Whistleblower Says Security Clearances Process Corrupted

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

Stop...replying to Azalin?

 

No stop bumping Tib's thread!  Even by responding to others we end up bump..........oh *****!!  

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

No stop bumping Tib's thread!  Even by responding to others we end up bump..........oh *****!!  

 

whatever, we are celebrating the latest complete win by Trump

 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

whatever, we are celebrating the latest complete win by Trump

 

 

A great tactic to win in sports is to get into your opponents head.  Trump is doing a great job of that.   

[Tiberius]

40 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Oversight Committee held the hearing on security clearances at 8:30am on Saturday without informing Republicans on the committee until late Friday but didn't tell them what it was about. John Bolton, Jerod & Ivanka Kushner and Michael Flynn were included on the list of people turned down.

And that makes it all ok? Wtf? 

[Bob in Mich]

49 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Bob, I didn't say anything about ignoring the whistle blower, and I never defended the practice of ignoring advice from anybody. I simply do not believe you're making a sensible comparison.

 

Why not wait and see how all this pans out before we jump to any conclusions? If the Trump administration has done anything illegal in overturning the security clearance denials, don't you believe that will come out?

 

I don't need to wait.  I think Trump can clear whoever he wishes so I don't think the law was broken.  It is a valid comparison, however.  Both actions possibly exposed top secret material to our adversaries.

 

Again, the point of my original post was to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Hillary's actions while being just fine with Trump possibly exposing us. 

 

In fact it reminds me too of the Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton.  Oh the howls of tampering we heard about the Clinton-Lynch meeting even though we don't actually know what was said and Lynch recused.  Then when Trump publicly and blatantly attempts to influence the FBI and the Attorney General, those same folks are just fine with it.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Bob in Mich

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

A great tactic to win in sports is to get into your opponents head.  Trump is doing a great job of that.   

 

the ratings for cable news would be negative without Trump to whine about non-stop

 

[Deranged Rhino]

54 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Again, the point of my original post was to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Hillary's actions while being just fine with Trump possibly exposing us. 

 

This is not even an apples to oranges comparison, it's a nonsensical one. 

 

The two things are not in any way similar. 

 

54 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

In fact it reminds me too of the Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton.  Oh the howls of tampering we heard about the Clinton-Lynch meeting even though we don't actually know what was said and Lynch recused.  Then when Trump publicly and blatantly attempts to influence the FBI and the Attorney General, those same folks are just fine with it.

 

Proving you haven't learned a single thing in the last two years. 

 

You've been systematically lied to - and now you're unwilling to reassess the absolute bollocks you've been sold as truth. 

 

Shame.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Len,  Lenny,  Skinny Lenster.... lol.  I made an attempt at humor with the lock em up line.  It appears to have missed.  Try not to fixate on the strict legality for a moment.  I am aware that the President can technically clear anyone he wants. 

 

The outrage was really about the exposure of national secrets to individuals that the professionals decided against clearing.  That seems to me to have possibly exposed us significantly.  The question was, why do so many seem to have no issue with this exposure when the Hillary misdeed was made out to be so monumental?

I prefer Slender Lenster, I find "skinny" offensive. 

 

I have no issue with this exposure because it has nothing in common with the Hillary misdeed except we can use the word "clearance" when describing both scenarios. 

 

Can we agree that this is sorta a sad case to whistleblow on? Somebody did something within the scope of their authority, someone else got their feelings hurt, and wanted validation of their feelings? 

 

 

 

 

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I don't need to wait.  I think Trump can clear whoever he wishes so I don't think the law was broken.  It is a valid comparison, however.  Both actions possibly exposed top secret material to our adversaries.

 

Again, the point of my original post was to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Hillary's actions while being just fine with Trump possibly exposing us. 

 

In fact it reminds me too of the Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton.  Oh the howls of tampering we heard about the Clinton-Lynch meeting even though we don't actually know what was said and Lynch recused.  Then when Trump publicly and blatantly attempts to influence the FBI and the Attorney General, those same folks are just fine with it.

whaaaaa??

are you that addled that your brian has that severe of a disconnect?

holy crap.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Foxx

[Wacka]

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

No, I don't recall being involved in that discussion either. 

You were too stoned to trmrmber anything.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Wacka

[Azalin]

 

3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

I don't need to wait.  I think Trump can clear whoever he wishes so I don't think the law was broken.  It is a valid comparison, however.  Both actions possibly exposed top secret material to our adversaries.

 

Again, the point of my original post was to point out the hypocrisy of condemning Hillary's actions while being just fine with Trump possibly exposing us. 

 

In fact it reminds me too of the Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton.  Oh the howls of tampering we heard about the Clinton-Lynch meeting even though we don't actually know what was said and Lynch recused.  Then when Trump publicly and blatantly attempts to influence the FBI and the Attorney General, those same folks are just fine with it.

 

Perhaps we're simply talking past each other, so I'll try it a little differently. How can something be hypocrisy if the two actions can't be compared? Overriding a security clearance denial does not expose any sensitive material, it's not illegal, and simply gives clearance to someone that might deserve closer scrutiny. You said it yourself: "I think Trump can clear whoever he wishes so I don't think the law was broken." By contrast it is illegal to use private servers, PCs, etc, etc for government emails, even IF they're not of a sensitive, classified, or top secret nature, PERIOD.

 

So tell me, how is your comparison a valid one?

[Bob in Mich]

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

 

Perhaps we're simply talking past each other, so I'll try it a little differently. How can something be hypocrisy if the two actions can't be compared? Overriding a security clearance denial does not expose any sensitive material, it's not illegal, and simply gives clearance to someone that might deserve closer scrutiny. You said it yourself: "I think Trump can clear whoever he wishes so I don't think the law was broken." By contrast it is illegal to use private servers, PCs, etc, etc for government emails, even IF they're not of a sensitive, classified, or top secret nature, PERIOD.

 

So tell me, how is your comparison a valid one?

 

Can’t be compared!  Seriously?  Why have clearances at all if it doesn’t matter who has access to what?  The whole point is determining who will keep our secrets and who may not. These rejects were determined to be untrustworthy by our country’s security experts.  The administration overruled the experts based on what?  

 

For about the 5th time, the point isn’t legality. The point is the hypocrisy of complaining to high heaven about Hillary exposing classified information while being just fine with the Trump administration exposing our classified information to these Unqualified individuals

 

[Azalin]

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Can’t be compared!  Seriously?  Why have clearances at all if it doesn’t matter who has access to what?  The whole point is determining who will keep our secrets and who may not. These rejects were determined to be untrustworthy by our country’s security experts.  The administration overruled the experts based on what?  

 

For about the 5th time, the point isn’t legality. The point is the hypocrisy of complaining to high heaven about Hillary exposing classified information while being just fine with the Trump administration exposing our classified information to these Unqualified individuals

 

 

You do realize that among the people initially declined to security clearance are people like Kushner and Ivanka, along with National Security Advisor John Bolton? All active members within the administration. Your accusation of "unqualified" is laughable, at least as far as those three are concerned.

 

And for about the 5th time, you are bringing legality into it by using Hillary's email server as an example. If that frustrates you, then stop %$#@ing using that as an example.

[Bob in Mich]

Thanks for the advice.  If you know Kushners financial situation and feel there are no possible security concerns, I have a bridge for you.

 

Perhaps folks in this group are incapable of seeing the similarity of exposing classified information in these dissimilar ways.  It does take some average intelligence to see the ties after all.  I have overestimated people before.  Sorry.

 

‘Unqualified’ is what the security experts determined. Laugh away if laughing helps you deal with the hypocrisy 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

14 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Thanks for the advice.  If you know Kushners financial situation and feel there are no possible security concerns, I have a bridge for you.

 

Perhaps folks in this group are incapable of seeing the similarity of exposing classified information in these dissimilar ways.  It does take some average intelligence to see the ties after all.  I have overestimated people before.  Sorry.

 

‘Unqualified’ is what the security experts determined. Laugh away if laughing helps you deal with the hypocrisy 

The problem is you're comparing Welches Grape Jelly to Nutella and have convinced yourself they are similar because they both spread easy on Freihofers 7 Grain bread.  I don't know that your theory that their differences reveal their similarities, but if it works for you, who am I to argue?  

 

Just to clarify, I don't laugh at any of this stuff.  If the Trump admin broke the law, let's hash that out. But making up reasons to be more disagreeable just because you don't like the prez is silly. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Azalin]

24 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Thanks for the advice.  If you know Kushners financial situation and feel there are no possible security concerns, I have a bridge for you.

 

Perhaps folks in this group are incapable of seeing the similarity of exposing classified information in these dissimilar ways.  It does take some average intelligence to see the ties after all.  I have overestimated people before.  Sorry.

 

‘Unqualified’ is what the security experts determined. Laugh away if laughing helps you deal with the hypocrisy 

 

You can attempt to justify your position any way you like, but the way you're doing so makes no sense. Forget about what "folks in this group" are capable or incapable of - you're talking with me right now, not "the folks in this group".

 

You've already stated that the president broke no laws. Can a case for concern be made over granting these people clearance? Maybe, but that isn't what you've been saying.

 

And just because people disagree with you doen't mean we're all laughing. 

 

And lastly, this is not a case of hypocrisy. Familiarize yourself with the definition of the word. I'm not going to keep repeating it.

[DC Tom]

59 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

You do realize that among the people initially declined to security clearance are people like Kushner and Ivanka, along with National Security Advisor John Bolton? All active members within the administration. Your accusation of "unqualified" is laughable, at least as far as those three are concerned.

 

And for about the 5th time, you are bringing legality into it by using Hillary's email server as an example. If that frustrates you, then stop %$#@ing using that as an example.

 

Bolton?  Former UN Ambassador Bolton.  Was denied a security clearance for having foreign associations?

 

Yeah, that sounds completely on the level. 

41 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Thanks for the advice.  If you know Kushners financial situation and feel there are no possible security concerns, I have a bridge for you.

 

Perhaps folks in this group are incapable of seeing the similarity of exposing classified information in these dissimilar ways.  It does take some average intelligence to see the ties after all.  I have overestimated people before.  Sorry.

 

‘Unqualified’ is what the security experts determined. Laugh away if laughing helps you deal with the hypocrisy 

 

As someone who's worked directly with background investigations and granting clearances...the above is wildly ignorant.  

 

Azalin isn't even well-informed on this, but he's miles above your idiocy.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Bolton?  Former UN Ambassador Bolton.  Was denied a security clearance for having foreign associations?

 

Yeah, that sounds completely on the level. 

 

As someone who's worked directly with background investigations and granting clearances...the above is wildly ignorant.  

 

Azalin isn't even well-informed on this, but he's miles above your idiocy.

 

Flynn was as well - despite being the former head of DIA (meaning he held some of the highest clearances in existence for over a decade).  

[Q-baby!]

8 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

You can attempt to justify your position any way you like, but the way you're doing so makes no sense. Forget about what "folks in this group" are capable or incapable of - you're talking with me right now, not "the folks in this group".

 

You've already stated that the president broke no laws. Can a case for concern be made over granting these people clearance? Maybe, but that isn't what you've been saying.

 

And just because people disagree with you doen't mean we're all laughing. 

 

And lastly, this is not a case of hypocrisy. Familiarize yourself with the definition of the word. I'm not going to keep repeating it.

Oh, aren’t you just special! 

[Tiberius]

6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Flynn was as well - despite being the former head of DIA (meaning he held some of the highest clearances in existence for over a decade).  

Putting aside for a second the fact that as a disgruntled former employee (he was) and that he had ties to foreign countries, lets say he was ok, but what about the other two dozen who were denied clearances? You ok with them being able to have access to our national secrets? 

9 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Thanks for the advice.  If you know Kushners financial situation and feel there are no possible security concerns, I have a bridge for you.

 

Perhaps folks in this group are incapable of seeing the similarity of exposing classified information in these dissimilar ways.  It does take some average intelligence to see the ties after all.  I have overestimated people before.  Sorry.

 

‘Unqualified’ is what the security experts determined. Laugh away if laughing helps you deal with the hypocrisy 

I'm surprised the Deep State garbage hasn't been thrown around yet. It's still early, though 

[Tommy Callahan]

25 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Putting aside for a second the fact that as a disgruntled former employee (he was) and that he had ties to foreign countries, lets say he was ok, but what about the other two dozen who were denied clearances? You ok with them being able to have access to our national secrets? 

I'm surprised the Deep State garbage hasn't been thrown around yet. It's still early, though 

and here its you that just did that.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Chris farley

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Chris farley said:

and here its you that just did that.

 

 

Not to justify anything, just to laugh at it in advance  

[3rdnlng]

24 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Putting aside for a second the fact that as a disgruntled former employee (he was) and that he had ties to foreign countries, lets say he was ok, but what about the other two dozen who were denied clearances? You ok with them being able to have access to our national secrets? 

I'm surprised the Deep State garbage hasn't been thrown around yet. It's still early, though 

Well, we know a few of the people initially denied security clearances. They are the Kushners, Mike Flynn, John Bolton and Rob Porter. Do you know who the others are? It sounds like you do. Can you enlighten us, or do you not know who they are?

[Tiberius]

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Well, we know a few of the people initially denied security clearances. They are the Kushners, Mike Flynn, John Bolton and Rob Porter. Do you know who the others are? It sounds like you do. Can you enlighten us, or do you not know who they are?

Nope. I saw the reasons that were put out their for denying this group of the "very best people," though. Criminal records, foreign connections, drug use and a whole bunch of "mistakes" on their applications. I guess thats what happens when the executive branch is taken over by a criminal organization 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Nope. I saw the reasons that were put out their for denying this group of the "very best people," though. Criminal records, foreign connections, drug use and a whole bunch of "mistakes" on their applications. I guess thats what happens when the executive branch is taken over by a criminal organization 

So, you saw some unsubstantiated claims against unknown persons and you assume the worst?

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, you saw some unsubstantiated claims against unknown persons and you assume the worst?

It's more corroborated than the "stand down" order that never was.

 

This has been an issue for awhile and this just further reinforces the corruption eating away at this administartion. 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Putting aside for a second the fact that as a disgruntled former employee (he was) and that he had ties to foreign countries, lets say he was ok,

 

He was 1) Not a "disgruntled employee", 2) was running an active sting on Turkish state actors - not "tied" to them - meaning he was actively working with the DoD, 3) He was okay, he had 33 years of sterling service and clearances without incident. 

 

Since he was okay, and not a security threat, we know the whole thing was political. Which is why it's nonsense.

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

He was 1) Not a "disgruntled employee", 2) was running an active sting on Turkish state actors - not "tied" to them - meaning he was actively working with the DoD, 3) He was okay, he had 33 years of sterling service and clearances without incident. 

 

Since he was okay, and not a security threat, we know the whole thing was political. Which is why it's nonsense.

Then why was he turned down for a security clearance? 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Then why was he turned down for a security clearance? 

 

Because it was a political partisan decision made by holdovers. Not a decision based on honest threat assessments. 

 

 

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Because it was a political partisan decision made by holdovers. Not a decision based on honest threat assessments. 

 

 

You don't know that. That's just what you want to believe. Just like that Deep State bull sh it 

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You don't know that. That's just what you want to believe. Just like that Deep State bull sh it 

 

I do know that, because I've done my own work on the issue - especially regarding Flynn. 

[Tiberius]

12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Because it was a political partisan decision made by holdovers. Not a decision based on honest threat assessments. 

 

 

Wasn't she there for 18 years? That's some holdover 

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I do know that, because I've done my own work on the issue - especially regarding Flynn. 

And his shady nuclear power deals he was running. 

[3rdnlng]

Tricia Newbold, the whistleblower in the WH regarding security clearances is a 2nd cousin to Vladimer Putin who has been caught numerous times writing on the bathroom wall, making little tidbits and giving out Trump's cell phone # has been found out to also be John Brennan's out of wedlock daughter whose favorite food is borsch. I just know this to be true.

[Tiberius]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Tricia Newbold, the whistleblower in the WH regarding security clearances is a 2nd cousin to Vladimer Putin who has been caught numerous times writing on the bathroom wall, making little tidbits and giving out Trump's cell phone # has been found out to also be John Brennan's out of wedlock daughter whose favorite food is borsch. I just know this to be true.

She started the pizzagate rumor, too!

[Bob in Mich]

12 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

You can attempt to justify your position any way you like, but the way you're doing so makes no sense. Forget about what "folks in this group" are capable or incapable of - you're talking with me right now, not "the folks in this group".

 

You've already stated that the president broke no laws. Can a case for concern be made over granting these people clearance? Maybe, but that isn't what you've been saying.

 

And just because people disagree with you doen't mean we're all laughing. 

 

And lastly, this is not a case of hypocrisy. Familiarize yourself with the definition of the word. I'm not going to keep repeating it.

From Merriam- Webster

Definition of hypocrite

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

I contend there is hypocrisy on display here by the Trump defenders.  (see definition 2 above) 

 

These same people that claim to be concerned about Hillary's emails exposing classified information, dismiss as harmless Trump's actions to grant clearances to individuals that were denied clearances by the security professionals.  To say that exposes nothing by itself is technically accurate but a bit short sighted especially if any of those folks are indeed compromised.

[KD in CA]

22 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

Overriding a denial for a security clearance doesn't sound to me like it's a violation in & of itself, where using a private email server for sending & receiving sensitive or classified information is actually illegal. I see a big difference between the two.

 

Illegal???  What are you talking about??   She’s a Clinton!! Committing crimes does not disqualify a Clinton from being the most qualified candidate EVER!!!

[row_33]

16 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

Illegal???  What are you talking about??   She’s a Clinton!! Committing crimes does not disqualify a Clinton from being the most qualified candidate EVER!!!

 

Then she lost and her toadies called her the worst candidate ever.

 

 

[Azalin]

29 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

From Merriam- Webster

Definition of hypocrite

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

I contend there is hypocrisy on display here by the Trump defenders.  (see definition 2 above) 

 

These same people that claim to be concerned about Hillary's emails exposing classified information, dismiss as harmless Trump's actions to grant clearances to individuals that were denied clearances by the security professionals.  To say that exposes nothing by itself is technically accurate but a bit short sighted especially if any of those folks are indeed compromised.

 

I'll be as direct as possible in order to make this obvious, even to you.

 

What Trump did was not (even by your own admission) illegal.

 

What Hillary did was very illegal.

 

One is an example of possibly questionable judgement, the other is a criminal act.

 

Do you now see that your comparison is an inaccurate one?

[DC Tom]

30 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

Illegal???  What are you talking about??   She’s a Clinton!! Committing crimes does not disqualify a Clinton from being the most qualified candidate EVER!!!

 

Again, as Secretary of State she had pretty broad authority to declassify things, so if she said "not in this case," it's hard to argue it's a crime.

 

But hiding federal records from Congress still is.  And as she was sharing federal records internally within the Clinton Foundation...well, "pay to play" with an organization that has the minutes of internal State Department deliberations?  No, not shady at all...

[Bob in Mich]

10 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I'll be as direct as possible in order to make this obvious, even to you.

 

What Trump did was not (even by your own admission) illegal.

 

What Hillary did was very illegal.

 

One is an example of possibly questionable judgement, the other is a criminal act.

 

Do you now see that your comparison is an inaccurate one?

 

Holy *****, Az!   Let me try once more just because I need a distraction at the moment.  Otherwise I would be done with this brick wall 'discussion'.

 

Is it possible that there are similarities and yet still some differences?  Wait, don't type yet.  Is that possible?

 

Wait

 

So, could someone point out the similarities in two situations without them being identical?  Is that possible ?   If yes, then you are seeing how the comparison might be made.  If your answer is no, then surely you are being dishonest.