Petty? Pathetic? Pitiful? What say you?
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
He is the absolute KING at projection (in the psychological sense). He gives away his own feelings/inadequacies by projecting those on to others, essentially.
Remember when he said he’s the least racist person?
Or when he told Clinton during the debate “you’re the puppet”?
I could name many, many more. He’s off his rocker- and it’s going to get much worse as Mueller closes in on him. Wait until Don Jr. is interviewed and/or charged.
And so it marches onward......the standard has been laid down.....if you dare go on TV and challenge or critique the President....your security clearance is at risk.
Exactly what was warned about back at the beginning of the thread. Yet the typical sycophants on here mocked that idea.....said it was only about Brennan.
Banana Republic.
Exactly what was warned about back at the beginning of the thread. Yet the typical sycophants on here mocked that idea.....said it was only about Brennan.
Banana Republic.
Mudd, in my view, represents much of the reason for the CIA's abject failures over the past 20 years. He's an analyst. He's someone who never had to live with his bad decisions because he's a creature of CIA headquarters. And he seems to have followed John Brennan around a lot. And we are a fortunate nation to number him among the ranks of former CIA employees.
And WTF does any of that have to do with grounds for revoking a security clearance?
Regarding the issue of former officials retaining security clearances after they leave federal service.
Unless they have transitioned to a consultant/contractor position where the clearance is required, I'm basically against allowing those clearances to remain in effect.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Because either you have no idea how clearances work or because your new leader says to.
Yes, let’s create a workforce that prohibits people from leaving national security related positions if they ever want to get back into them without costly reinvestigations. How conservative of you.
Clearly, Mudd's role as a CNN contributor is largely dependent upon his ability to talk to people in the intelligence community about current issues and present an unclassified version of that to CNN's audience. We know how this system works from when Brennan leaked highly classified information to Richard Clarke who immediately divulged it on the air.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
So again, you’re accusing someone of committing a crime and then blaming the medium. Genius.
I’m not a fan of the Trump supporters’ demonization of the CIA. First, they don’t deserve it. Second, this is something Democrats have more traditionally done in recent years. Republicans more traditionally defend the CIA. I just don’t get it.
I don't think they are demonizing the whole damn CIA. ... Just saying. But you do remove a bad apple at the bottom of a barrel of Apples.
I mean there are literally a dozen of these people pulling in network paychecks because they still have a valid security clearance. I'm not sure that's a great idea.
Don't you have to validate that the apple is bad first?
Just because you suspect it might be so doesn't make it so . . . which means those making that allegation that the apple is bad are going to have to work with those who aren't making that allegation to (a) determine what criteria to use in determining whether the apple is "bad", and (b) using that criteria in determining whether the apple in fact is "bad".
Right now all you have is that the apple under discussion is a mighty pain in the President's ass, which might be a bad thing - and which would in turn make the apple bad - or it might be a damned good thing, in which case we ought to be looking at the President and not the apple.
Do you not realize a security clearance on its own gets the person ZERO info?
If a person is going to break the law to pass classified info to someone....why would it matter to the leaker if the person has an active clearance or not? The violation is the same, regardless.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Prove it. Prove that they’re pulling in paychecks BECAUSE they have a security clearance and not BECAUSE they are experienced experts (which your boy is not.
Again, because you have no clue what you’re talking about, you’re saying that someone is feeding these guys classified data for which they have no NTK. Put up or shut up.
You just might have a point there, MC . . .
. . . the biggest problems with folks using security clearances are (a) if they disclose information that is subject to a security classification, or (b) if they use their knowledge of classified information for politically partisan purposes rather than for educating the public in general terms regarding the risks and advantages of various approaches to policy issues involving that classified information (without disclosing the classified information).
Frankly, this is the worst influence of FOX news, IMHO. They've politicized everything so much that there no longer is any education of the public in general terms of the risks and advantages of various policy approaches; instead they're focused on advocating for a predetermined outcome without the full merits being addressed. Any real discussion of the merits gets lost in the bombast . . . which means that policy discussions turn into alternative bombast blasts rather than consideration of the relative merits of the various options.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
This is where Aloha and I, who normally think very much alike, diverge. I know and get it. Aloha just will not say Voldemort.
Taking away a clearance doesn’t erase a person’s knowledge of classified information. Clearance or not, we are still legally prohibited from disclosing that information.
Poor choice of words on my part. It disappoints me to see the inconsistency and I personally can’t relate to it.
Understood. I should have made clear that my comment was directed to use of that classified information as the basis for educating the public regarding risks and advantages of policy options - without disclosing the classified information itself - when the person possessing that information appears in the media. That was the context of MonroeCity's post that I responded to.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Fine, my friend, but it’s incumbent on the good and loyal Republicans to chastise the bad and stupid Republicans (that have hijacked our party) if we are to ever get our party back.
Last post on the 4th page of this thread. Will you tell me what I have wrong? Maybe I've had in wrong all these years.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
That post is accurate and makes your subsequent posts even more insane. If you understand clearances and how NTK works and that there is no secret classified internet that everybody with a clearance has access to and you still think someone should lose their clearance because they are no longer in federal service than you are one conflicted and confused chap.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
No, thank you.
Thank you for mostly understanding the basics of a topic and then drawing a conclusion that fits your narrative despite the narrative conflicting with the facts of the basics of the topic. It’s calked cognitive dissonance and it’s an epidemic.
And thank you for being a disciple of cognitive dissonance and ensuring that we cannot get back to the reality based community.
Hmmmmmm? I'm thinking that your latest posts may have gotten MonroeCity back on track . . . if so, then you're in more violent agreement than disagreement, at least on the effect of the security clearance/NTK distinction.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Absolutely not. His last post about Mudd claims, without evidence, that Mudd is being fed classified information for which he has no NTK (which is illegal). It’s the same narrative they’re fitting to Brennan and is all without evidence.
We are in violent disagreement.
I think I can answer your post like this. In the normal, corrupt, bureaucrat, convoluted way that government is usually ran, yes there needs to be months.... YEARS of wasted time before we give everyone a trophy and a pension, no matter what the "facts" find. In everyday business, which we have a POTUS that is running this as a business not a bureaucrat, Brennan is GONE on day 2.
I've not seen a huge amount of him in the publicly shared info, but what I did see created a very strong question of his true intent. It seemed to me that he was using his Intelligence agency tools/ methods on us, like they would do on Goatsuckistan. End verdict for me, He gone! No need to know.
I'd bet donuts to dollars that I've seen the inside - deep inside - of far, far more large, medium and small businesses than you have, and I can tell you without any question your post is bullshit, pure and simple.
I know of no business - other than a rare instance of a business owned solely by an autocrat like Trump - that would go off on a whim like you've described. I've had the opportunity to work for them and I wouldn't touch any of them . . . there's only downside, just like all of Trump's sycophants are finding out.
In most businesses a guy like Brennan - who is smart, understands the purpose of things, and who isn't shy about making his opinions fully supported with facts and sound analysis known - would be prized, not scuttled. But then most CEOs have more moxie than Trump has.
Reuters May 18, 2012
"At about 5:45 pm on Monday, May 7, just before the evening newscasts, John Brennan, President Barack Obama's top White House adviser on counter -terrorism, held a small, private teleconference to brief former counter-terrorism advisers who have become frequent commentators on TV shows.
According to five people familiar with the call, Brennan stressed that the plot was never a threat to the U.S. public or air safety because Washinton had "inside control" over it."
Did these former counter-terrorism advisers who have become frequent commentators have need to know?
Need to know what?
Without that level of detail it's impossible to answer your question seriously.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Need to know what? That panic shouldn’t be induced in the populace?
How do you know he shared classified info?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Another addition to the Biden Lie File: first to go to college..- Latest: Hoopsdoc1978
-
-
If Woodson does fail next year and I hope, he doesn't...
- Latest: CriticArisen
-