WNU Editor: Former CIA and FBI official Phil Mudd is called out on why security clearances are important for those who have them when they leave government, and he melts down when he cannot answer it. As to Phil Mudd's claim that he has not profited from his security clearance .... that is BS. His entire website is a promotion on his tenure at the CIA and FBI (and is probably the only reason why he gets his contracts like on CNN) .... PhilMudd.com
This debate on security clearances .... and who has them .... has certainly opened a lot of people's eyes on how Washington works. And what I have seen in the past week on how these former officials have reacted to Brennan losing his clearance is just validation to me that these people should lose their security clearances when they leave government.
Mudd makes money. Mudd worked for Intel. He does NOT make money except for those who hire him because of his background expertise, in much the way former congressmen make money as lobby people by nature of their contacts and name...To suggest he not do anything seems what is preferred for those who leave this or that organization
ReplyDeleteAs for clearance: there is a set of circumstances in place for revoking clearances. If you believe that should be changed, that is ok but remains a suggestion not yet in place.
Phil Mudd got more and more extreme over the last 2 years as he figured out that the more outraged he acts, the higher his ratings, the more money he makes. It's a sight to see him develop and grow into a professional actor.
ReplyDeleteThe more insinuating comments he made, the more fear he saw, the higher the ratings, the more money he made. Everyone and I mean everyone - on cnn and msnbc - is making money and enriching him or herself this very same way, right now.
Those guys all cash in on the conspiracy talk -with no evidence.
It's one of the last jobs in town where you don't have to do sh*t and just run your mouth all day with opinions and innuendo. As long as guys like Fred watch, this will go on. It's free money and you get a pat on the back the more outraged you acted.
anon: your snark about me is very Trumpian
ReplyDeletepundits are on tv because they have background and exper ience. So of course you reject them
Trump floats pulling security clearance of 'unglued' ex-FBI official Phil Mudd after fiery rant
yep: vengeance is mine...do not cross me or else!
Cnn is so full of it. The anchor seriously defending the security clearance of this talking head and goes along with his narrative of making 0% of it while SCREAMING at the other guy to get out for suggesting what everyone who's honest knows. Of course you make more money with security clearance. Everything you say is amplified by it. Your ratings are much higher if you, with a very concerned tone, suggest there's something nefarious about Trump.give me a break. This guy on the left is such an outrage actor and liar I hope Trump pulls his security clearance like yesterday. America will be much much better off without him having one. Paris,who's often shouted down by these outrage clowns,stood his ground. Good for him.
ReplyDeleteI was relieved of my security clearance the very day I left for the private sector. I had only had it for three years, so not really long enough time to leverage it into any profit. Ironically, I was hired back into the same institution as a contractor a few months later. Then I had to be escorted throughout the building when I did my job, even when going to the bathroom. It certainly would have been much less of a hassle had I been able to keep my clearance at least a short time after leaving.
ReplyDeleteLapides,
ReplyDeleteRegardless of your conversation with the above Anon you have still not answered my two questions.
PS."As for clearance: there is a set of circumstances in place for revoking clearances."
Again the authority for the granting and revoking of security clearances is vested in the President by the power of the people as expressed through the Constitution. This authority has no need of consultation, investigation, or confirmation by any body whether governmental or private.
It doesn't matter. Fred said Trump colluded with Russia and Fred also said Trump is a traitor. There's no need for evidence. That's why we all need to shout at people who support Trump and partisan hacks who embarrass the nation and their former security agencies are the new heroes.
DeleteThey are making money of ruining this country. He even sells freaking thirts and mugs. Give me a break. This is the revolving door and on CNN it's cool to spew innuendo and outrageous accusations without evidence and security clearance makes it so much more dramatic. Cnn and those talking heads are colluding in ripping off the nation...where is the evidence ffs?2 years of this sh#t and more and more people join in to make money off it. ..call for trump to be shot and people applaud. This is insane and if you think it's OK what cnn does without evidence after 2 years ffs you have to check yourself
sear some anon or other
ReplyDeleteThe president has the right to remove security clearances. No doubt of that. But should he remove it for political or personal reasons (pissed off at someone) that action suggests denying first amendment rights. That said: THIS EXPLAINS THE PROCESS OF GETTING AND REMOVING SECURITY CLEARANCE
Trump made in publicly clear that removing clearance in this instance was personal pique, a dislike of what was said and NOT for any legitimate security reason
By the way. .talked to a Democrat today (and I would normally count myself Democrat but I just don't recognise this party anymore)..I'm not from the US, just interested in politics. ..within a minute he told me what I'm not allowed to say to not offend him... I can't believe it. ..this stuff I've been hearing about these new democrats is true. .he told me, literally, that I'm not allowed to start a sentence with "OK here's what I like about Trump"..even though I at multiple times pointed out things I honestly don't like about him (e.g. his vulgarity and bullying)...but that wasn't enough for him. It's really insane. And he was a nice guy but completely triggered and unaware what he does in that moment. .he got -so- upset and raised his voice multiple times. It is not normal
ReplyDeleteLapides,
ReplyDeleteYou still haven't answered my questions. Whether or not the President revoked a clearance for personal pique or dislike of conversation (the foregoing being personal opinions of yourself and others) does not matter in this case.
You still haven't answered my questions.
I am not sure what questions you feel I have not answered. What I am saying is simple
ReplyDeletethere is a process for removing clearances
there are some clearances that are not removed from certain people when they leave certain jobs, ie CIA, NSA, FBI.
the president has the legal authority to remove clearance
if he removes a clearance for something said he does not approve of but what was said did not violate security, then that removal might (in a court case) be construed as denial of first amendment rights
I did not say Trump colluded. Mueller is investigating the Trump campaign and some folks suggest there might be collusion...I leave that to the investigation to decide.
I did not say Trump was a traitor. Mr Brennan said that.
A traitor, legal people tell me, can be said of one only during wartime. There is, too, failure to uphold the office of the presidency...but there too I leave such decisions to the proper authorities.
You seem ill at ease in understanding what I have and have not said, mixing things in that do not belong in the mix
You said many times on this blog written with your username that Trump colluded with Russia and is a traitor and for 2 years I've been telling you to produce any shred of evidence for your claims. That you now pretend to not have written these things is outrageous and dishonest
DeleteOK Lapides to refresh your "memory"
ReplyDeleteGive an example of Brennan's "right of free speech" being infringed upon?
"intel guys, i imagine know more about what is taking place than we do"
What gives you the authority to use the plural "we" in this case?
Those have been and remain my questions, unanswered.
As for the treason remark, I remember you quite clearly accusing Trump of treason, when pressed you referred the issue to a dictionary.
" then that removal might (in a court case) be construed as denial of first amendment rights"
There is no might.
You sir are strong on assertions and little else.
Absolutely. .I can confirm that Fred many times did that. Such a freaking liar,and I defended him several times..
DeleteIsn't Trump Awesome!! Has all the libs and swamp creatures grabbing their ass. Love it! MAGA
ReplyDelete