CNN’s Philip Mudd Blows Up Tells Trump supporter: We're done. Get out!

Nope i am discussing a topic which is that this forum is all about..

Thanks for your well thoughts though.. Your opinion will not change my day in any manner though sorry.

 

But that's not what Trump is doing, is it? It's individuals being named...

 

Really?? I can post his tweet, but since reading comprehension seems to be the issue here, I doubt it would help... And again, even if Brennan tweeted "Trump should be put to death by hanging as he is a treasonous traitor to this country", it's an opinion having to do with what we all saw live at Helsinki and nothing to do with his clearances...

Thanks for that admission (by omission)...

 

I've already quoted his tweet and linked to it.

yes and that "opinion" is why Trump can and should have removed his clearance.

 

What don't you understand about "requires current or active clearance"? But just for the sake of argument, what if we required everyone to need to re-apply to take another job? What do you think that would cost tax payers? What would that do to contractors who need to hire? And finally, what's the down side of letting people keep their clearances until they expire?

 

The day is young ... and until such time as a comprehensive EO can be composed, prioritization is logical. As we're all aware, leaking mat'l to media is a felony. But here we have paid media personalities with direct access to the mat'l ... Revocation under that circumstance is a "no brainer" and I'm just astounded by how many "no brain-ees" can't grasp that.

 

A wall of What if's is not an argument.

 

LOL, is that all you have? Those aren't what if's. The cost of obtaining a clearance, the time it takes to adjudicate, and the number of open jobs are all quantifiable. But the real question to you was the last one. What's the harm in letting Americans hold their clearances until they expire? It's not like having one gives you access to anything at all, you know that, right?

 

So when i left the Mohegan Sun i should have kept my gaming licsense and not have to ever pass a background check because of the expense to tax payers?

 

Until it expires (security clearances do expire - Where TF did you get no background check ever??? )? I'd say of course. Why not?

 

Even if his opinion has nothing to do with his clearance? Trump is suppressing his oppostion and criticism?? Super, that's one of the tenets of fascism, BTW.... No backing down now, huh?.... It's all out in the open..... finally...

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

 

Part of your argument is expense and previous experience.. Why should i have to go through all that hassle and tax payer expense of another Casino wanted my Experience?

What i am doing is using Legals and yours line of thought against you and yes its downright amusing.

 

Brennan is still free to be as critical of Trump as he wants.

 

IS that what you think you're doing? LOL, cute.

Let me slow down for you to catch up:
1. There's no down side to allowing Americans to keep their clearance current until it expires. This is, in fact, how it works now.
2. Requiring Americans to redo the investigation process with a current clearance would cost tax payers 10's of millions of dollars for no benefit at all (see 1)
3. Requiring Americans to redo the investigation process with a current clearance would further jam up a process that already takes a year or more to complete for no benefit at all (see 1)

 

Its what i am doing... See my avatar...

 

Apparently not, since he now knows there are consequences...

 

Awe, look at you!

 

Yes look at me yet again shredding anything resembling logic on your side.

 

Ok last chance to play before you go on time out.

Here's the argument (again) itemized so that even you might be able to follow. But please, go ahead and continue to embarrass yourself by making one more troll post. Everyone here can see you are devoid of all reasoning ability.
1. There's no down side to allowing Americans to keep their clearance current until it expires. This is, in fact, how it works now.
2. Requiring Americans to redo the investigation process with a current clearance would cost tax payers 10's of millions of dollars for no benefit at all (see 1)
3. Requiring Americans to redo the investigation process with a current clearance would further jam up a process that already takes a year or more to complete for no benefit at all (see 1)

 

What the hell is a left wing black.

 

oops

 

There is no "downside" to removing the access to someone who is unhinged.

2) so then i should not have to go through a background check to get my gaming license of i chose to.. Your logic not mine

3)Brennan has nothing to do with the investigation at this point he has had ample time to speak to the Senate or Mueller.

 

There are two different issues: 1) Should former govt intelligence officers keep clearances so they can give advice to current people? It's beyond stupid (and into partisan blather) to suggest Mattis shouldn't be able to get on a phone to talk to Robert Gates or Leon Panetta (maybe not Rumsfeld LOL). And trying to make some point that former intelligence officers are somehow doing something unethical by working and making money is just one avenue of the partisanship (assuming the former officials aren't disclosing secrets). and that's what the Trump surrogate was doing on television.


2) But then, is there some point when public criticism of some other official just makes the former official too toxic to even offer advice?

I mean sure Trump is just trying to silence critics and impugn the intelligence services in general for his own petty needs. But Brennan can keep criticizing, and really who'd want Pompeo or Mattis to even look to the guy for impartial advice?

 

I don't benefit from having security clearance....

OMG don't take away my security clearance!!!!

(Get out!)

 

Of course Trump is impacting free speech. If not, why not?