(08-15-2018 03:04 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If the end result of this partisan tit-for-tat is removing security clearances for ex-government employees, then we are all winners.

The problem is that it includes people working presently working within the government.

(08-15-2018 03:02 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I'm not sure why anyone no longer in a former job that required a security clearance would still have that security clearance after leaving the job. Seems logical to me for that clearance to be revoked, no matter the politics, etc.

The claim is that it is maintained as a possible resource for successors and as a "professional courtesy". Like this jack-wagon is to be afforded any kind of courtesy. Get in their faces, tell them they're not welcome here.

(08-15-2018 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  More short-sighted idiocy from the pettiest administration in history. Sad.

WHY in the world would you let a former employee have continued access to information that is to be closely guarded? I can see for maybe 3 - 6 months but the moron mental midget Brennan has kept access for more than two years. If his replacement can't handle the job after 6 months then there's a bigger problem.

(08-15-2018 03:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:17 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:04 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If the end result of this partisan tit-for-tat is removing security clearances for ex-government employees, then we are all winners.

Why would an EX-government employee have a security clearance in the first place?

To get rich, of course.

Nonsense. Unless current or future administrations use these guys as a resource, having the clearance is next to meaningless. They're no longer employees, so if they're not being used for something, they aren't seeing anything requiring a clearance. So removing it can only hamper things in the future.

Wrong.

The only nonsense is this statement above.

People like Susan Rice and even the Cank herself are or were still receiving daily, or regular briefings on certain materials. What purpose would they possible serve other than writing a book or something?

The interesting question is what happens next?

Will Trump be watching? And listening?

What will Trump do if he catches someone sharing classified information with Brennan?

I think we need an example, and I suspect Trump intends to make one if he gets the chance.

(08-15-2018 04:14 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:17 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:04 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If the end result of this partisan tit-for-tat is removing security clearances for ex-government employees, then we are all winners.

Why would an EX-government employee have a security clearance in the first place?

To get rich, of course.

Nonsense. Unless current or future administrations use these guys as a resource, having the clearance is next to meaningless. They're no longer employees, so if they're not being used for something, they aren't seeing anything requiring a clearance. So removing it can only hamper things in the future.

Wrong.

The only nonsense is this statement above.

People like Susan Rice and even the Cank herself are or were still receiving daily, or regular briefings on certain materials. What purpose would they possible serve other than writing a book or something?

Can I take a stab? If something damaging to Trump came up, they could leak it to the media.

What do I win?

(08-15-2018 04:07 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:04 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If the end result of this partisan tit-for-tat is removing security clearances for ex-government employees, then we are all winners.

The problem is that it includes people working presently working within the government.

How can you be an ex-government employee, but working within the government?

(08-15-2018 04:16 PM)Claw Wrote:  The interesting question is what happens next?

Will Trump be watching? And listening?

What will Trump do if he catches someone sharing classified information with Brennan?

I think we need an example, and I suspect Trump intends to make one if he gets the chance.

Yeah, like Brennan seems like the type of person that will do this.

Trump - Brennan Hmmmmmmmm

The day I leave the job I lose my clearance. They cost money and the company won't keep it up unless I'm still employed but doing other things with them that require it. But to reactivate it won't be an issue if done within a time period. I think it's 5 years or something. I haven't thought much or looked into it.

(08-15-2018 04:20 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 04:07 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:04 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If the end result of this partisan tit-for-tat is removing security clearances for ex-government employees, then we are all winners.

The problem is that it includes people working presently working within the government.

How can you be an ex-government employee, but working within the government?

Wasn't there a current FBI agent on the list of people that Trump wanted to do the same thing. If not, I take it all back.

(08-15-2018 04:24 PM)gdunn Wrote:  The day I leave the job I lose my clearance. They cost money and the company won't keep it up unless I'm still employed but doing other things with them that require it. But to reactivate it won't be an issue if done within a time period. I think it's 5 years or something. I haven't thought much or looked into it.

That's the way it was when I was a contractor.

I don't know about government employees.

It shouldn't matter that much because a person removed from their job should no longer have a need to know.

(08-15-2018 03:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:04 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If the end result of this partisan tit-for-tat is removing security clearances for ex-government employees, then we are all winners.

Why would an EX-government employee have a security clearance in the first place?

we hire them because they can go on bases and other facilities without an escort. Helps with the procurement process.

(08-15-2018 04:28 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:04 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If the end result of this partisan tit-for-tat is removing security clearances for ex-government employees, then we are all winners.

Why would an EX-government employee have a security clearance in the first place?

we hire them because they can go on bases and other facilities without an escort. Helps with the procurement process.

Yep, and we end up procuring all sorts of crap that we don't need, because somebody made a decision to buy something just before he/she got out and went to work for that vendor.

Not meant to attack you or your company. You are just doing what you have to do in the system.

Swamp drain
On _x_
Off ___

(08-15-2018 04:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 04:28 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:04 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If the end result of this partisan tit-for-tat is removing security clearances for ex-government employees, then we are all winners.

Why would an EX-government employee have a security clearance in the first place?

we hire them because they can go on bases and other facilities without an escort. Helps with the procurement process.

Yep, and we end up procuring all sorts of crap that we don't need, because somebody made a decision to buy something just before he/she got out and went to work for that vendor.

Hey, if the KO wants to procure, we gonna dance with them.

Oh the lulz





Frick you, you seditious commie bastard

(08-15-2018 04:54 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 04:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 04:28 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:04 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  If the end result of this partisan tit-for-tat is removing security clearances for ex-government employees, then we are all winners.

Why would an EX-government employee have a security clearance in the first place?

we hire them because they can go on bases and other facilities without an escort. Helps with the procurement process.

Yep, and we end up procuring all sorts of crap that we don't need, because somebody made a decision to buy something just before he/she got out and went to work for that vendor.

Hey, if the KO wants to procure, we gonna dance with them.

Edited my post to add that I see nothing wrong with that. You're just playing the game you're given.

(08-15-2018 05:08 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Oh the lulz

Oh yeah man, he's Alex Jones all of a sudden....vomit....

(08-15-2018 05:09 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 05:08 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Oh the lulz

Oh yeah man, he's Alex Jones all of a sudden....vomit....

Hilarious isn't it. What a self righteous idiot.

What did you win? This whole thread is worthless.