US & NA Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Yes, I don't get this idea. Reforming ICE, sure - pretty much any large organization can be reformed. But abolishing it is just pants on head. Unless you plan to have totally open borders, you will have illegal immigration, and you will need someone to arrest people who are here illegally. It's really straightforward! They actually serve a role that is totally required as immigration is a federal function.

You want to abolish a federal agency, my vote is the TSA - it never should have been created and does nothing that private security at airlines shouldn't be doing, and likely doing better.

**Disciple of Fate**

Time to get the dumpster fire back on the road, its so inconvenient when critics of your regi.. administration still have security clearance, if only they were more like Jared. A first time for everything:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44930955

Trump targets Obama-era critics' security clearances

President Donald Trump is considering revoking security clearances for ex-CIA Director John Brennan and other Obama-era critics of his administration.

The White House named six former intelligence, law enforcement and national security chiefs.

Press secretary Sarah Sanders said they had "politicised and in some cases monetised their public service" to make "baseless accusations" about Mr Trump.

But at least two of them no longer have security clearance.

In Monday's scheduled news conference, Mrs Sanders also cited former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence National James Clapper, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

She denied a reporter's suggestion that the president wanted to punish the former officials for free speech.

The press secretary said Mr Trump "doesn't like the fact that people are politicising agencies and departments that are specifically meant to not be political and to be monetised off security clearances".

She said security clearance "provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence".

Mr Clapper told CNN the plan was "a very, very petty thing to do".

Mrs Sanders said that "accusing the president of the United States of treasonous activity... when you have the nation's deepest, most sacred secrets at your hands" was something that made Mr Trump "very concerned".

Mr Hayden said on Twitter after the announcement that even if the president decided to take away his clearance, it would not change anything he says or writes.

A spokeswoman for Mr McCabe, who was fired days before his retirement earlier this year, said that his clearances had already been deactivated due to "FBI policy".

A friend of Mr Comey tweeted that the fired FBI chief no longer possesses a security clearance.

Mr Comey turned down an offer for a temporary clearance "lest the president accuse him of leaking", according to Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institute.

Senator Mazie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii, tweeted of the security clearances threat: "This is what totalitarianism looks like."

Earlier on Monday, Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, tweeted that he had advised Mr Trump to revoke security clearance for Mr Brennan and "others partisans"....

**Ouze**

Good to see the petty vindictiveness at every level. The truth is, this is a gift - we now have a strong precedent for future administrations to keep this current batch of clowns at least a little further levers of power and influence.

**Ustrello**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Time to get the dumpster fire back on the road, its so inconvenient when critics of your regi.. administration still have security clearance, if only they were more like Jared. A first time for everything:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44930955

Trump targets Obama-era critics' security clearances

President Donald Trump is considering revoking security clearances for ex-CIA Director John Brennan and other Obama-era critics of his administration.

The White House named six former intelligence, law enforcement and national security chiefs.

Press secretary Sarah Sanders said they had "politicised and in some cases monetised their public service" to make "baseless accusations" about Mr Trump.

But at least two of them no longer have security clearance.

In Monday's scheduled news conference, Mrs Sanders also cited former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence National James Clapper, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

She denied a reporter's suggestion that the president wanted to punish the former officials for free speech.

The press secretary said Mr Trump "doesn't like the fact that people are politicising agencies and departments that are specifically meant to not be political and to be monetised off security clearances".

She said security clearance "provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence".

Mr Clapper told CNN the plan was "a very, very petty thing to do".

Mrs Sanders said that "accusing the president of the United States of treasonous activity... when you have the nation's deepest, most sacred secrets at your hands" was something that made Mr Trump "very concerned".

Mr Hayden said on Twitter after the announcement that even if the president decided to take away his clearance, it would not change anything he says or writes.

A spokeswoman for Mr McCabe, who was fired days before his retirement earlier this year, said that his clearances had already been deactivated due to "FBI policy".

A friend of Mr Comey tweeted that the fired FBI chief no longer possesses a security clearance.

Mr Comey turned down an offer for a temporary clearance "lest the president accuse him of leaking", according to Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institute.

Senator Mazie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii, tweeted of the security clearances threat: "This is what totalitarianism looks like."

Earlier on Monday, Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, tweeted that he had advised Mr Trump to revoke security clearance for Mr Brennan and "others partisans"....

Ya know this doesn't get said enough, but Rand and Ron Paul are freaking idiots and honestly are an embarrassment to the United States

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Good to see my congresswomen is being as brilliant as ever.

**Disciple of Fate**

Ustrello wrote:
Ya know this doesn't get said enough, but Rand and Ron Paul are freaking idiots and honestly are an embarrassment to the United States

Hey now, that is no way to talk about Alex Jones' friend!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Good to see the petty vindictiveness at every level. The truth is, this is a gift - we now have a strong precedent for future administrations to keep this current batch of clowns at least a little further levers of power and influence.

Is it really a precedent you want to set though? What if you get another set of clowns in after an interim admin has replaced the current batch who immediately restrict information to anybody not in their circle? Once again the spectre of Nixon is out and about.

**Peregrine**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Yes, I don't get this idea. Reforming ICE, sure - pretty much any large organization can be reformed. But abolishing it is just pants on head. Unless you plan to have totally open borders, you will have illegal immigration, and you will need someone to arrest people who are here illegally. It's really straightforward! They actually serve a role that is totally required as immigration is a federal function.

You want to abolish a federal agency, my vote is the TSA - it never should have been created and does nothing that private security at airlines shouldn't be doing, and likely doing better.

To be fair, ICE is a relatively new thing. They could be abolished and their responsibilities could be returned to the previous organizational structure.

**Ustrello**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Ya know this doesn't get said enough, but Rand and Ron Paul are freaking idiots and honestly are an embarrassment to the United States

Hey now, that is no way to talk about Alex Jones' friend!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Good to see the petty vindictiveness at every level. The truth is, this is a gift - we now have a strong precedent for future administrations to keep this current batch of clowns at least a little further levers of power and influence.
Is it really a precedent you want to set though? What if you get another set of clowns in after an interim admin has replaced the current batch who immediately restrict information to anybody not in their circle? Once again the spectre of Nixon is out and about.

Jones may come after me next and then try to shill some baby wipes for an adult at 50 bucks a box

**Frazzled**

feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Actually, that's probably a good idea. Build an new agency to handle immigration, with new directors. Thoroughly review existing ICE staff, fire problem ones and provide better training for the rest. Then nuke ICE and start the new agency when you are ready to go.

ICE is too problematic to keep it going. It's the Pinto. Sure, Ford could have fixed it and kept the model going, but it was far easier to kill it and just make a new compact that didn't have that awful baggage.

You would have to identify thats there's a problem with ICE beyond Trump.Not saying there isn't but I can think of many many government agencies with known problems to deal with.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Ya know this doesn't get said enough, but Rand and Ron Paul are freaking idiots and honestly are an embarrassment to the United States

Hey now, that is no way to talk about Alex Jones' friend!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Good to see the petty vindictiveness at every level. The truth is, this is a gift - we now have a strong precedent for future administrations to keep this current batch of clowns at least a little further levers of power and influence.
Is it really a precedent you want to set though? What if you get another set of clowns in after an interim admin has replaced the current batch who immediately restrict information to anybody not in their circle? Once again the spectre of Nixon is out and about.

Actually once you're out of government your clearances should go automatically. I thought mine did. Maybe it didn't. Who knows?*

*The Shadow Knows!

**Prestor Jon**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Ya know this doesn't get said enough, but Rand and Ron Paul are freaking idiots and honestly are an embarrassment to the United States

Hey now, that is no way to talk about Alex Jones' friend!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Good to see the petty vindictiveness at every level. The truth is, this is a gift - we now have a strong precedent for future administrations to keep this current batch of clowns at least a little further levers of power and influence.
Is it really a precedent you want to set though? What if you get another set of clowns in after an interim admin has replaced the current batch who immediately restrict information to anybody not in their circle? Once again the spectre of Nixon is out and about.

Why do former Federal employees need to keep their security clearances? What purpose does it serve now that they aren't working for the government anymore? If I left my current job I wouldn't get to keep access to the company network, etc. Previously working for the Federal government doesn't mean you need a security clearance for the rest of your life.

**feeder**

Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Actually, that's probably a good idea. Build an new agency to handle immigration, with new directors. Thoroughly review existing ICE staff, fire problem ones and provide better training for the rest. Then nuke ICE and start the new agency when you are ready to go.

ICE is too problematic to keep it going. It's the Pinto. Sure, Ford could have fixed it and kept the model going, but it was far easier to kill it and just make a new compact that didn't have that awful baggage.

You would have to identify thats there's a problem with ICE beyond Trump.Not saying there isn't but I can think of many many government agencies with known problems to deal with.

You don't think the massive clusterfeth implementing the new policy is enough?

They should have said "This is unworkable" and possibly risked their jobs for not kowtowing to the orange moron.

Instead they went along with it and lost kids they were charged with, ya know, not losing.

**BaronIveagh**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Yes, I don't get this idea. Reforming ICE, sure - pretty much any large organization can be reformed. But abolishing it is just pants on head. Unless you plan to have totally open borders, you will have illegal immigration, and you will need someone to arrest people who are here illegally. It's really straightforward! They actually serve a role that is totally required as immigration is a federal function.

You want to abolish a federal agency, my vote is the TSA - it never should have been created and does nothing that private security at airlines shouldn't be doing, and likely doing better.

United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for protecting our nation's borders in order to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, while facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is responsible for the administration of immigration and naturalization adjudication functions and establishing immigration services policies and priorities.

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying and shutting down vulnerabilities in the nation's border, economic, transportation and infrastructure security.

To be honest, I don't see a problem with getting rid of ICE and just folding investigations into the Border patrol. They're already doing all the heavy lifting anyway, ICE just takes credit.

**Frazzled**

feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Actually, that's probably a good idea. Build an new agency to handle immigration, with new directors. Thoroughly review existing ICE staff, fire problem ones and provide better training for the rest. Then nuke ICE and start the new agency when you are ready to go.

ICE is too problematic to keep it going. It's the Pinto. Sure, Ford could have fixed it and kept the model going, but it was far easier to kill it and just make a new compact that didn't have that awful baggage.

You would have to identify thats there's a problem with ICE beyond Trump.Not saying there isn't but I can think of many many government agencies with known problems to deal with.

You don't think the massive clusterfeth implementing the new policy is enough?

They should have said "This is unworkable" and possibly risked their jobs for not kowtowing to the orange moron.

Instead they went along with it and lost kids they were charged with, ya know, not losing.

Nope. I have had to be the one to implement bad ideas on the fly. Thats clearly what occurred here. Don't blame the peons for the sins of the Don.

Again, they may be good or bad, I don't know. but thatss not why certain Democrats are screaming to get rid of them,, just like why certain Republicans screaming about the FBI aren't doing it on the basis of incompetence.

**Rosebuddy**

ChargerIIC wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.
Yeah, that sort of contrarian sillyness isnt going to help anything, though im sure it will play with the far left end of the base in primaries. The job still needs doing, ICE exists for a reason, not just to deport people.

Whatever useful thing that ICE does can be handled by a new agency and new people, without the racism.

Are you the impression that creating a new agency won't immediately be staffed by the people from the old agency?

Only if allowed to, haha.

**feeder**

Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of pants on head stupid, K. Gillibrand just stated that the first thing the Democrats should do when they retake Congress is abolish ICE.

Actually, that's probably a good idea. Build an new agency to handle immigration, with new directors. Thoroughly review existing ICE staff, fire problem ones and provide better training for the rest. Then nuke ICE and start the new agency when you are ready to go.

ICE is too problematic to keep it going. It's the Pinto. Sure, Ford could have fixed it and kept the model going, but it was far easier to kill it and just make a new compact that didn't have that awful baggage.

You would have to identify thats there's a problem with ICE beyond Trump.Not saying there isn't but I can think of many many government agencies with known problems to deal with.

You don't think the massive clusterfeth implementing the new policy is enough?

They should have said "This is unworkable" and possibly risked their jobs for not kowtowing to the orange moron.

Instead they went along with it and lost kids they were charged with, ya know, not losing.

Nope. I have had to be the one to implement bad ideas on the fly. Thats clearly what occurred here. Don't blame the peons for the sins of the Don.

I think the people in charge of the department should have pushed back and said "this can't be done". Or resigned in protest. They had to know this was going to happen.

"Just following orders" is not a valid excuse.

Again, they may be good or bad, I don't know. but thatss not why certain Democrats are screaming to get rid of them,, just like why certain Republicans screaming about the FBI aren't doing it on the basis of incompetence.

You're not wrong there. This is all just points scoring and virtue signalling to the base.

**Vaktathi**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Ya know this doesn't get said enough, but Rand and Ron Paul are freaking idiots and honestly are an embarrassment to the United States

Hey now, that is no way to talk about Alex Jones' friend!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Good to see the petty vindictiveness at every level. The truth is, this is a gift - we now have a strong precedent for future administrations to keep this current batch of clowns at least a little further levers of power and influence.
Is it really a precedent you want to set though? What if you get another set of clowns in after an interim admin has replaced the current batch who immediately restrict information to anybody not in their circle? Once again the spectre of Nixon is out and about.

Why do former Federal employees need to keep their security clearances? What purpose does it serve now that they aren't working for the government anymore? If I left my current job I wouldn't get to keep access to the company network, etc. Previously working for the Federal government doesn't mean you need a security clearance for the rest of your life.

For a lot of these people, theyre effectively "never" out and maintain clearances so they can be consulted with in the future, as they remain important repositories of knowledge with extensive valuable contacts and can be brought back for roles in future administrations. They may be in other jobs that require clearances even in the private sector (if you leave your high profile govt job to go work a Northrrop Grumman or Rand doing work for the govt, you're gonna need to maintain that clearance, and in fact having it is a mandatory part of the job) It also helps keep honest people honest after they leave.

The security clearance also isn't like an Employee ID card or Network login that gets deactivated when you leave, it's the government saying that they have done some level of vetting on you and can trust you with information. It doesnt mean youll be given access to any info you want or that the government is going to provide you with classified material, it means that they can trust you if they choose to do so.

**Disciple of Fate**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Ya know this doesn't get said enough, but Rand and Ron Paul are freaking idiots and honestly are an embarrassment to the United States

Hey now, that is no way to talk about Alex Jones' friend!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Good to see the petty vindictiveness at every level. The truth is, this is a gift - we now have a strong precedent for future administrations to keep this current batch of clowns at least a little further levers of power and influence.
Is it really a precedent you want to set though? What if you get another set of clowns in after an interim admin has replaced the current batch who immediately restrict information to anybody not in their circle? Once again the spectre of Nixon is out and about.

Why do former Federal employees need to keep their security clearances? What purpose does it serve now that they aren't working for the government anymore? If I left my current job I wouldn't get to keep access to the company network, etc. Previously working for the Federal government doesn't mean you need a security clearance for the rest of your life.

Experience, these people know the ins and outs of their former jobs, they can be very handy as advisers or a fresh opinion on matters. The Trump admin could sure use some of their experience. But besides that, this would be the first large scale purge of clearances of previous admin officials, this isn't coming out of an "oh they are ex-employees now" place.

Edit: What Vaktathi said much more eloquently.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Ya know this doesn't get said enough, but Rand and Ron Paul are freaking idiots and honestly are an embarrassment to the United States

Hey now, that is no way to talk about Alex Jones' friend!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Good to see the petty vindictiveness at every level. The truth is, this is a gift - we now have a strong precedent for future administrations to keep this current batch of clowns at least a little further levers of power and influence.
Is it really a precedent you want to set though? What if you get another set of clowns in after an interim admin has replaced the current batch who immediately restrict information to anybody not in their circle? Once again the spectre of Nixon is out and about.

Why do former Federal employees need to keep their security clearances? What purpose does it serve now that they aren't working for the government anymore? If I left my current job I wouldn't get to keep access to the company network, etc. Previously working for the Federal government doesn't mean you need a security clearance for the rest of your life.

I'm confused. I didn't know security clearance was access to a network. I thought it was a status that person achieved after a thorough vetting that allowed him to be employed by private companies, as well as public agencies, that handle sensitive information. For example, my friend was an engineer working for a defense contractor. He didn't lose his clearance when he changed jobs, and it's a good thing because he now works for a different company that requires his security clearance.

**Prestor Jon**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Ya know this doesn't get said enough, but Rand and Ron Paul are freaking idiots and honestly are an embarrassment to the United States

Hey now, that is no way to talk about Alex Jones' friend!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Good to see the petty vindictiveness at every level. The truth is, this is a gift - we now have a strong precedent for future administrations to keep this current batch of clowns at least a little further levers of power and influence.
Is it really a precedent you want to set though? What if you get another set of clowns in after an interim admin has replaced the current batch who immediately restrict information to anybody not in their circle? Once again the spectre of Nixon is out and about.

Why do former Federal employees need to keep their security clearances? What purpose does it serve now that they aren't working for the government anymore? If I left my current job I wouldn't get to keep access to the company network, etc. Previously working for the Federal government doesn't mean you need a security clearance for the rest of your life.

I'm confused. I didn't know security clearance was access to a network. I thought it was a status that person achieved after a thorough vetting that allowed him to be employed by private companies, as well as public agencies, that handle sensitive information. For example, my friend was an engineer working for a defense contractor. He didn't lose his clearance when he changed jobs, and it's a good thing because he now works for a different company that requires his security clearance.

Your friend is actively employed in a job that requires his clearance so it makes sense for him to have it. I don’t see why retired government appointees need to keep their clearance, who’s bringing them information that they can’t view without a clearance? If they have valuable experience that the current administration needs to utilize them the current administration should employ them in an official capacity even if it’s just as consultants. We don’t need an extra governmental old boys network of back room meetings to run the country. We elect people to be in charge and the people we elect confirm appointees we don’t need unaccountable retirees jumping into the decision making process. Brennan hasn’t worked for the CIA in years, he’s a pundit, he doesn’t need his security clearance to give his opinion on cable news shows and the current administration clearly has no interest in consulting with him so why does he need his clearance? Yes, in this instance Trump is being petty and spiteful but the general principle of losing your security clearance when you no longer hold a job that requires it is fine with me. If Brennan gets a new job that requires clearance he can reapply for it.

**BaronIveagh**

Prestor Jon wrote:

Your friend is actively employed in a job that requires his clearance so it makes sense for him to have it. I don’t see why retired government appointees need to keep their clearance, who’s bringing them information that they can’t view without a clearance? If they have valuable experience that the current administration needs to utilize them the current administration should employ them in an official capacity even if it’s just as consultants. We don’t need an extra governmental old boys network of back room meetings to run the country. We elect people to be in charge and the people we elect confirm appointees we don’t need unaccountable retirees jumping into the decision making process. Brennan hasn’t worked for the CIA in years, he’s a pundit, he doesn’t need his security clearance to give his opinion on cable news shows and the current administration clearly has no interest in consulting with him so why does he need his clearance? Yes, in this instance Trump is being petty and spiteful but the general principle of losing your security clearance when you no longer hold a job that requires it is fine with me. If Brennan gets a new job that requires clearance he can reapply for it.

The problem is that it keeps you out of government 'Mentor' programs. They don't have 'a job' that requires it, as the 'mentors' are not technically employed. Basically it's there to allow current position holders to draw on the advice of retired experts. It gets abused all the time, but it does exist for a reason.

**d-usa**

They could be appointed again tomorrow, be a contractor tomorrow, become a government employee tomorrow, become an academic tomorrow.

We could waste a year or two redoing their entire background checks to give them a new security clearance even though nothing changed about their background, or we can let them keep their old clearance in case there is ever a situation where they have a "need to know" some sensitive information.

The process of obtaining clearances is so convoluted, expensive, and backlogged that there is no real reason to revoke clearances just because you are not actively using them right at this moment. Especially since "need-to-know" serves as the ultimate safeguard of sensitive information.

**LordofHats**

d-usa wrote:
They could be appointed again tomorrow, be a contractor tomorrow, become a government employee tomorrow, become an academic tomorrow.

We could waste a year or two redoing their entire background checks to give them a new security clearance even though nothing changed about their background, or we can let them keep their old clearance in case there is ever a situation where they have a "need to know" some sensitive information.

The process of obtaining clearances is so convoluted, expensive, and backlogged that there is no real reason to revoke clearances just because you are not actively using them right at this moment. Especially since "need-to-know" serves as the ultimate safeguard of sensitive information.

Nevermind that there is no evident policy basis for revoking the practice.

Just Trump lashing out at people who disagree with him. I mean, the gall! He's president. No one shouldn't be kissing his ass.

**d-usa**

A few of those people actually had their clearances revoked already due to being fired, but I guess he's going to double-revoke them.

Is this like double secret probation by the Dean in all those old college fraternity movies?

**Asherian Command**

d-usa wrote:
A few of those people actually had their clearances revoked already due to being fired, but I guess he's going to double-revoke them.

Is this like double secret probation by the Dean in all those old college fraternity movies?

Yes, its just the president of the united states *sigh* throwing a temper tantrum like a child. On the world stage.

Ugh the news makes me depressed I wouldn't mind going back to a world where it didn't laugh at me for being american o.o

You would have to identify thats there's a problem with ICE beyond Trump.Not saying there isn't but I can think of many many government agencies with known problems to deal with.

Oh yeah there always has been they can easily abuse their abilities in the name of 'national security' its so dodgy as is.

Sexual harassment, abusing aslyum seekers, its a terribly thought out organization when we return to normalcy and have a president and government that can unite us hopefully we can deal with the issues in our government and fix the abuses that have been so rampant in this administration.

Though we will see what will happen with ICE within the election year.

I think the people in charge of the department should have pushed back and said "this can't be done". Or resigned in protest. They had to know this was going to happen.

"Just following orders" is not a valid excuse.

Agreed. They should've, but they didn't.

Why do former Federal employees need to keep their security clearances? What purpose does it serve now that they aren't working for the government anymore? If I left my current job I wouldn't get to keep access to the company network, etc. Previously working for the Federal government doesn't mean you need a security clearance for the rest of your life.

Presidents also keep their security clearances as well, its because the damage and the amount of knowledge they have of the inner workings of the government holds them accountable, gives them the ability to act as advisors, or seek repercussions in an official capacity. Removing that security clearance is a stupid idea, because what if you need that person's legal advice? Many presidents (except this one) seek out the advice of US legal minds to make policy or to look at crimes or whatever. Getting rid of the security clearance of tenure people like Comey, Mccabe is short-sighted and childish. They are veterans of the FBI and should be treated as such. They have nabbed more criminals and helped enact policy. (that is my educated assumption anyway)

The end of their terms does not mean they are gone for good they still are extremely valuable to any administration willing to use experience.

On a side note:
I am glad that a lot of people on here don't seem to love our president. Took a break from social media because of the toxicity of politics and man is it hard to read some of the comments

**d-usa**

It’s also interesting to watch the guy whose name is on the Hotel leases from the government and whose government advisors tell people to buy his family’s crap on live TV complain about people “monetizing public service”.

**Steelmage99**

d-usa wrote:
It’s also interesting to watch the guy whose name is on the Hotel leases from the government and whose government advisors tell people to buy his family’s crap on live TV complain about people “monetizing public service”.

Or his numerous and repeated trips to Trump owned estates and locations.....

Or his wife's lawsuit claiming that negative publicity would result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost "business opportunities" in connection with being the First Lady....

Or his son-in-law negotiating loans to his and his family's companies while on diplomatic missions for the US government.....

Or his own and his daughters companies being exempt (in part) from the infamous tariffs.....

Or.....

**Asherian Command**

Steelmage99 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
It’s also interesting to watch the guy whose name is on the Hotel leases from the government and whose government advisors tell people to buy his family’s crap on live TV complain about people “monetizing public service”.

Or his numerous and repeated trips to Trump owned estates and locations.....

Or his wife's lawsuit claiming that negative publicity would result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost "business opportunities" in connection with being the First Lady....

Or his son-in-law negotiating loans to his and his family's companies while on diplomatic missions for the US government.....

Or his own and his daughters companies being exempt (in part) from the infamous tariffs.....

Or.....

Yeah the list goes on for a few more pages.

I rather not have a president sit on the loo and complain like an angsty teenage boy on twitter in all caps at least. Oh yeah... that happened today...

If i went back in time and told everyone about what would happen in these past two years people would think I'd be crazy as all hell. Russian Tampering? Ice throwing children into literal cages? Seperating families by the thousands based on race? An extremely weak president that removed the united states as a hegemonic power? My politics professor in college must be slamming his head against a door right about now for being too correct.

Has anyone tapped their feet together and said there is no place like home yet? I have. It didn't work.

**d-usa**

Maybe the lizard people will decide to reset the simulation back to 2016 and then try something else.

**Iron_Captain**

Steelmage99 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
It’s also interesting to watch the guy whose name is on the Hotel leases from the government and whose government advisors tell people to buy his family’s crap on live TV complain about people “monetizing public service”.

Or his numerous and repeated trips to Trump owned estates and locations.....

Or his wife's lawsuit claiming that negative publicity would result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost "business opportunities" in connection with being the First Lady....

Or his son-in-law negotiating loans to his and his family's companies while on diplomatic missions for the US government.....

Or his own and his daughters companies being exempt (in part) from the infamous tariffs.....

Or.....

Well, next to all of Trump's other flaws, him using his office to unfairly benefit his business empire seems rather minor to be honest. Which says a lot about Trump.

**Steelmage99**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
It’s also interesting to watch the guy whose name is on the Hotel leases from the government and whose government advisors tell people to buy his family’s crap on live TV complain about people “monetizing public service”.

Or his numerous and repeated trips to Trump owned estates and locations.....

Or his wife's lawsuit claiming that negative publicity would result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost "business opportunities" in connection with being the First Lady....

Or his son-in-law negotiating loans to his and his family's companies while on diplomatic missions for the US government.....

Or his own and his daughters companies being exempt (in part) from the infamous tariffs.....

Or.....

Well, next to all of Trump's other flaws, him using his office to unfairly benefit his business empire seems rather minor to be honest. Which says a lot about Trump.

Yep. it is pretty amazing what has become "minor" or "normal" during the Trump presidency.