Trump gives classified information to staff to whom the FBI will not give clearance

[BoyNextDoor]

The person with the direct revocation authority is the President, and if the President wants that person in the job, HE will judge the "fitness" of that individual for the purpose of clearance credential revocation or lack of it (irrespective of your manufactured outrage).

Period.

Let me restate (the obvious):

The point is even a basic background check revealed that they were not fit for the job nor fit to handle classified information.

So why didn't Trump revoke the temp clearance credentials?

 

[OldJourno]

Let me restate (the obvious):

The point is even a basic background check revealed that they were not fit for the job nor fit to handle classified information.

So why didn't Trump revoke the temp clearance credentials?

Perhaps the president needs you in his inner circle to help sort out these issues.

 

[Hypoxia]

Perhaps the president needs you in his inner circle to help sort out these issues.

The president is free to choose whomever he wants for his "inner circle" or staff or whatever. Even you, OJ.

The president is the supreme executive authority and can declassify whatever he wants, and he can delegate authority for classification to department and agency heads. (As Obama explicitly delegated exec authority to his cabinet. Which is why the SecState HRC server flap is absurd bullshit.)

But whatever his minions do, he is responsible. That goes with the job. When his chosen fuck-up badly, he is responsible. When he chooses shitheads who can never receive clearances because violations, he is responsible. He can blame nobody else. It's all on him. The buck stops at his desk. Suck it in, Donnie.

 

[BobBalouski]

Hate to piss in so many's dumb flakes again (I lie), but the PEOPLE don't have a vote in ratifying amendments to the Constitution - only State legislators are constitutionally empowered so. You know, just like the PEOPLE don't constitutionally elect the President either - Electors do.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

But if Hillary had won, then the electoral college would be fine, and wouldn't be for 'losers', right?

Most notably including the fact that the electors are 'unelected.' The hypocrisy here is palpable.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The electoral college rewards losers. You think that's good? Tell your boss Kim.

What the fuck is wrong with you? The electoral college does NOT "REWARD" losers. The method of electing a President established by the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, submitted and passed in accordance with the Constitutionally mandated amendment process, can infrequently, and based entirely on circumstantial voting patterns, result in a close election with an outcome that is at odds with that expressed by the overall popular vote.

So infrequently does this happen that no one typically gives a shit about "correcting" this all but meaningless anomaly until it fucks THEIR candidate, just like you would not have given a shit if it hadn't fucked yours.

Clinton lost the election for the simple reason that she lost three key normally Democratic states: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Repeat: she LOST the MAJORITY of voters in those three states. Had she won them she would have won the election.

Gee, maybe Republicans in those states successfully gerrymandered Congressional districts so that Trump had an advantage. Oh, wait...gerrymandered Congressional districts don't have a damned thing to do with electing a President in any state, much less ones dominated by registered Democrats.

Convince you that rewarding "losers" is a good idea? Nawwww. I could no more do that than you could convince me that something that has happened no more than five times in our entire history represents a system that is "broken."

 

[ChinoMoreno]

What the fuck is wrong with you? The electoral college does NOT "REWARD" losers. The method of electing a President established by the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, submitted and passed in accordance with the Constitutionally mandated amendment process, can infrequently, and based entirely on circumstantial voting patterns, result in a close election with an outcome that is at odds with that expressed by the overall popular vote.

So infrequently does this happen that no one typically gives a shit about "correcting" this all but meaningless anomaly until it fucks THEIR candidate, just like you would not have given a shit if it hadn't fucked yours.

Clinton lost the election for the simple reason that she lost three key normally Democratic states: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Repeat: she LOST the MAJORITY of voters in those three states. Had she won them she would have won the election.

Gee, maybe Republicans in those states successfully gerrymandered Congressional districts so that Trump had an advantage. Oh, wait...gerrymandered Congressional districts don't have a damned thing to do with electing a President in any state, much less ones dominated by registered Democrats.

Convince you that rewarding "losers" is a good idea? Nawwww. I could no more do that than you could convince me that something that has happened no more than five times in our entire history represents a system that is "broken."

i bet you're a lot of fun @ parties lol

 

[Colonel Hogan]

i bet you're a lot of fun @ parties lol

Depends on the party.

 

[Hypoxia]

Clinton was not "my candidate". I have never voted for a Clinton, Obama, Gore, Kerry, or their ilk. I do not argue that HRC should be President. I've said many times here that Tromp won the office but lost the nation. And he certainly acts like a loser. Does a winner need to have his vanquished opponents investigated for losing? Does a winner incessantly blame others and refuse to accept responsibility?

Millions more American voters cast ballots against Tromp than for him. He does not have popular support. We see how this is playing out.

No, I have not been convinced that rewarding losers is good for the nation.

 

[coati]

Does a winner incessantly blame others and refuse to accept responsibility?

Millions more American voters cast ballots against Tromp than for him. He does not have popular support. We see how this is playing out.

No, I have not been convinced that rewarding losers is good for the nation.

The Stable Genius and his rotating band of PR goons lied, deflected, and insulted their way into office with a minority of the popular vote. They then acted as if they had the largest mandate in modern political history, and have lied, deflected, and insulted their way through every major crisis of their own doing.

This includes the current crisis of their own doing, the retention of Rob Porter in a highly sensitive position for over a year after ignoring serious allegations that should have precluded him from that particular sensitive position. So who is responsible for this latest crisis in competency? Well, it has not quite been determined yet who will take the fall, but it certainly will not be the Stable Genius. A loser never accepts responsibility for a mistake, but will always take credit for an accomplishment.

He is setting a terrible example for the nation, as are the losers who continue to make excuses for his serious personality deficits.

 

[Aglaopheme]

My money is on Kelly.

 

[pointless]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aod3Atesmq8

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Perhaps the president needs you in his inner circle to help sort out these issues.

What this President needs is morality. He is sorely lacking in character.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Clinton was not "my candidate". I have never voted for a Clinton, Obama, Gore, Kerry, or their ilk. I do not argue that HRC should be President. I've said many times here that Tromp won the office but lost the nation. And he certainly acts like a loser. Does a winner need to have his vanquished opponents investigated for losing? Does a winner incessantly blame others and refuse to accept responsibility?

Millions more American voters cast ballots against Tromp than for him. He does not have popular support. We see how this is playing out.

No, I have not been convinced that rewarding losers is good for the nation.

Of course, if we just fix the electoral college, none of this can ever happen again. (how many more would you like?)

 

[Hypoxia]

Of course, if we just fix the electoral college, none of this can ever happen again. (how many more would you like?)

Oh, I can fantasize about whirled peas and free love. And about constitutional fixes. Ain't gonna happen. Absent some REAL fucking disaster(s), the creaky US electoral machine will stumble onwards.

But:

11 [Small] States Needed To Win The Presidency

How To Win The Presidency With 23 Percent Of The Popular Vote

With the travesty of a MAJOR loser taking the White House, change might result. Or not. Would such a 'winner' have any legitimacy? Will the governed consent to be so ruled?