Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 https://mobile.twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1021887240803426304 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MILFHUNTER#518 Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 Ok, what is 5 eyes clearance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 5 hours ago, DC Tom said: I've seen too many stories I've had direct knowledge of and involvement with to take anything anyone says at face value any more. Anyone who does is what is know ans a "useful idiot." 1 Working in that arena I can only imagine. Even on more mundane stories, it's eye-opening to see how many times they get the basics incorrect. Addresses, names whatever it is. That tells me they haven't been correctly trained in the skill of reporting. It tells me facts aren't important. Only the narrative is. Or the ratings etc. Accountability and accuracy have taken a back seat to the agendas of pretty much idiots. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 13 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: https://mobile.twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1021887240803426304 Strozk and Rice aren't that clear cut. You can't lose your clearance for being a fey little weasel in front of a Congressional investigation, and you can't lose your clearance for being the mouthpiece for the President's bull **** policy statements - though I'd be entirely unsurprised if Rice didn't pull some other nonsense to get hers yanked. Hillary deserves to have her clearance pulled, except it can't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 Now we know what Lynch and Bill talked about on the tarmac Comey and Strzok -- Two key players in the scheme to clear Clinton and frame Trump by Gregg Jarrett Original Article In one of the more stunning revelations contained in the report compiled by the Justice Department’s watchdog, former FBI Director James Comey claimed he doesn’t remember the moment he decided – and put down in writing -- that Hillary Clinton had committed crimes. We know that on or about May 2, 2016, Comey composed a statement summarizing Clinton’s mishandling of classified documents, concluding that she was “grossly negligent.” Those pivotal words have a distinct legal meaning, and are drawn directly from a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which makes it a felony to handle classified documents in a “grossly negligent” manner. Comey used the exact phrase not once, but twice. Based on Comey’s finding, Clinton should have faced a multiple-count criminal indictment, since the FBI discovered that she had stored 110 classified emails on her unauthorized, private computer server. Other people had been prosecuted for similar conduct that jeopardized national security in violation of the law. Yet, Comey – despite characterizing Clinton’s actions with the clear language denoting violation of the law - saw to it that no charges were ever brought against Clinton. Under questioning, Comey admitted to the Inspector General Michael Horowitz that he authored the May 2 statement and penned every word of it himself. But then he offered the implausible claim that “he did not recall that his original draft used the term 'gross negligence,' and did not recall discussions about that issue.” Comey’s amnesia is preposterous. He would have us believe that, as FBI director, he memorialized in print his decision that the leading candidate for president of the United States had committed crimes, yet later could not recollect anything about the most important decision of his career. The truth is that Comey well remembers what he wrote, because he participated in subsequent discussions with top officials at the FBI about Clinton’s “gross negligence.” Several meetings were held on the subject and contemporaneous notes prove that Comey was in attendance. Those records show that although Comey was convinced that Clinton was “grossly negligent” in violation of the law, he was determined to clear her notwithstanding. To achieve this somersault and absolve the soon-to-be Democratic nominee, the legally damning terminology would have to be stricken from his statement. {snip} Just as Comey, Strzok, Page and company conspired to clear Hillary Clinton, they likewise concocted their “insurance policy,” a scam investigation of then-candidate Donald Trump. The FBI had no legal basis to initiate its investigation into Trump and his campaign. Facts were invented or exaggerated. Laws were perverted or ignored. The law enforcers became the law breakers. Comey’s scheme to leak pilfered presidential memos in order to trigger the appointment of his friend, Robert Mueller, as special counsel was a devious maneuver by an unscrupulous man. Comey’s insinuation that the president obstructed justice was another canard designed to inflame the liberal media. Sure enough, they became his witting accessories. Compare all of this – that there was never any credible evidence that Trump or his campaign collaborated with Russia to win the presidency – with the fact that there was ample evidence that Clinton had broken the law. This is the story of “The Russia Hoax.” . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: Now we know what Lynch and Bill talked about on the tarmac Comey and Strzok -- Two key players in the scheme to clear Clinton and frame Trump by Gregg Jarrett Original Article In one of the more stunning revelations contained in the report compiled by the Justice Department’s watchdog, former FBI Director James Comey claimed he doesn’t remember the moment he decided – and put down in writing -- that Hillary Clinton had committed crimes. We know that on or about May 2, 2016, Comey composed a statement summarizing Clinton’s mishandling of classified documents, concluding that she was “grossly negligent.” Those pivotal words have a distinct legal meaning, and are drawn directly from a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which makes it a felony to handle classified documents in a “grossly negligent” manner. Comey used the exact phrase not once, but twice. Based on Comey’s finding, Clinton should have faced a multiple-count criminal indictment, since the FBI discovered that she had stored 110 classified emails on her unauthorized, private computer server. Other people had been prosecuted for similar conduct that jeopardized national security in violation of the law. Yet, Comey – despite characterizing Clinton’s actions with the clear language denoting violation of the law - saw to it that no charges were ever brought against Clinton. Additional reminder: Clinton didn't just "save classified information on her server." She distributed it - knowingly - to the staff of the Clinton Foundation. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 14 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Hillary deserves to have her clearance pulled, except it can't happen. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2018 Share Posted July 24, 2018 https://mobile.twitter.com/_ImperatorRex_/status/1021892906024464384 Too late, James. ********** This is high comedy. https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1021903757045465088 Brennan is toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 ****** worth the time: http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/24/james-comeys-words-suggest-fbi-doj-hid-dossiers-funding-fisa-judge/#.W1eJIshT-H0.twitter ****** Different day, same tricks. They think you're stupid. https://mobile.twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1021840342411296768 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 2 hours ago, joesixpack said: Why not? Because she's a former First Lady. Presidents stay cleared for everything, even after office, and early on people realized that there's no practical way to expect the President to keep secrets from the First Lady, so the First Lady has the same access he has during and after his term. What's really ****ty about that is that I'm virtually certain, as fast and loose as she's played with sensitive data and the access to it, that Hillary's tried that same argument to get Chelsea a "lifetime unlimited clearance." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: https://mobile.twitter.com/_ImperatorRex_/status/1021892906024464384 Too late, James. ********** This is high comedy. https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1021903757045465088 Brennan is toast. You sure he’s toast or will he get the Democratic slap on the wrist all these folks get. Hell, Brennan might even get a Purple Heart for trying to take down Trump. I don’t know shyt about politics, but what I do know is that NOTHING will happen to these people. Comey will get a pass. Hillary will get another pass Obama will most certainly get a pass Strzok will get a pass The Ohr’s will get a pass Brennan, of course, will get a pass Yates will get a pass Page (who really cares) will get a pass Get my drift? They all have car blonge (spelling) to take down Trump, so they will get away with everything. I hope I can be proven wrong, but the left is allowed to be the disgusting people they are with ZERO consequences. A fruitless Mueller investigation is allowed to continue while Democrats get to bask in the Sun without interruption. Count me in as an American, who holds no political affiliation, who is very concerned about our rule of law. i don’t believe MSM over anything whatsoever. I have taken in tons of information from real people over the last two years and there is NO QUESTION the Democrats are the treasonous rats of this country, but since just about everything is liberal in this country, nothing will be done. I hope I am wrong and the rats are held accountable. But I don’t see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1021941339464724480 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 30 minutes ago, njbuff said: You sure he’s toast or will he get the Democratic slap on the wrist all these folks get. Hell, Brennan might even get a Purple Heart for trying to take down Trump. I don’t know shyt about politics, but what I do know is that NOTHING will happen to these people. Comey will get a pass. Hillary will get another pass Obama will most certainly get a pass Strzok will get a pass The Ohr’s will get a pass Brennan, of course, will get a pass Yates will get a pass Page (who really cares) will get a pass Get my drift? They all have car blonge (spelling) to take down Trump, so they will get away with everything. I hope I can be proven wrong, but the left is allowed to be the disgusting people they are with ZERO consequences. A fruitless Mueller investigation is allowed to continue while Democrats get to bask in the Sun without interruption. Count me in as an American, who holds no political affiliation, who is very concerned about our rule of law. i don’t believe MSM over anything whatsoever. I have taken in tons of information from real people over the last two years and there is NO QUESTION the Democrats are the treasonous rats of this country, but since just about everything is liberal in this country, nothing will be done. I hope I am wrong and the rats are held accountable. But I don’t see it. I understand this opinion completely. It's the most rational opinion to hold based on history. I think we are in a new world with new rules ... But time will tell. The way the pieces are being moved on the board sure reads to me as if those names on your list are in serious legal peril at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I understand this opinion completely. It's the most rational opinion to hold based on history. I think we are in a new world with new rules ... But time will tell. The way the pieces are being moved on the board sure reads to me as if those names on your list are in serious legal peril at the moment. Always been that way. declare the rule of law until it goes against you and then act like a chuld and prove the rule of law is useless without tacit agreement by the governed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 8 hours ago, DC Tom said: Because she's a former First Lady. Presidents stay cleared for everything, even after office, and early on people realized that there's no practical way to expect the President to keep secrets from the First Lady, so the First Lady has the same access he has during and after his term. What's really ****ty about that is that I'm virtually certain, as fast and loose as she's played with sensitive data and the access to it, that Hillary's tried that same argument to get Chelsea a "lifetime unlimited clearance." Hey, Admirals have their rights too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 11 hours ago, DC Tom said: Strozk and Rice aren't that clear cut. You can't lose your clearance for being a fey little weasel in front of a Congressional investigation, and you can't lose your clearance for being the mouthpiece for the President's bull **** policy statements - though I'd be entirely unsurprised if Rice didn't pull some other nonsense to get hers yanked. Hillary deserves to have her clearance pulled, except it can't happen. Strozk is a weird enough dude in a 2 minute conversation that his clearance should have been rejected from the get go. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 14 hours ago, DC Tom said: And you're also assuming the rules are the same for the appointed officials as for the little people. You and I, we lose a job and our clearance goes with it, but the background investigation stays valid for a period of time, making it easier for another department to clear us. OT here, but this is interesting to me Tom. Are you saying if you have a Top Secret clearance and change jobs the new employer/department needs to clear you again? Does it matter if going private to private vs public etc?Just that it happens quicker? Thx for the info in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 3 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: OT here, but this is interesting to me Tom. Are you saying if you have a Top Secret clearance and change jobs the new employer/department needs to clear you again? Does it matter if going private to private vs public etc?Just that it happens quicker? Thx for the info in advance. It's frequently misunderstood that the background check and the clearance are two different things. The way clearances are granted is that a government agency requests a background check of some sort (NACLC, SSBI, etc.) . Somebody performs the background check - right now, National Background Investigation Bureau. They put together a package of what they find in the background check and send it to the agency. Then the agency adjudicates the background check and grants the clearance. For example: when Snowden pulled his **** at the NSA, everyone came down on OPM for "clearing" him. OPM didn't clear him though, they did the background investigation and sent the information to NSA. NSA adjudicated the info and granted his clearance. OPM just collected but didn't evaluate; NSA evaluated and granted. The big difference is that the package is portable, so to speak - any agency can use it. The clearance isn't necessarily. (I.e. if I'm at NASA, and I go to DoJ, DoJ probably won't recognize the NASA clearance, but DoJ can use the existing background check to adjudicate a new one as long as the background check is current enough.) It's why "Active TS/SCI" is valuable - it means it's likely pretty easy to get another at a new job, since you already have the background check. Adjudication - "getting cleared" - itself is the easier of the two processes. Background investigations are manpower-intensive. And yes, I'm over-simplifying. There's a lot of flexibility built in to the process (agencies can request very customized background checks, including adjudication by OPM if the agency doesn't want to bother, for example), and a hell of a lot of bureaucratic infighting that complicates and hinders things, and there's plenty of other picayune rules to it. But that's the basic gist of it. Another interesting note: it's a "self-funding" process. It's all taxpayer-funded, ultimately, but the background checks are funded by fees paid by the agencies requesting or sponsoring candidates, so background checks are not a federal budget line item subject to Congressional budgetary approval. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 @DC Tomthank you for that, I did not know that was how it worked. Always assumed hearing all the ads on WTOP for active clearance people etc to work at the various GCs meant they were portable. Now I will sound a little less dumb talking to those folks! again, thx for the info! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: @DC Tomthank you for that, I did not know that was how it worked. Always assumed hearing all the ads on WTOP for active clearance people etc to work at the various GCs meant they were portable. Now I will sound a little less dumb talking to those folks! again, thx for the info! I suppose they can be portable...but that should be more a function of inter-agency agreements than anything. Used to be, different agencies and departments had their own clearances. Secret/Top Secret/TSSCI were DoD designations, State had their own, DoE had their own, DoJ had their own, etc. Bush wrote an executive order in 2005 to rationalize that across the government (one of the findings of the 9/11 Commission was the existing system hindered information sharing, because of things such as someone at DoD not knowing if they could share intel with someone at State, because the clearances didn't map to each other.) . Good idea...but the rollout was VSF, because no one wanted to give up their entrenched bureaucracy or play nice with anyone else. It's gradually going back to the way it was pre-9/11. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts