Whistleblower Says Security Clearances Process Corrupted

[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.