DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus President Donald Trump Threatens To Wipe Past Officials' Security Clearances

Petty.

Name me one good reason why a former employee should still have a clearance/, Don't worry, I will wait. . . .

Petty is your constant crying. No one, Obamas admin, bushes admin, Clintons admin, the bush former admin, etc. should have anyone from their staff or admin still have a security clearance.

Do those named have actual access to classified information? If not (as I expect is the case), what is the big deal?

Its never been done before without very good reason and he is doing it to people he doesnt like because he doesnt like them.
He is a childish joke with power. Its sad and scary

Eh, the "this is how we've always done it" cliche is literally a cliche for how not to do it.

still waiting as for why people who no longer should have clearance have them......

Fine then get rid of all of them not just the people trump doesnt like. Do you understand this is the problem its the people on his enemy list has nothing to do with need.

Consultation. Former CIA employees with deep vertical knowledge of specific areas/regions that have retired or left the agency, are often asked to come in and consult on new information as it pertains to a given area of national security interest. If you revoke clearance, you lose the consultants because they no longer can be in the room. You also need your clearance if you leave the public sector and go work for a defense contractor. If that gets revoked, you will lose your job.

So there you go, you wanted to wait for one reason and I gave you two.



Many former staffers leave the white house and go to work for private companies and defense firms, many of which require some level of security clearance. Revoking that clearance for people we've already vetted that make use of it makes little sense.

It's called continuity.

Consider it a feature of the 'smooth, peaceful transfer of power.'

Every previous admin has retained the advice and info from members of the outgoing regime. That input is extremely valuable, as no incoming admin knows everything that the outgoing admin does.

Those people need to retain their security clearances in order to dispense their knowledge and advice.

Well, that was then. This is now. I fully expect 45 to follow through with this. It's been his pattern since the transition: to ignore the advice from admin 44.

But... now you know why clearances a are retained after an admin change. Asked/answered.

Did you read my original post, nope.....you didn't......

ok, so why not grant them a clearance for that specific occurrence only? Or at the very least downgrade their clearance.

How is it in national securities best interest for someone to obtain a clearance and have a job AFTER they are out of their past job? Its not the governments responsibility to give them clearance going forward. They are now citizens, they should have to apply for a clearance to work in the private sector once out of government. JMO

Again, not the governments responsibility or the countries best interest. They can reapply and get a new clearance. Easy peasy.

Probably the best response so far to a reason, however I combat that with the notion of just because its always been done that way, doesn't make it the best way.

I can see this being a decent enough reason to an extent. I think after say X amount of time though, the incoming admin would be up to speed - and those not staying on would not need a clearance.

I still just don't see in my view any good reason for ANYONE to keep a clearance longer than necessary to get the new admin up to speed.

j/c

It's not enough for some people to simply admit this is being done because our current president is being petty and childish. They wouldn't dare call him out on the obvious. This is nothing more than a temper tantrum and even they know it but refuse to admit it. lmao

Rand Paul has asked the President to pull the clearance for Brennan, Clapper and others as he sees them Monetizing their security clearances as commentators with the Media.

I would assume you are referring to me, even though you couldn't find the gull to reply directly to me.

1. This should not have been happening at all, after a said period of time after a new admin took office. Its just dumb

2. Petty or not, its the logical thing to do.

3. I think its petty that some are against it simply because trump is for it. If this was a past admin saying Bush admin needed their clearances revoked, the left would have cheered, and you know that.

4. I don't think this is a partisan issue, I think this should go for all admins. If you don't work for the government, your clearances should be revoked.

I cant go into my past employer and say - "hey I used to work here, give let me into the vault" because I used to have a clearance to go in there.....

+1

I’m going to addres this is a bit.

There seems to be a few people here who have very little knowledge on how clearances actually work.

I’m going to try my best to be like Clem and write a post that’s thoughtful and not insulting.

It will be like pulling teeth of course, but I’m sure I’ll manage.

Believe me, if I'm directing something directly to you, you'll know it. I'll leave no guesswork involved. This is what happens when you ASSume.



In all of you carrying on, he wishes to target those he sees as his enemies. He's not making some sweeping policies for everyone here. Only certain people. There are names for that.

When he makes something like this a blanket policy for everyone that falls into this category, let me know. Until then all of the above are simply excuses.

When your leader targets individuals he dislikes, that's not policy, it's being petty and vengeful.

Has been submitted as anything other than a statement? When he actually provides a policy on it, then you can have an opinion on it. Otherwise, its just "petty and vengeful" to suggest that is what is going to happen. Until its written and submitted, and only those people are targeted, who is the one ASSuming?

You're a funny man. Just look at the people they're suggesting this be done to. It's pretty basic math but you'll never come to the answer because you refuse to look at the formula.

Clearance downgrades are actually typical at the higher levels. What isn't typical is removing all clearance unless someone is fired. Trump saying he is going to revoke Comey's and McCabe's clearance for instance means nothing. They were fired. They don't have clearance anymore.



What you are arguing makes no sense. It takes months to get clearance authorized and it costs thousands of dollars. You can't reasonably expect people to take 3 months sabbaticals when switching jobs from Lockheed to the White House and back, and you can't reasonably expect taxpayers to think it's a good use of funds to spend $45,000 for each of those "job changes" when nothing of material changes with that individual to change clearance.

What you are arguing for tells me that you are not aware of how clearance works. I have never held clearance personally, but friends of mine in the armed services have held TOP SECRET clearance and family members have as well. It's a long, involved process that costs a lot of money. I have been personally interviewed by the FBI for friends who sought clearance. Do you think that FBI agent was not paid to drive to my house to interview me? Stuff costs money will, and asking people to throw away clearances and redo all of the grunt work is a massive waste of it.

for smooth transitions into similar fields.

for example, i had a secret clearance while i was in the Army. secret is good for 10 years while you're active, and its 5 years for top secret, you have to get it renewed.

since i already had a secret clearance for my field, if i transitioned into a defense contracting job in say, a logistics manager roll, why in god's name would it make sense to revoke my clearance, then make me go through the process all over again to obtain the same damn clearance i need for the job, despite already having it to begin with?

This would be like telling people that the moment they moved to another state, they need to renew their driver's license and license plates in that new state, despite the fact that they can do that once everything is close to expiring.

it's makes zero sense, it isn't efficient, and cost more money. not very efficient for somebody who loves to talk about how inefficient the government is.

Eve knows more about this transition period, but in general, your clearance is only active if you remain in that roll.

for example, once i got out of the military, my clearance is no longer active. i cant go to any base and go "let me see the manifest and personnel rosters". it doesn't work like that at all.

now, there's about a 2 year window where once i got out, if i got to a job that required a secret clearance, it would be easy for it to be active again. but whats that 24 month period is up, i no longer have a clearance, and if i applied to a job that requires one, i would have to go through the complete process all over again, as it was ALWAYS designed to be.

also, your question implies that because someone has a clearance, they can see whatever intel that a secret clearance gives access to.

no no, and hell no. for example, while a secret clearance gave me access to manifest, personnel rosters, convoy routes etc, that was my field.

i can not use my CAT card to access battalion level files that have NOTHING to do with logistics.

a better example, ex CIA director brennan has a TS level clearance, in the field of terror/counter-terrorism and intelligence.

even while active, while he has access to most of that information, he can not use the same clearance to, say, go nonchalantly walk around Area 51. why? his TS authorization isnt in the field of weapons development and such, only intelligence.

so even in a consulting role, while these guys might still have TS clearance, they aren't authorized to see whatever they want. they cant just walk back into the pentagon and go "yea bro lemme see what you got". they still have to gain permission from whoever DOES have permission to view and share classified material.

if they were contractors, then obviously whatever access they're authorized to have is still limited, but more broad.

there is so much more, but thats a general breakdown of how clearances work and why it's illogical to make people go through the process all over again despite short transition periods.

now that i've address you're question DIRECTLY, what i find pathetic is once again, trump supporters have to talk AROUND what the president said.

its absolutely said. and it happens everytime. Trump didn't make this threat (yes, this was a threat) for any reason you might personally support the idea. he made the threat because he was ticked off that he was catching heat from people who actually know what they're talking about.

you and everybody else on this board now damn well that if they were giving glowing remarks about Trump, Trump would've never made the threat to begin with. this is yet another attack on the media that checks his ass every time he screws up, like they SHOULD. the fact that Trump calls the media the real enemies of the people, but not the russians who hacked the DNC and started a propaganda war that effected us all should disturb you deeply.

but instead, you go along with whatever his ass says, then get upset when people call you and other trump supporters sheep.

i mean think about it. yall told the country that trump "Tells it like it is" and that it was so so refreshing.

well if trump tells it like it is, why does he require so many people like you to explain to us what he REALLY meant to say?

lmfao. what a damn joke.

You'll be fine and I look forward to reading it. I'm also interested to see what you have to say because I've had FBI clearance before (not the same level as these guys)

Thanks Swish, explained it much better than I could have, since my experience was second hand.

i try bro. i try to explain to the best of my ability on these kinds of topics. I'll wait on Eve and DC though cause they used to work for the feds, so they have more knowledge to using clearances on a regular basis than i do.

Your explanation was dead on bro.. my secret clearance allowed me to see construction plans and be on-site for projects I was working on. The project down the street? They still wouldn't let me through the fence... now if I had a reason to be there, my clearance could be modified to include it, but there was a process.. somebody higher up than me had to request it and show a good reason.

Every 5 years it had to be renewed, which was a much simpler process than the original application.. As soon as my involvement in a project became inactive, my clearance was suspended for that project. If I had no projects on-going then it sat dormant (or suspended) for, I think it was 3 years, then I had to reapply.

There is no logical reason to do what Trump is doing.. it's a pure bully tactic to puff out his chest and show his base, "Look what I just did!!!"... so they can hoot and holler and high-five about what a bad-arse President we have and how he's owning the libs.

Completely understandable in this right, why cant they just put clearance on hold, then you apply to have it taken off? Again, you know more about this than I as you have had clearances, so I am asking, no need to get crappy about it, bro - its called discussion.

To me, if you are not ACTIVE and working directly for the government, you shouldn't have a clearance. Like you said in the military with your clearance, there was a period of 24 months, then after that it was gone. Set these guys up with a clearance for x amount of time, then they lose it. Nothing wrong with that.

Im not talking about what trump is trying to do, I have expressed that, I am talking about in general. Its just dumb to me. Disagree all you want, that's my opinion. Kinda like how its dumb to me that because someone once worked for a past admin they should get a free pass going forward

That is good to know, because they shouldn't be able too. See how easy it is to prove a point or statement with information form experience, and not just - "argghhhh trump". Thank you for the information.

Once again, I don't care about trump said or for the reason. Its a valid concern and question to be talking about. I find it pathetic that if this was said 3 years ago, no one arguing against it would have had an issue if Bush's admin was denied the clearances, and you know that.

I don't care why he made the threat or statement or whatever you want to call it. If its a valid concern, doesn't give it any less credence.

We have had the 2A for 200 years, yet some want to change how things are done....but its not ok to change things from one admin to another admin because its trump...gotcha...

I don't think you really even understand yet again - that it has nothing to do with trump. But keep going...you look great!

yes, the vast majority of your post are.

Yet you still refuse to address that this wasn't directed as a policy across the board. This was directed strictly towards people who oppose Trump and nobody else. I know you can see it yet refuse to address that.

"I don't think you really even understand yet again - that it has nothing to do with trump"

Trump needing constant explanation of his comments somehow has nothing to do with trump.

Umm...

What he says and what he does and put forth as policy is when you can run with your hair on fire that the world is burning.

I don't agree that only certain people should removed from clearances, I still agree (even after your explanation of clearances) that they should at LEAST be put on hold and then expired in a relatively timely manner.

Your question was already answered a couple times.

If you're no longer working for the government, your clearance goes inactive until it expires, but is not revoked, unless, of course, you did something to have it revoked (fired, convicted, etc). If you get a new job, they simply have to apply to get it turned back on. The vetting period for a clearance takes months. If your clearance expires while it is inactive, you start all over in the vetting process should you get another job that requires it.

This saves the government thousands of dollars in each instance.

Only until after my 2nd or third request, until Swish, Gage, and Clem actually provided information, it was nothing but "but but but trump" as to this.

Also, regardless of a question being answered, this is a message board for questions and debates. I can accept the answer and still disagree with the concept, as well as discuss things after the fact. Unless you believe that this is false, because well, in Liberal America there is no discussion anymore. Its believe what I believe or be damned.

Those who have held the positions previously become a pool of knowledge that can be tapped as needed by those who hold them currently. Without security clearances this becomes impossible.

Trump is just abusing his power yet again and throwing fits. This is just another distraction from his Helsinki treachery.

I'd have to say you have a point there. I mean, you can't believe a word he says.

I feel the exact same way.. I've been in jobs where I've had a clearance and when I left those jobs, my clearance was cancelled.

I guess what they are saying is that these are High Level jobs and that there is a knowledge base within these individuals. My understanding is that if they want to bring them in to discuss impending matters, they'd need the clearance.

If that's the case, then perhaps they should not close those clearances out.

But what's funny is that most of those named don't have a clearance anymore, so for me, this was a distraction to deflect from something else.

It is no longer a threat...

Trump revokes security clearance for former CIA director John Brennan

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders announced that former CIA director John Brennan's security clearance would be revoked.

Sanders read from a statement from President Trump about revoking his clearance.

The statement said that Brennan had been "leveraging" the clearance to make "wild outbursts" and claims against the Trump administration.

The statement further said other persons' security clearance would also be reviewed, including that of recently fired FBI official Peter Strzok.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/...hn-brennan.html

Hamma.....Falls.

Gotta get Omarosa off the front page somehow...

Dumb af

Yep, that is why he lost his clearance.