Today in Trump's 1st term as President

[philip964]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... trump.html

350 newspapers coordinate editorials across the country to object to the President’s treatment of them.

They believe that the president singles them out for potential violence. He refers to them as the enemy of the people, which they believe targets them for violence and hurts their feelings.

[Jusme]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... trump.html

350 newspapers coordinate editorials across the country to object to the President’s treatment of them.

They believe that the president singles them out for potential violence. He refers to them as the enemy of the people, which they believe targets them for violence and hurts their feelings.

I'm just wondering why they are not reporting on all of the violent attacks, reporters, have experienced? You would think that would be the number one news story. I wonder why.........(crickets)

[philbo]

Trump revokes ex-CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08 ... ennan.html

"Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the Nation’s most closely held secrets and facilitates the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos." Best example of pot calling the kettle black this week.

Clearly an example of partisan politics and retribution designed to distract and appeal to a base of simple thinkers, especially since several of the names listed by trump under similar consideration (comey, mccabe, strzok) have no clearance to revoke.

If you had ever held a clearance, you would know just how appropriate the President's action is and why it is hardly partisan. But then again, you don't seem to care about anything other than defaming the President.

I have, and I do know about clearances. But then again, you don't seem to care about anything other than defaming someone who doesn't believe what you do... unless of course it's apologizing for the defamer in chief.

[dale blanker]

Trump revokes ex-CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08 ... ennan.html

"Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the Nation’s most closely held secrets and facilitates the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos." Best example of pot calling the kettle black this week.

Clearly an example of partisan politics and retribution designed to distract and appeal to a base of simple thinkers, especially since several of the names listed by trump under similar consideration (comey, mccabe, strzok) have no clearance to revoke.

If you had ever held a clearance, you would know just how appropriate the President's action is and why it is hardly partisan. But then again, you don't seem to care about anything other than defaming the President.

I have, and I do know about clearances. But then again, you don't seem to care about anything other than defaming someone who doesn't believe what you do... unless of course it's apologizing for the defamer in chief.

Hey, I used to generate a command distribution report about USMC resources in the middle and far east for the the Commandant of the Marine Corps and I had a high level security clearance. But that was during Eisenhower times and I was very respectful of our president then. I would probably lose my security clearance now too.

[bblhd672]

There’s this concept in classified materials and information security called “need to know.” None of those ex-government employees/appointees/etc have a continuing “need to know” classified information. Thus, there should be no outrage over their security clearances being revoked, especially if there is any indication they are using that access without need to know.
As a submarine radioman I had a Top Secret, Special Intelligence clearance. The day I was no longer a service member my need to know went away. My former colleagues in the radio room could no longer discuss any of the classified information we had discussed previously because I no longer had the need to know, despite still having a TS/SI clearance. However my obligation to never reveal any classified information has not and will never go away.

[dale blanker]

There’s this concept in classified materials and information security called “need to know.” None of those ex-government employees/appointees/etc have a continuing “need to know” classified information. Thus, there should be no outrage over their security clearances being revoked, especially if there is any indication they are using that access without need to know.

You've missed the point. High level security officials have clearance to support the ongoing intelligence projects with their experience. But hey, let's just ignore history and see how that goes.

McRaven speaks out about the Brennan clearance removal.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/ ... est-779989

Another conspirator???

Well. there goes some of McRaven four stars!

[apostate]

Did you miss the part where he's an ex CIA director?

[rotor]

hopefully ohrr and others are soon to follow.
let me upset yall, strok will still get his retirement when he turns 65, but so glad to see him out

I wouldn't mind him getting the retirement, as long as he celebrates that birthday behind bars!!

Hmm, it's really not clear why he was even fired. In a statement following the IG report's release, Goelman said there was "no evidence" Strzok's political views impacted the handling of the Clinton email investigation and Strzok kept the Trump campaign confidential. There was discipline prescribed for his use of FBI emails that involved 60 day suspension and demotion so the dismissal seems extreme already.

Of what should he be convicted???

I don't know what's in the FBI handbook but I wouldn't be surprised it having an extramarital affair with another employee alone might be grounds for termination. Over 50,000 text messages using government facilities on government time. If he worked for a private corporation and was spending his time on his phone with his mistress also paid for by the corporation would he and she not be terminated? Let alone the outrageous content of the texts. Even Mueller saw that he needed to dump him. The problem with the IG report is that you can't prove bias. We all assumed HRC was a shoe in and was he going to be the FBI agent to bring her down? No! That's why there is no recording of her testimony and her lawyer was present. It was a fix. We all know it but just can't prove it. Yet!

[rotor]

I wonder if I still have my security clearance? Secret, not Top Secret. I assume that when i left the Air Force I would no longer have a clearance. Interestingly enough, none of my former Air Force people have asked my opinion about anything. Wonder why.

As far as newspapers. After over 30 years subscribing to my local liberal rag I dropped my subscription. I no longer have any puppies in the house so I didn't need the paper for dog poo. I still get a quality paper, the Wall Street Journal but even that has gone downhill. Does America still read newspapers? Old guys like me prefer them but youngsters? Even living in a conservative area the paper is liberal. Hard to believe.

The only reason to continue a local paper was the obit column and advertisements. An app called Flipp does advertisements and the internet does obits. The local paper can go the way of any other endangered species. Trump is right about fake news though. Lies,

[2farnorth]

On a positive note....... There have been no reported alien abductions since Pres Trump announced the Space Force.....

[Bitter Clinger]

Trump revokes ex-CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08 ... ennan.html

"Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the Nation’s most closely held secrets and facilitates the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos." Best example of pot calling the kettle black this week.

Clearly an example of partisan politics and retribution designed to distract and appeal to a base of simple thinkers, especially since several of the names listed by trump under similar consideration (comey, mccabe, strzok) have no clearance to revoke.

If you had ever held a clearance, you would know just how appropriate the President's action is and why it is hardly partisan. But then again, you don't seem to care about anything other than defaming the President.

I have, and I do know about clearances. But then again, you don't seem to care about anything other than defaming someone who doesn't believe what you do... unless of course it's apologizing for the defamer in chief.

My statement is not defamatory, as it is the truth.

[philip964]

https://apnews.com/735cfcd91ce9458189ab ... ary-parade

Cancels for now the military parade due to cost from I think from the City of Washington DC. Will attend the End of War in Europe parade November 11 in Paris instead.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/youth-unem ... 1534455755

Youth unemployment hits 52 year low. More winning.

https://www.breitbart.com/economics/201 ... n-decades/

Walmart says best economy for our customers in decades, stock rises 10% in one day. More winning.

https://pilotonline.com/business/consum ... fc1a0.html

Trump negotiates better deal with Mexico. More winning.

China's economy is slowing rapidly, they are coming to Washington later in August to talk.

Turkey won't release the pastor, burning iPhones. Trump about to come down hard.

[bblhd672]

You've missed the point. High level security officials have clearance to support the ongoing intelligence projects with their experience. But hey, let's just ignore history and see how that goes.

No, I didn't miss the point. Any ex-official who the President no longer needs advice from, for example a guy who is calling for him to be tossed out of office, does not have any further need of a security clearance giving him access to classified information.
The President of the United States has the legal authority and right to revoke former advisors' security clearances.

[TomS]

I'd like to see military credentialed individuals being able to at least keep their handguns in their cars on base/post rather than leave them at home. I know this was discussed at the federal level but i think it is fading away into obscurity.

[dale blanker]

You've missed the point. High level security officials have clearance to support the ongoing intelligence projects with their experience. But hey, let's just ignore history and see how that goes.

No, I didn't miss the point. Any ex-official who the President no longer needs advice from, for example a guy who is calling for him to be tossed out of office, does not have any further need of a security clearance giving him access to classified information.
The President of the United States has the legal authority and right to revoke former advisors' security clearances.

It appears that your previous comment, for which I was quoted above, has disappeared:

There’s this concept in classified materials and information security called “need to know.” None of those ex-government employees/appointees/etc have a continuing “need to know” classified information. Thus, there should be no outrage over their security clearances being revoked, especially if there is any indication they are using that access without need to know.

And so you still don't get it anyway... To repeat: The point for allowing high level officials to retain their clearances is to utilize their experience in ongoing intelligence issues. Some don't think experience counts but I'll accept Hayden's word that it does.