[Lord Dave]

The two are not comparable. A medical licence means you can get certain jobs. Security clearance means you can access certain places and information, regardless of job.

True but even so, why take it?  If they have the clearance, they're trustworthy.  (And likely know alot already) so what's the benefit of taking it? 

[Rushy]

The two are not comparable. A medical licence means you can get certain jobs. Security clearance means you can access certain places and information, regardless of job.

True but even so, why take it?  If they have the clearance, they're trustworthy.  (And likely know alot already) so what's the benefit of taking it?

Well, first and foremost, this isn't how any clearance job works. If you're not working for the government, either as a contractor or in a civil service position, your clearance is stripped away. When I work for the military, I have a clearance, and when I don't, I don't have a clearance. Why this is suddenly not applicable to the director of an agency sounds more like a clever loophole to me, rather than adequate administration of law regarding clearances.

Second, a clearance does not mean you're trustworthy in the sense that you can have unlimited access forever. A security clearance just means that you have access to a set amount of information deemed necessary for your job, that is, you have the need to know. Does a man who doesn't actually hold a civil service position have a need to know? No, he doesn't.

[honk]

The two are not comparable. A medical licence means you can get certain jobs. Security clearance means you can access certain places and information, regardless of job.

True but even so, why take it?  If they have the clearance, they're trustworthy.  (And likely know alot already) so what's the benefit of taking it?

Well, first and foremost, this isn't how any clearance job works. If you're not working for the government, either as a contractor or in a civil service position, your clearance is stripped away. When I work for the military, I have a clearance, and when I don't, I don't have a clearance. Why this is suddenly not applicable to the director of an agency sounds more like a clever loophole to me, rather than adequate administration of law regarding clearances.

Second, a clearance does not mean you're trustworthy in the sense that you can have unlimited access forever. A security clearance just means that you have access to a set amount of information deemed necessary for your job, that is, you have the need to know. Does a man who doesn't actually hold a civil service position have a need to know? No, he doesn't.

You've already put far more thought into this than Trump has. This is nothing more than him wanting to punish former agency heads for criticizing him.

[Lord Dave]

The two are not comparable. A medical licence means you can get certain jobs. Security clearance means you can access certain places and information, regardless of job.

True but even so, why take it?  If they have the clearance, they're trustworthy.  (And likely know alot already) so what's the benefit of taking it?

Well, first and foremost, this isn't how any clearance job works. If you're not working for the government, either as a contractor or in a civil service position, your clearance is stripped away. When I work for the military, I have a clearance, and when I don't, I don't have a clearance. Why this is suddenly not applicable to the director of an agency sounds more like a clever loophole to me, rather than adequate administration of law regarding clearances.

Second, a clearance does not mean you're trustworthy in the sense that you can have unlimited access forever. A security clearance just means that you have access to a set amount of information deemed necessary for your job, that is, you have the need to know. Does a man who doesn't actually hold a civil service position have a need to know? No, he doesn't.

Then the basic question is: if this is normal procedure, why do those people still have it? Especially the ones who have been out of the white house for over 5 years.

[Rushy]

Then the basic question is: if this is normal procedure, why do those people still have it? Especially the ones who have been out of the white house for over 5 years.

How is that the basic question? Normalized corruption is still corruption, and the continued use of a clearance to supposedly acquire and leak information about an administration you don't like is corruption.

You've already put far more thought into this than Trump has. This is nothing more than him wanting to punish former agency heads for criticizing him.

I don't see how his intentions are relevant to the question of whether or not these people should have a security clearance. Should Trump's directors be able to leak information to whoever they want when his successor comes into office? I think not. The old administration still having informational power post mortem doesn't make any sense and you know it.

[Lord Dave]

Then the basic question is: if this is normal procedure, why do those people still have it? Especially the ones who have been out of the white house for over 5 years.

How is that the basic question? Normalized corruption is still corruption, and the continued use of a clearance to supposedly acquire and leak information about an administration you don't like is corruption.

So Obama was corrupt in letting his heads of office keep their clearance, but so was Trump when he fired people but didn't revoke clearance?  This is why I'm confused.


Also,I was not aware that classified information was being leaked by these people.


Also also...
What about leaking info against an administration doing bad things?  Ie. A whistle blower?  Is that corruption?

[Rushy]

So Obama was corrupt in letting his heads of office keep their clearance, but so was Trump when he fired people but didn't revoke clearance?  This is why I'm confused.

If Obama/Trump let people go and knowingly let them keep their Top Secret clearances and they knowingly had access to state secrets despite being private individuals, yes, that is corruption.

Also,I was not aware that classified information was being leaked by these people.

It's not a question of whether or not they're leaking classified information. You have a clearance when you need it, and you should not have a clearance when you don't. People who simply used to be directors don't need it and shouldn't have it.

Also also...
What about leaking info against an administration doing bad things?  Ie. A whistle blower?  Is that corruption?

One person's whistle blower is another's traitor. Your question doesn't really make sense without context. There's no such thing as blanket "whistle blowing" because "bad things" varies from person to person. In general, all people who leak classified information should go straight to federal prison.

[Snupes]

So Obama was corrupt in letting his heads of office keep their clearance, but so was Trump when he fired people but didn't revoke clearance?  This is why I'm confused.

Did you not just say the same thing twice?

[garygreen]

why are we pretending that this has anything to do with rational decision-making

[Rama Set]

Because otherwise you are admitting that your president is not a rational actor. If he is not a rational actor, then the USA should be targeted for regime change. Are you guys even ready to accept the People’s Party?

[Rushy]

why are we pretending that this has anything to do with rational decision-making

Perhaps Trump supporters have said "the absolute madman" so many times that they've memed Trump into being literally insane

Because otherwise you are admitting that your president is not a rational actor. If he is not a rational actor, then the USA should be targeted for regime change. Are you guys even ready to accept the People’s Party?

The military is right leaning, the gun-owning populace as a whole is almost entirely right leaning. The only sort of regime change you'll get is the National Socialist American Workers' Party and I don't think you'll particularly enjoy that one.

[Lord Dave]

So Obama was corrupt in letting his heads of office keep their clearance, but so was Trump when he fired people but didn't revoke clearance?  This is why I'm confused.

If Obama/Trump let people go and knowingly let them keep their Top Secret clearances and they knowingly had access to state secrets despite being private individuals, yes, that is corruption.

Also,I was not aware that classified information was being leaked by these people.

It's not a question of whether or not they're leaking classified information. You have a clearance when you need it, and you should not have a clearance when you don't. People who simply used to be directors don't need it and shouldn't have it.

Also also...
What about leaking info against an administration doing bad things?  Ie. A whistle blower?  Is that corruption?

One person's whistle blower is another's traitor. Your question doesn't really make sense without context. There's no such thing as blanket "whistle blowing" because "bad things" varies from person to person. In general, all people who leak classified information should go straight to federal prison.

I'm just gonna stop because we probably have different defintions of corruption.I mean, Trump allowing someone he hates (and fired) to keep security credentials being corruption just makes no sense to me as it doesn't benefit Trump on a personal level.


----In other news: Trump won.https://www.npr.org/2018/07/27/632640711/u-s-could-see-blockbuster-economic-growth-number-todayHe's done exactly as he said.  He made America great.  He did the impossible of 4.1% GDP growth.  He and his way of doing things, is what makes a nation like America strong and prosperous.
And while it could just be the con before the fall, the winning streak before you lose it all... it doesn't matter.  Not unless the fall comes before November.  If it doesn't, then he won.  He'll get a super majority in congress, with the rest of the trump hating republicans falling in line so they can win, and be unstoppable. 

And if this is how American becomes great... then I'm going to consider saving my money to get rid of my citizenship, because this isn't who I am.  I can't be American anymore.  Perhaps, I never was.

[Rushy]

I'm just gonna stop because we probably have different defintions of corruption.I mean, Trump allowing someone he hates (and fired) to keep security credentials being corruption just makes no sense to me as it doesn't benefit Trump on a personal level.

You don't define a private person who has access to state secrets as corruption? That's odd and literally the kind of thing the "deep state conspiracy" theorists often point out as very well incidents of corruption. A private person who was part of an old administration retaining power despite being ousted from the position they previously held. If that isn't corruption, I don't know what is.

[Lord Dave]

I'm just gonna stop because we probably have different defintions of corruption.I mean, Trump allowing someone he hates (and fired) to keep security credentials being corruption just makes no sense to me as it doesn't benefit Trump on a personal level.

You don't define a private person who has access to state secrets as corruption? That's odd and literally the kind of thing the "deep state conspiracy" theorists often point out as very well incidents of corruption. A private person who was part of an old administration retaining power despite being ousted from the position they previously held. If that isn't corruption, I don't know what is.

No, I do not. 
Corruption, to me, requires the party granting such priviledge to do so with selfish reasons.  Like if Trump said "Ok Hillary, I hate you and have no benefit to doing this, but here's the daily top secret briefing."
Stupid?  Maybe.  Corrupt?  I don't think so.  There's no benefit to him. 

[Rushy]

I'm just gonna stop because we probably have different defintions of corruption.I mean, Trump allowing someone he hates (and fired) to keep security credentials being corruption just makes no sense to me as it doesn't benefit Trump on a personal level.

You don't define a private person who has access to state secrets as corruption? That's odd and literally the kind of thing the "deep state conspiracy" theorists often point out as very well incidents of corruption. A private person who was part of an old administration retaining power despite being ousted from the position they previously held. If that isn't corruption, I don't know what is.

No, I do not. 
Corruption, to me, requires the party granting such priviledge to do so with selfish reasons.  Like if Trump said "Ok Hillary, I hate you and have no benefit to doing this, but here's the daily top secret briefing."
Stupid?  Maybe.  Corrupt?  I don't think so.  There's no benefit to him.

The corruption is that someone who isn't in a government position or contracted by the government is able to access government resources. It doesn't have anything to do with who is currently in office. I don't really understand what your point is, this really has nothing at all to do with what Trump is or isn't doing.

[Lord Dave]

I'm just gonna stop because we probably have different defintions of corruption.I mean, Trump allowing someone he hates (and fired) to keep security credentials being corruption just makes no sense to me as it doesn't benefit Trump on a personal level.

You don't define a private person who has access to state secrets as corruption? That's odd and literally the kind of thing the "deep state conspiracy" theorists often point out as very well incidents of corruption. A private person who was part of an old administration retaining power despite being ousted from the position they previously held. If that isn't corruption, I don't know what is.

No, I do not. 
Corruption, to me, requires the party granting such priviledge to do so with selfish reasons.  Like if Trump said "Ok Hillary, I hate you and have no benefit to doing this, but here's the daily top secret briefing."
Stupid?  Maybe.  Corrupt?  I don't think so.  There's no benefit to him.

The corruption is that someone who isn't in a government position or contracted by the government is able to access government resources. It doesn't have anything to do with who is currently in office. I don't really understand what your point is, this really has nothing at all to do with what Trump is or isn't doing.

No, I got that.  I'm just saying I don't see it as corruption.Also: Wouldn't "accessing data they aren't supposed to have" be espionage?  But in this case they're given permission to have this data by the person in charge.  Again, I don't see it as corruption unless the person allowing access to the data gains a personal advantage for allowing the access.

[Rushy]

I'm just gonna stop because we probably have different defintions of corruption.I mean, Trump allowing someone he hates (and fired) to keep security credentials being corruption just makes no sense to me as it doesn't benefit Trump on a personal level.

You don't define a private person who has access to state secrets as corruption? That's odd and literally the kind of thing the "deep state conspiracy" theorists often point out as very well incidents of corruption. A private person who was part of an old administration retaining power despite being ousted from the position they previously held. If that isn't corruption, I don't know what is.

No, I do not. 
Corruption, to me, requires the party granting such priviledge to do so with selfish reasons.  Like if Trump said "Ok Hillary, I hate you and have no benefit to doing this, but here's the daily top secret briefing."
Stupid?  Maybe.  Corrupt?  I don't think so.  There's no benefit to him.

The corruption is that someone who isn't in a government position or contracted by the government is able to access government resources. It doesn't have anything to do with who is currently in office. I don't really understand what your point is, this really has nothing at all to do with what Trump is or isn't doing.

No, I got that.  I'm just saying I don't see it as corruption.Also: Wouldn't "accessing data they aren't supposed to have" be espionage?  But in this case they're given permission to have this data by the person in charge.  Again, I don't see it as corruption unless the person allowing access to the data gains a personal advantage for allowing the access.

You don't see a private citizen getting access to government information simply based on who they know instead of what office they hold as corruption? Wow. I guess the media's attempts to redefine what is and isn't okay in a modern government really has worked on the general population.

[Lord Dave]

You don't see a private citizen getting access to government information simply based on who they know instead of what office they hold as corruption? Wow. I guess the media's attempts to redefine what is and isn't okay in a modern government really has worked on the general population.

First off, let's get it out of the way: These people HAD the job.  You speak as though it's some random person off the street.
Secondly, I seem to have found an answer that satisfied my confusion.https://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-retains-state-dept-security-clearance/
See, I had an issue with why they still have clerance when, you'd think, the president would revoke it when they got fired.  Right?  I mean, if it's standard procedure, it should have happened to all of them yet even Susan Rice still has it.  So... what gives?  It can't just be a "Oh, one or two people I like kept it" because that doesn't explain the rather lengthly list that crosses presidencies.  In essence, my issue with your claim is "They still have it even after they quit/were fired and their boss got replaced".  Which is odd.
But if that above article is correct:

Clinton, who served as secretary of state under former President Barack Obama, and seven of her aides were designated as "research assistants" in order to keep their security clearances.

Then that makes sense.  I'm sure the others have similar titles, provided as standard procedure for such high ranking officials.

[honk]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/28/politics/trump-mood-up-and-down-week/index.html

lol

[Rushy]

First off, let's get it out of the way: These people HAD the job.  You speak as though it's some random person off the street.
Secondly, I seem to have found an answer that satisfied my confusion.https://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-retains-state-dept-security-clearance/
See, I had an issue with why they still have clerance when, you'd think, the president would revoke it when they got fired.  Right?  I mean, if it's standard procedure, it should have happened to all of them yet even Susan Rice still has it.  So... what gives?  It can't just be a "Oh, one or two people I like kept it" because that doesn't explain the rather lengthly list that crosses presidencies.  In essence, my issue with your claim is "They still have it even after they quit/were fired and their boss got replaced".  Which is odd.

Yes, they had the job. And now they don't. I'm not sure what part of the "now they don't" part is having trouble finding its way to your brain, but I figure that if I keep my posts relatively short, you'll have an easier time reading them. And once again, you attempt to claim it's normal. Normalized corruption is still corruption. Yet another thing I have to repeat for you.