https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-w...50867.html

Quote:She said the reasons why the 25 officials had been initially rejected included foreign influence, conflicts of interest, concerning personal conduct, financial problems, drug use and criminality.

Trump and his merry crew of drug addicts. I didn't know stink was a part of the administration.

(04-01-2019 12:04 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-w...50867.html

Quote:She said the reasons why the 25 officials had been initially rejected included foreign influence, conflicts of interest, concerning personal conduct, financial problems, drug use and criminality.

Trump and his merry crew of drug addicts. I didn't know stink was a part of the administration.

you goofy jekyll....what took ewe so long???

She's been in that position 18 years? Can she provide the same concerns she had over the senior obama administrations officials?

Pfft...

When you have a staff NOT made up of career politicians, you're going to have financial problems (government jobs are recession proof and involve little personal financial risk) concerns over conflicts etc etc in their backgrounds. The government doesn't see getting millions from lobbyists for political influence to be a conflict, but it sees getting millions from investors to build a project to be a potential conflict. Irony at its highest... that ACTUAL MONEY PAID FOR INFLUENCE isn't recognized as a potential conflict of interest in political circles.

This is part of why we have concerns about 'the swamp', and this person is (perhaps unwittingly) simply defending the swamp.

Obama and Bill and Shrub all engaged in illegal drugs...

(04-01-2019 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Pfft...

When you have a staff NOT made up of career politicians, you're going to have financial problems (government jobs are recession proof and involve little personal financial risk) concerns over conflicts etc etc in their backgrounds. The government doesn't see getting millions from lobbyists for political influence to be a conflict, but it sees getting millions from investors to build a project to be a potential conflict. Irony at its highest... that ACTUAL MONEY PAID FOR INFLUENCE isn't recognized as a potential conflict of interest in political circles.

This is part of why we have concerns about 'the swamp', and this person is (perhaps unwittingly) simply defending the swamp.

Obama and Bill and Shrub all engaged in illegal drugs...

Good. The security review is doing their job and the president is doing his , which is to make informed decisions.

and Clinton essentially gave security clearance to Russia and China

So we should believe one woman who cannot prove (and we cannot disprove) her allegations?
More Trump hate.
This won’t age well for you. Same as 98% of what you post.

(04-01-2019 12:04 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-w...50867.html

Quote:She said the reasons why the 25 officials had been initially rejected included foreign influence, conflicts of interest, concerning personal conduct, financial problems, drug use and criminality.

Trump and his merry crew of drug addicts. I didn't know stink was a part of the administration.

Yeah ... unless you can show where you started a "security clearance" post about the Obama administration, and more specifically, concerning Hillary then you don't deserve any kind of an audience or response for this one.

What Hillary did regarding with her abuse of all rules for the handling of security matters was so far out of bounds that she should have been prosecuted for it. But then, that ties directly in with the corrupt heads of the CIA, FBI, and Justice departments under Obama in how they all turned a blind eye towards it, as well as covered it up as much as possible. Can't believe that she was even allowed to run for President after what she did.

Wait a minute. This woman said some people got clearances that were initially rejected, but where does she say that Trump personally approved them?

EDIT TO ADD: It is quite common for an application to be rejected for more information or even sometimes a face-to-face interview.

I believe the woman is confusing what their role is; if you have concerns, then you do not approve and you allow seniors over you to do that. If they do that, it is not your role to question it. And if you questions Jared Kuschner, then you shoul dhave questoined Hillary, who was caught red handed with George Bushes confidential FBI record on her table during Bills stint.

The Democrats seem to be having fun playing the Republicans game. Because of trump, they are having more success than the Republicans ever had playing their own game. Trump doesn't give a damn about security. The trump excuse makers don't want to talk about the matter. All they have are excuses. SAD.

(04-01-2019 07:23 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  The Democrats seem to be having fun playing games. SAD.

I agree

(04-01-2019 05:19 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I believe the woman is confusing what their role is; if you have concerns, then you do not approve and you allow seniors over you to do that. If they do that, it is not your role to question it. And if you questions Jared Kuschner, then you shoul dhave questoined Hillary, who was caught red handed with George Bushes confidential FBI record on her table during Bills stint.

Donald Trump is a better evaluator of Jared Kushner than any security person.

(04-01-2019 07:23 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  The Democrats seem to be having fun playing the Republicans game. Because of trump, they are having more success than the Republicans ever had playing their own game. Trump doesn't give a damn about security. The trump excuse makers don't want to talk about the matter. All they have are excuses. SAD.

How do you live with yourself?

(04-01-2019 07:23 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  The Democrats seem to be having fun playing the Republicans game. Because of trump, they are having more success than the Republicans ever had playing their own game. Trump doesn't give a damn about security. The trump excuse makers don't want to talk about the matter. All they have are excuses. SAD.

The "Democrats" that you are referring to are an embarrassment to the country and just as many of their supporters often do, they come across as a bunch of mindless idiots. The Mueller report didn't back up what they had been selling the public for the past 2+ years so as they typically do, they pivot to something else, anything else. SAD.

I find it Interesting that thus far, I have seen absolutely ZERO articles comparing this administrations 25 security clearance overrides with the number of overrides during any other previous administration. I wonder why that would be?

By the way, the current security granting apparatus only began under Clinton and every single president along the way has altered it in some way. For some weird reason, Obama actually relaxed a number of security clearance restrictions in his final days in office.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic...17344.html

(04-01-2019 11:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I find it Interesting that thus far, I have seen absolutely ZERO articles comparing this administrations 25 security clearance overrides with the number of overrides during any other previous administration. I wonder why that would be?

By the way, the current security granting apparatus only began under Clinton and every single president along the way has altered it in some way. For some weird reason, Obama actually relaxed a number of security clearance restrictions in his final days in office.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic...17344.html

That is pretty common. They act as if something never happened before. No context, like with personnel turnover.

The funny thing is a Democrat Controlled Congress---who had their DNC hacked due to lax security measures and had un-vetted foreign nationals with intelligence ties to Pakistan (not exactly out best friend) running the Congressional computer services---is worried about the White House security process. I mean---lol---really?