|
Rigel posted:No. He never did have a security clearance, and he still does not. Presidents do not need a security clearance, and in the past, newly-elected presidents granted clearance to their predecessor as a courtesy..... until now when Biden did not give a security clearance to Trump. (Its unclear if Trump gave Obama a security clearance or if Obama had to wait for Biden). Tbh I don't think I want Obama to have a security clearance either. Nor any former presidents really.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Tbh I don't think I want Obama to have a security clearance either. Nor any former presidents really. Former presidents are often looked to as advisors by current presidents, so a degree of clearance is practically required in those cases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:We know that his lawyer needs a lawyer pronto popehat had some advice for this situation https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1558490588307107845
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
Again it seems the whole system is predicted on the assumption that anyone who makes it to be president is a rational, well meaning person. The system is wide open to abuse by anyone who ignores the 'gentlemen's agreement'
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Again it seems the whole system is predicted on the assumption that anyone who makes it to be president is a rational, well meaning person. The system is wide open to abuse by anyone who ignores the 'gentlemen's agreement' Something about the initial intent of electors judgement goes here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 20:27
|
|
|
mdemone posted:No the DOJ saw something bad. I don't understand what this means? Like I know we don't know details but can you give an example of what it MIGHT be? I'm confused
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I don't understand what this means? Like I know we don't know details but can you give an example of what it MIGHT be? I'm confused They presumably knew roughly where the top secret documents were. The implication is that the DOJ saw someone go into a room who DEFINITELY should not have ever gone into that room. edit: just in case its not clear, once the DOJ finally did find out that Trump still had secret documents, along with asking him to return those documents they also wanted security video recordings, which they got. There are some suggestions that they saw something in the video that alarmed them. Rigel fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Aug 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I don't understand what this means? Like I know we don't know details but can you give an example of what it MIGHT be? I'm confused According to the NYT, quote:The Justice Department also subpoenaed surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago, including views from outside the storage room. According to a person briefed on the matter, the footage prompted concern among investigators about the handling of the material. It is not clear what time period that footage was from. So the DoJ saw something they didn't like on the tapes, which lit a fire under them to get the stuff out ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
I think the bad thing the DOJ saw on the security could be something as simple as a cleaning person going in and out of the room where the documents are located. Like that seems somewhat benign but it could be a huge deal. How hard would it be for a foreign Intel agency to get an spy (acting as a cleaning person or something like that) in that room? It would probably be trivially easy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Trump has such absolute toddler brain that it would not surprise me in the least that he took the documents just because he wanted them and then something happened since then. Or more likely someone in his inner circle took advantage of his declining mental state to make some money. Fuschia tude posted:Why is he being investigated for Espionage Act crimes, then, rather than mere Records Act mishandling of classified information? Especially now that we're hearing stuff about hem seeing something on the tape. The espionage investigation could be against that Chinese woman or someone like that who got too close. Again, I do hope we finally get him on something, but just trying to temper my expectations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
Y'all don't think the deleted secret service texts gave doj leverage to use trumps own assigned agents to keep an eye out for natl security threats, document them, and pass them higher up the chain, do ya? Like, that's entirely implausible?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Ring_Sheryl/status/1557923240877690883 Are we that broken?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
Red posted:https://twitter.com/Ring_Sheryl/status/1557923240877690883 If he goes after Trump, and 2024 is a lock for the GOP because free elections essentially end after 2022, it would be better to maintain the precedent to avoid reprisals maybe
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
Red posted:https://twitter.com/Ring_Sheryl/status/1557923240877690883 This is completely apropos nothing, it's just a "Dems bad  "It's totally irrelevant to anything currently happening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
slurm posted:to avoid reprisals maybe Hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha haha No
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha haha Biden is probably decorum poisoned enough to think that he can serve out his term under a GOP house and Senate and peacefully transfer power to a fairly elected Republican
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Again it seems the whole system is predicted on the assumption that anyone who makes it to be president is a rational, well meaning person. The system is wide open to abuse by anyone who ignores the 'gentlemen's agreement' Its not like Obama, Bush, or Carter can tomorrow call the CIA/NSA/FBI and say give me document X. Biden would (presumably) say hey I guys I am having an issue with Russia, what do you think of (classified material).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
slurm posted:Biden is probably decorum poisoned enough to think that he can serve out his term under a GOP house and Senate and peacefully transfer power to a fairly elected Republican That I can believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:
Because he's the real elected president and everyone knows it but all the fraud stole it from him so gently caress you I get to keep this and hug my flag.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Tbh I don't think I want Obama to have a security clearance either. Nor any former presidents really. Could you elaborate on why? Obviously I can think of individual former presidents who shouldn't have security clearance, but it's basically just a very thorough background check. Unless something actually changes with the (now former) president, it doesn't do much good to specifically remove their clearance and there's the off-hand chance it'd be useful to talk to them about something later, e.g. "hey when you were meeting with the Prime Minister of Djibouti..." What does a blanket removal of security clearance upon leaving office really accomplish?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Could you elaborate on why? The big ol' list of war crimes, I imagine. Same reason why former presidents probably shouldn't be in any kind of advisory position either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Why is he being investigated for Espionage Act crimes, then, rather than mere Records Act mishandling of classified information? The reason they won't say Republicans are lying is because the media is right-wing like all corporate interests. Has nothing to do with accuracy. The corporate media had no problem inaccurately reporting that Saddam was building nukes, or getting a "body language expert" on to 'prove' Bernie was lying when he denied saying a woman can't be president, or just outright making up nonsense like reporting President Bernie would order mass executions in Central Park. E: lol how many times did they report "this is the moment Trump became president", was that ever accurate. They want him to be respectable so bad. Yinlock posted:
Current presidents either for that matter. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Aug 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:The big ol' list of war crimes, I imagine. Same reason why former presidents probably shouldn't be in any kind of advisory position either. ?????????????????????????? Can you draw this out for me? Cause you just listed a bad thing and then vaguely connected it. I don't see how this follows at all. How on earth would security clearance, or even the advice of the former president, create war crimes that the current administration wasn't already doing? Of course the war crimes are bad and we shouldn't do those, but this is like trying to blame what kind of hat another person besides the murderer is wearing. What situation are you imagining that almost results in a war crime but at the last minute is stopped because Carter would need a background check before he reads a document.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
He's saying we shouldn't be asking former presidents for advice because they are war criminals and will probably recommend doing more war crimes at some point. I think it's just a joke because it's not like the current president, also a war criminal, wouldn't be able to think of doing the war crimes himself or already have other war criminal advisers suggesting he do some more war crimes anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Could you elaborate on why? Counterpoint: Once they're out of office, why would they need a security clearance?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Counterpoint: Once they're out of office, why would they need a security clearance? well, it is because of: Kestral posted:Former presidents are often looked to as advisors by current presidents, so a degree of clearance is practically required in those cases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
Just gonna butt in on the conversation and point out that having a level of security clearance does not, by itself, give you permission to actually do things with said clearance. Security clearance works such that having access to something requiring a level of security clearance requires you to have an equivalent or higher level of clearance. Access to a thing is not permission to utilize said thing. Or, put another way, the Janitors at ultra high clearance facilities have ultra high security clearance. If they're actually seen using the computers, and can't justify how it's part of their janitorial duties, then they're likely to be fired and are in serious danger of being found guilty of a crime. Security clearance is not a universal access card, where they can just show up to a location, loudly announce their clearance, and expect to get in. So a former president having security clearance just seems like a bypass so that current presidents can invite them to things without having to continually jump through the smallish hoops of getting the appropriate level of visitor's pass or whatever, or so they can be present at places like Camp David or the Oval Office or wherever on extremely short notice, should the current president want to pick their brain about their knowledge about whatever thing they're currently discussing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
Veryslightlymad posted:Just gonna butt in on the conversation and point out that having a level of security clearance does not, by itself, give you permission to actually do things with said clearance. Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Counterpoint: Once they're out of office, why would they need a security clearance? Because you might need to call George Bush IV and check with him why he got the CIA to install some particular guy as the despot of Alberta in the aftermath of the Canadian civil war. That discussion would inevitability require disclosing state secrets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
Alternatively, give them the title of Dowager President, they get to live in a White House bedroom and have a security clearance, but they also have to watch the First Kids while the current President is away on state business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Alternatively, give them the title of Dowager President, they get to live in a White House bedroom and have a security clearance, but they also have to watch the First Kids while the current President is away on state business. Throw in a mandatory silly hat and I'm all over it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
slurm posted:Biden is probably decorum poisoned enough to think that he can serve out his term under a GOP house and Senate and peacefully transfer power to a fairly elected Republican this sounds like an argument that Biden should do a coup if he loses in 2024, not anything to do with pardoning Trump (whom he very obviously hates, and also everyone in his political base hates)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
Re the surveillance footage, from Maggie: https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1558606423222804481?t=5lkH-VVUlzXZkEPRh4Wkjg&s=19 https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1558606619566546945?t=IUaZgsyKMOdM1TOLGedKbg&s=19 Moving boxes, eh? Are there more, then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:
Someone with an axe to grind, personal or political, using their privilege and access to information for personal gain. Financially, politically or otherwise. Just think of the poo poo people get up to in congress with regards to investments, banks and insider trading information alone and then extrapolate that outward when someone knows where nuclear weapons are and how to launch them or who is buying them. Or let's say some die hard born again True Believer type longing for Armageddon has information about the weapons we give to Israel or something. There's the whole thing where that person is no longer president and someone else was elected so...
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Alternatively, give them the title of Dowager President, they get to live in a White House bedroom and have a security clearance, but they also have to watch the First Kids while the current President is away on state business. I believe that the founders considered given former presidents automatic senate seats. Would have been interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
Mirotic posted:Re the surveillance footage, from Maggie: You know, that's another option for funniest person to have their fingerprints on the docs. Would love to see Maggie go down for her hard work at legitimizing Trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
Mirotic posted:Moving boxes, eh? Are there more, then? Hard to say, but if this was after DOJ talked to them, then Trump probably decided he wanted to show his secret stash to someone off camera.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 02:38
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Someone with an axe to grind, personal or political, using their privilege and access to information for personal gain. Financially, politically or otherwise. Just think of the poo poo people get up to in congress with regards to investments, banks and insider trading information alone and then extrapolate that outward when someone knows where nuclear weapons are and how to launch them or who is buying them. Or let's say some die hard born again True Believer type longing for Armageddon has information about the weapons we give to Israel or something. 1) sure, that’s a good reason to remove it for that person. I said that. 2) that’s not what security clearance is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Could you elaborate on why? There's a million advisers to the current President already, we don't need the ex-presidents hanging around pulling strings and "advising" in the shadows. Also Obama was a dog poo poo president and the only advice anyone should need from him is "don't be a naive dumbfuck who thinks the GOP will ever do anything in good faith." Unless they have an actual on the books job that requires it, they should gently caress off to a farm upstate and stay out of the way. This is, I'm sure, a fairly extreme position and I don't necessarily feel like I'm going to convince anyone, but I wanted to elaborate a little bit as to why I hold that belief. e: also yeah the war crimes a little bit I guess but that just goes along with being the POTUS, dating back pretty much to the inception of the country and the conquest and genocide of the native peoples living here. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Aug 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Yes but how does removing Jimmy Carter’s (or whoever’s) security clearance help any of that? You just pointed out a bunch of reasons to not have FPOTUS as an advisor, which, yeah, fair points. But none of that has to do with security clearance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2022 03:01
|
|