands were tied in their respective areas of authority by the administration is almost beside the point; the customary principle is that if you can't get behind a policy, you should resign. So presumably they "got behind" the policy. Nevertheless, there was a failure on "their watch". If they have useful advice to offer, it is the sort of thing done quietly through established channels. Carping openly serves no agenda but destabilizing the new administration. If they wish to be critics or to pin blame, they surely have a right to do so - but they do not necessarily deserve special access.
Here is what revoking the clearance really does: prevents anyone from sharing (leaking) classified material with Brennan without risk of committing a felony. It discourages leakers inside from using Brennan as a delivery conduit.
In the previous administration, Brennan (Dir CIA), Comey (Dir FBI), and Clapper (Dir NI) were significant players in the US defense/security establishment responsible for preventing things like foreign interference with US elections. It has been established beyond doubt that the Obama administration knew about the (Russian) attempts but did not pursue the matter as aggressively as it might have. Whether the directors' hands were tied in their respective areas of authority by the administration is almost beside the point; the customary principle is that if you can't get behind a policy, you should resign. So presumably they "got behind" the policy. Nevertheless, there was a failure on "their watch". If they have useful advice to offer, it is the sort of thing done quietly through established channels. Carping openly serves no agenda but destabilizing the new administration. If they wish to be critics or to pin blame, they surely have a right to do so - but they do not necessarily deserve special access.
Here is what revoking the clearance really does: prevents anyone from sharing (leaking) classified material with Brennan without risk of committing a felony. It discourages leakers inside from using Brennan as a delivery conduit.
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,779
- Points
- 1,160
Brad Sallows said:
Unless something is vastly different in security procedures between us and the USA, that simple phrase "need to know" covers any such eventuality. Oh yes, the Yanks use the same thing as in this definition from the primary directive for "Access to Classified Information" (Executive Order 12968)
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ic-legal-reference-book/executive-order-12968
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,747
- Points
- 1,040
>Care to back up some of your bald-faced allegations with some legitimate sources?
FYI, I'm in the habit of confirming details about events I think I remember before I post.
Brennan's integrity:
The Guardian.
The Washington Post.
Law and Crime.
Knowledge of Russian interference, and less than full-court response:
Bloomberg.
Yahoo! news service.
FYI, I'm in the habit of confirming details about events I think I remember before I post.
Brennan's integrity:
The Guardian.
The Washington Post.
Law and Crime.
Knowledge of Russian interference, and less than full-court response:
Bloomberg.
Yahoo! news service.
- Status
Similar threads
