25 security clearances were forced through after initial denials (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    We disagree on interpretation. I read that article and interpret it as a clarion call to curb executive power.
    That's expressing a different viewpoint, not trying to "make up shirt in order to defend your position."
    Our interpretations both have their merits and shortcomings.

    I think we also disagree on the definition of 'clarion call'. Nothing in that article in any way suggested that the power of the executive should be curbed.
     
    We disagree on interpretation. I read that article and interpret it as a clarion call to curb executive power.
    That's expressing a different viewpoint, not trying to "make up shirt in order to defend your position."
    Our interpretations both have their merits and shortcomings.
    Please enlighten me. Will you post an example from the article of a clarion call to curb trump's authority? Hell, I accept an example of when the author offered their opinion.
     
    The Chief Executive has final authority over all classifications and clearances. Period.

    This doesn’t make it right. I am curious though as to how other administrations handled these things. I could google it but I’m lazybones.........
     
    This doesn’t make it right. I am curious though as to how other administrations handled these things. I could google it but I’m lazybones.........

    I did some Googling and couldn’t find any other examples noted in articles about Trump or elsewhere. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but I’d think since these articles have been running all year one of the State Run journalists would have written an op-Ed pointing it out at least.
     
    Last edited:
    Please enlighten me. Will you post an example from the article of a clarion call to curb trump's authority? Hell, I accept an example of when the author offered their opinion.
    For me, it was the omission of facts. The article failed to explain the president is the person with original classification and clearance authority and the critics who were quoted have none and have never had such authority.

    Either the writer assumed the readers would all know this or it was deliberately omitted to lend more weight to the critics' opinion.
    To me, the bottom line of the article, from the headline down to the closing, is that the president is doing things that he shouldn't be allowed to do.
    But the fact that he's well within his authority, while the critics have none, is not mentioned.

    This doesn’t make it right. I am curious though as to how other administrations handled these things. I could google it but I’m lazybones.........

    Other presidents who came into office after eight years of the opposition party being in the White House simply did wholesale house cleaning, replacing nearly everybody with loyal party members who rose up through the ranks when the president served in Congress, or when he served as governor, and onward through the election campaign.

    Richard Nixon . . . well, goes without saying that any staff who second-guessed his decisions never did it again.
    The house cleanings and loyalty tests associated with Bill Clinton's arrival became legendary.
    The Kennedy machine's reputation for not allowing the slightest dissent within its ranks was one of efficient ruthlessness.

    The current president arrived in Washington as a total outsider with no political staff from his previous political position. This makes him absolutely unique. It also made it impossible to replace everybody the way his predecessors had done. He had no loyal staff except for those who took part in his campaign. This is also why he's had a revolving door cabinet.

    In this respect, his closest equivalent would probably be Jimmy Carter.
     
    It's important to remember the purpose for vetting people for security clearances. These people scrutinize every detail of an individual's life in an effort to determine whether there may be any risks in sharing certain sensitive information with the individual. I imagine these people are experts at what they do and the criteria they use has been well thought through. But the President does have final say so. Normally, I wouldn't be too concerned but Trump doesn't have the best track record of weighing information from experts in their field against his personal interests, so there's that.

    I thought the detail in the article about the whistleblower being told to change the clearance recommendation was a little concerning though. If the President has final say so, why is there a push to change the clearance recommendation? It sort of makes sense from a President that puts a lot of weight towards appearances.
     
    For me, it was the omission of facts. The article failed to explain the president is the person with original classification and clearance authority and the critics who were quoted have none and have never had such authority.

    Either the writer assumed the readers would all know this or it was deliberately omitted to lend more weight to the critics' opinion.
    To me, the bottom line of the article, from the headline down to the closing, is that the president is doing things that he shouldn't be allowed to do.
    But the fact that he's well within his authority, while the critics have none, is not mentioned.
    The complaint did not question his authority, it was all about judgment. No one has ever disputed whether or not he has the right to grant clearances, they were rightfully concerned to whom he granted those clearances. It isn't the journalist responsibility to introduce the fact the POTUS is convening authority regarding security clearances, if the statement of fact was so important, perhaps one of the republicans that was quoted could have mentioned so.
     
    Last edited:
    And John F. Kennedy cleared classified photos of Russian missiles in Cuba for use in his presentation to the American public, over the objections of security personnel.

    And FDR, over the strong objections of everybody, cleared newsreel footage of thousands of dead Marines on the beaches of Tarawa to make the public understand the cost we were paying in WWII.

    Be careful not to let blind hatred of an individual hamstring the office he occupies.

    MOre than 50 and more than 70 years ago, but are you making those releases equivalent to what Trump has done?
     
    MOre than 50 and more than 70 years ago, but are you making those releases equivalent to what Trump has done?
    They are historical examples of Chief Executives using their authority to go against the advice of security advisors.

    Nobody within those administrations dared to go public at the time. That's the most glaring comparison to me.
     
    They are historical examples of Chief Executives using their authority to go against the advice of security advisors.

    Nobody within those administrations dared to go public at the time. That's the most glaring comparison to me.

    I think there is a distinct difference in declassifying information for release to the public against the recommendations of your advisors, versus granting clearance to individuals that security professionals recommend against.

    In your examples, whether we agree with the moves or not, a decision is made to release the information to all with full expectation that all foreign governments will likely see it as well.

    Granting clearances to individuals that are suspect opens the possibility for all sorts of classified information getting to unknown entities.

    Perhaps the reason the individuals daring to go public against the President doesn’t mean what you think it does. Perhaps the reason these individuals chose to blow the whistle is for the reasons they claim.
     
    A very simple question to all - Who do you think those individuals owes the greatest loyalty to? The president or the american people?
    If they fear for the security of the country should they speak up or not - even if it goes against the sitting president?
     
    And John F. Kennedy cleared classified photos of Russian missiles in Cuba for use in his presentation to the American public, over the objections of security personnel.

    And FDR, over the strong objections of everybody, cleared newsreel footage of thousands of dead Marines on the beaches of Tarawa to make the public understand the cost we were paying in WWII.

    Be careful not to let blind hatred of an individual hamstring the office he occupies.
    So? That was for the benefit of the American people, not the personal benefit of the president.

    Lame.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom