The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[Fargo]

I can't get him, either

LOL, you guys are killing me! Thanks for the kind words.

 

[BugI02]

It was T-lex's standard, not mine, so I can't speak with any authority on it. That said, my recollection is that you would not fit in his classification even before the above post.

I don't demand that anyone denounce him, like I said earlier I am torn on the whole thing. All I ask is that we use the same measure on those we like as those we dislike.

Agreed. I sometimes get the threads within the thread tangled

I believe the limit allowed for this mistake is three times. What's my current count?

I guess, on morality, I'm trying to say I mainly try to correct predominantly my brothers in Christ, the members of my congregation. I feel that we have the kind of relationship that allows for that which would in other circumstances would be a breach of etiquette or a presumption

And I lack practice at it because I seldom hold the high ground on righteousness and feel in a position to correct others or serve as an example

 

[Fargo]

**** tradition. I intimated that it forced clearance holders to keep their mouths shut about things they know and things that are going on that might be classified. Opinions on dumb categories like collusion are of little interest to real truth seekers like me.

Lack of a current clearance is not an impediment to Espionage Act prosecution is it? I don't think the obligations imposed by a clearance are impacted by its termination.

 

[jamil]

It’s not clear that Republicans will retain either chamber. Early signs show Republicans may be in trouble. In Minnesota primaries Dems were 2:1 showing up over Republicans. So democrats are showing some motivation. Trump almost won Minnesota in 2016. The problem with low turnout in primaries is that it tends to be the more extreme voters. Pawlenty got his ass kicked by the Trumper. The Trumper isn’t likely to do as well up against a more motivated democratic base in November. That seat probably wasn’t going to go Republican anyway. But it’s another example of Republican weakness at the polls.

 

[BugI02]

LOL, you guys are killing me! Thanks for the kind words.

If you would become less rep-worthy, we could rep you

Catch 22

 

[jamil]

Lack of a current clearance is not an impediment to Espionage Act prosecution is it? I don't think the obligations imposed by a clearance are impacted by its termination.

That’s what I thought. Just because you lose your clearance doesn’t mean you’re now free to blab everything you know.

But I’m right there with alpo on “**** tradition”!

 

[Alpo]

Lack of a current clearance is not an impediment to Espionage Act prosecution is it? I don't think the obligations imposed by a clearance are impacted by its termination.

I realize there is a bit of nuance here, but bear with me. It isn't a question of talking about what is actually known AND classified. It is speaking about a subject that might be classified that the speaker may not know anything about or only know what happened historically during their tenure.

For example, I know a lot about certain types of XXXX and their locations which normally don't show on Google Earth maps. That may still be classified. It might not be. I assume that it is, so I don't talk about them with anyone.

If an XXX or certain frequency band happened to come up on a board such as this or in some other fora, I wouldn't normally respond. I know others who wouldn't feel so morally constrained even though they might have held clearances way back when.

 

[nonobaddog]

Maybe it is like going to the Republican primaries in Chicago. (Do they even have them?)

 

[BugI02]

It’s not clear that Republicans will retain either chamber. Early signs show Republicans may be in trouble. In Minnesota primaries Dems were 2:1 showing up over Republicans. So democrats are showing some motivation. Trump almost won Minnesota in 2016. The problem with low turnout in primaries is that it tends to be the more extreme voters. Pawlenty got his ass kicked by the Trumper. The Trumper isn’t likely to do as well up against a more motivated democratic base in November. That seat probably wasn’t going to go Republican anyway. But it’s another example of Republican weakness at the polls.

I believed in Trump and that he could win the primary and be elected, despite virtually everyone telling me I was wrong

I think I'll try for 2 for 2

 

[Fargo]

I realize there is a bit of nuance here, but bear with me. It isn't a question of talking about what is actually known AND classified. It is speaking about a subject that might be classified that the speaker may not know anything about or only know what happened historically during their tenure.

For example, I know a lot about certain types of XXXX and their locations which normally don't show on Google Earth maps. That may still be classified. It might not be. I assume that it is, so I don't talk about them with anyone.

If an XXX or certain frequency band happened to come up on a board such as this or in some other fora, I wouldn't normally respond. I know others who wouldn't be so constrained even though they might have held clearances way back when.

I'm not certain I follow. Do you still hold a clearance?

 

[Alpo]

No. Not since the 90's.

 

[Trigger Time]

I realize there is a bit of nuance here, but bear with me. It isn't a question of talking about what is actually known AND classified. It is speaking about a subject that might be classified that the speaker may not know anything about or only know what happened historically during their tenure.

For example, I know a lot about certain types of XXXX and their locations which normally don't show on Google Earth maps. That may still be classified. It might not be. I assume that it is, so I don't talk about them with anyone.

If an XXX or certain frequency band happened to come up on a board such as this or in some other fora, I wouldn't normally respond. I know others who wouldn't feel so morally constrained even though they might have held clearances way back when.

I get it. I dont know how some people get away with some things they release or talk about and thereby confirm

 

[Fargo]

No. Not since the 90's.

I am truly not trying to be smartass here, I'm just not following. What, other than principle, makes you behave differently than the others you reference?

Are you saying that those who hold clearances are less likely to run their yaps for fear of losing said clearance?

 

[Trigger Time]

I am truly not trying to be smartass here, I'm just not following. What, other than principle, makes you behave differently than the others you reference?

Are you saying that those who hold clearances are less likely to run their yaps for fear of losing said clearance?

They can face higher consequences. However classified remains classified even if you no longer hold a clearance for new information.
Once a clearance is rescinded you still cannot speak about classified material that hasbt been declassified. We do a TERRIBLE job of prosecuting people for this though.
Like alpo mentioned, for many there is also a moral obligation that is taken seriously

 

[jamil]

I believed in Trump and that he could win the primary and be elected, despite virtually everyone telling me I was wrong

I think I'll try for 2 for 2

So you’ll ride blind lady luck for another lap. If it weren’t for Comey and the crazy face dude, Hillary not campaigning in states she thought she had, and a frew other unforced errors by democrats, Trump wouldn’t have won. So far, Republicans haven’t performed well. How well they perform in November is yet to be seen.

 

[Alpo]

Let's assume you have a clearance and are privy to top secret information during your employment with or by the govt.

Let's assume you've retired now. Let's also assume you no longer possess a top secret clearance.

Are you still obligated to maintain the secret?

The answer is: most certainly, unless the secret is declassified, and even then, there may be items expunged from the declassification document that are still not declassified.

 

[Trigger Time]

Let's assume you have a clearance and are privy to top secret information during your employment with or by the govt.

Let's assume you've retired now. Let's also assume you no longer possess a top secret clearance.

Are you still obligated to maintain the secret?

The answer is: most certainly, unless the secret is declassified, and even then, there may be items expunged from the declassification document that are still not declassified.

Bingo

 

[Alpo]

Now, let's assume a second generation whizbang comes along that obsoletes gen 1. You never worked on gen 2, but you know all there is to know about gen 1 and held a top secret clearance regarding gen 1.

Can you talk about gen 2? Can you offer opinions about gen 2?

I say: nope.

 

[Fargo]

Now, let's assume a second generation whizbang comes along that obsoletes gen 1. You never worked on gen 2, but you know all there is to know about gen 1 and held a top secret clearance regarding gen 1.

Can you talk about gen 2?

I say: nope.

Could you talk about stuff already in the public domain as regards gen 2?

 

[Alpo]

Could you talk about stuff already in the public domain as regards gen 2?

It would be dubious. It is a fine line to walk since gen 1 may or may not be fully in the public domain.

Can I talk about what went on at Los Alamos even though there have been movies about it and information on nuclear physics is in the public domain? I don't think that is possible.

So, to circle back to the point about withdrawing clearances from people no longer in the employ of the govt....it should have relatively little meaning. Brennan really can't talk about much beyond what he had for lunch without violating his oath.