Post New

What will Trump do?

Win the Presidency, and have DOJ that repeatedly targets the nominee of the other party?

What will Trump do?

Win the Presidency, and have DOJ that repeatedly targets the nominee of the other party?

The democrats need to pay a price for the abuses they've laid on the public:

*Lying with the intent of interfering with governance (RUSSIARUSSIARUSSIA)
*Lying with the intent of altering elections (Hunter's laptop)
*Selective prosecution of political enemies (not just Trump, but sentencing grandmas for praying on sidewalks while letting Antifa rioters walk)
*Treating parents at school board meetings like terrorists
*Incompetence at basic functions (the Secret Service)

There are those on this board who like to pretend this stuff away but it happens, and it only happens to one side.

I don't want to Unleash the Kraken and become what the democrats are but the situation demands scalps. Lots of them.

I don't want to Unleash the Kraken and become what the democrats are but the situation demands scalps. Lots of them.

How?

None of the stuff you mention is criminal. I don't think any of it is illegal. Very little of it would even support being fired under applicable civil service rules (obviously not the claim of incompetence levied at Secret Service).

What do you imagine can happen to all of these people whose scalps you desire?

How?

None of the stuff you mention is criminal. I don't think any of it is illegal.

It may not be illegal. It sure as hell isn't right, and it sure and hell violates the spirit of their employment.

Let's take the 51 "intelligence" officials who abused their positions and openly lied via implication about Hunter Biden's laptop. These people should be, if still employed by the government

a) Fired with cause
b) Have their security clearances permanently revoked
c) Be declared security risks and thus barred from working in the space in the future

For those outside of the government service, b) and c) still apply.

Send.
A.
Message.

Let's take the 51 "intelligence" officials who abused their positions and openly lied via implication about Hunter Biden's laptop. These people should be, if still employed by the government.

Take that example. What actions do you think they took that could support a firing for cause under the Civil Service Act? My understanding is that you're referring to the then-former CIA folks who wrote an open letter claiming that the release of the emails "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." Leave aside the non-trivial question of whether or not the specific claims made in the letter were even false (some things can and will have "all the classic earmarks" of an information operation and not end up being an information operation) - if those folks are currently in government employment, how would authoring that letter violate the terms of their employment?

What actions do you think they took that could support a firing for cause under the Civil Service Act?

Don't know, and don't care. I could "reorganize" their departments and eliminate their jobs.
What they did directly interfered with an election (a partisan act and implicit violation of the Hatch Act) and abused the trust the public puts in people in these positions.

It's very simple. If you can't trust them to report honestly on what they know, you can't trust them, period. That means they're liabilities in the intel world.

They have no right to their security clearances and no right to draw lucrative consulting contracts either. They can flip burgers in retirement or greet people at Wal-Mart instead.

Don't know, and don't care. I could "reorganize" their departments and eliminate their jobs.

Could you? If one of those folks is now working at State, and you "reorganize" their department and eliminate just their job, you probably wouldn't be able to make that stick. Not only would it be a violation of the Civil Service laws, but it's probably a First Amendment violation as well. Government workers are allowed to speak their minds on things outside of the workplace without being penalized for it.

What they did directly interfered with an election (a partisan act and implicit violation of the Hatch Act) and abused the trust the public puts in people in these positions.

Did it? They didn't "interfere" with an election in the sense of trying to impede or stop the conduct of the balloting or the tabulation of votes. They sought to change public perception on a matter of public concern, to be sure - which could have an impact on the outcome of an election. But not interfering with an election.

Nor is it in any way a violation of the Hatch Act. That Act prohibits federal workers from engaging in specific defined campaign activities. It in no way prevents them from making public statements on matters of public concern. Public workers can't work a phone bank or appear at a campaign event - but they can write an op-ed talking various issues and advocating certain viewpoints on those issues, even if the impact of people being persuaded by those views might end up affecting their voting decisions. Officials do it all the time - they're constantly making the rounds on the Sunday shows and giving speeches about matters within their expertise.

It's very simple. If you can't trust them to report honestly on what they know, you can't trust them, period. That means they're liabilities in the intel world.

Why? How do you know they didn't genuinely believe what they wrote? Even if you believe that, could you prove it? And if they turned out to be wrong, does that mean you pull their security clearances? Is being wrong about an issue like that grounds for having your security clearance revoked? Or having a counterparty break an otherwise legally binding contract?

Look, it's one thing to call for retribution - but generally it's really, really hard for the government to impose sanctions against anyone without following due process and having a legal basis for doing it.

Could you?

Sure I could. There's no federal law that says Subdivision X of Bureaucratic Organization Y has to be the same way every year.

and you "reorganize" their department and eliminate just their job, you probably wouldn't be able to make that stick.

Sure I could. There are plenty of innovative and creative ways to make that work. The best part is, knowledge of intelligence info is a perishable skill and every day these people are cut off from the flow of data they become less valuable in their fields.

So fire them, reorganize them, whatever. However you want to call it, they're gone. Let them sue all they want; they're still gone and not seeing any more juicy classified information.

And if by some miracle they get their jobs back, they still won't have access to a security clearance. They're more than welcome to take temperature readings of Alaskan tundra if they want. But they're finished as "intelligence professionals".

Did it? yes.

Why? How do you know they didn't genuinely believe what they wrote? Even if you believe that, could you prove it?

I don't need to prove anything. There's no hiding behind lawyers while sitting there in a deposition with a shit-eating grin on all their faces. They know what they did, they know why they did it.

So when I would sign the order terminating their jobs and eliminating their means to profit off of intelligence information...I'd also do it with a shit-eating grin on my face.

Nor is it in any way a violation of the Hatch Act. That Act prohibits federal workers from engaging in specific defined campaign activities. It in no way prevents them from making public statements on matters of public concern. Public workers can't work a phone bank or appear at a campaign event - but they can write an op-ed talking various issues and advocating certain viewpoints on those issues, even if the impact of people being persuaded by those views might end up affecting their voting decisions.

On this point: these clowns knew exactly what they were doing and they made sure to cover all their legal bases.

That's great; but I don't care and I hope any Trump administration won't either.

Fire their behinds and take steps to make sure they never work in the field ever again. Oh, and detail some of those 87,000 IRS agents to make sure they're not still profiting off of government information. We might have to send some dudes over to their houses and have them swept for hard drives, USB sticks and documents.

Can't be too sure, can we? Safety first!

Sure I could. There's no federal law that says Subdivision X of Bureaucratic Organization Y has to be the same way every year.

True, but you also can get your actions invalidated by a court if they determine it's a pretext enabling you to fire someone who is protected from being fired under the Civil Service Act and/or the First Amendment. Doing a reorg that accomplishes nothing except getting a single person fired in retribution is almost certainly going to get shot down.

And if by some miracle they get their jobs back, they still won't have access to a security clearance. They're more than welcome to take temperature readings of Alaskan tundra if they want. But they're finished as "intelligence professionals".

Why not? How are you going to deny them their security clearances if they meet the requirements for a security clearance? Again, you're not allowed to act arbitrary or capriciously - or retaliate against them for their exercise of speech in a non-work related context.

So when I would sign the order terminating their jobs and eliminating their means to profit off of intelligence information...I'd also do it with a shit-eating grin on my face.

Again, you can't fire them without providing cause for firing them. You can't revoke their security clearance without providing cause for doing that. And that cause can't be that they exercised their right to free speech outside of work. If you try, they'll get a preliminary injunction stopping it from going into effect, and a permanent injunction (and possibly damages) based on a denial of their Free Speech rights.

It's hard to get reprisals and retribution against government employees who haven't violated any of their legal or workplace obligations. They're fairly well protected by, you know, due process of law. While in the private sector the CEO can fire someone just because they look at them funny, the federal government has a lot of rules that keep that from happening - and it's not easy to get around them. So I don't think you're going to have quite the shit-eating grin you imagine...

True, but you also can get your actions invalidated by a court if they determine it's a pretext enabling you to fire someone who is protected from being fired under the Civil Service Act and/or the First Amendment. Doing a reorg that accomplishes nothing except getting a single person fired in retribution is almost certainly going to get shot down.

After a lot of months, a lot of court hearings, and a lot of cash outlays to pay a lot of lawyers. Time is on my side, as they say.

Plus, while a federal judge might order me to re-employ them, it doesn't mean they get to go back to doing what they were doing. Hence the Alaskan Tundra Temperature project that they'd be assigned to. Or perhaps they could count trees in the Badlands of South Dakota. Either way, they won't be doing the thing that made them lucrative potential employees in the first place.

That's door #1. Behind door #2 could be a very restrictive NDA detailing what activities they might engage in during their post-governmental lives, reduction of their clearance levels to Secret (forget TS) along with stipulations on who they might have contact with inside the government.

Or they could keep suing. Good luck with that; the federal government has all of time.

Why not? How are you going to deny them their security clearances if they meet the requirements for a security clearance?

Security clearances are a privilege. There's no law that says some former official gets to keep having access. They get what they get and if I - the sole determiner of these things because Executive Branch clearances come from the Executive Branch - determine what level of access they can have. If they're counting trees for me in South Dakota they don't need much of one, do they?

You can't revoke their security clearance without providing cause for doing that.

The requirements for this are so stringent you can literally yank them from anyone. Forget to take off your Apple Watch as you walk into the entrance of a secure facility? Your clearance is gone. Being willing to discuss intelligence matters in the way they did using the veneer of the federal government to issue something that looks like an official position of said government? Beyond fireable.

It's hard to get reprisals and retribution against government employees who haven't violated any of their legal or workplace obligations.

No it's not. You just have to have an understanding of the tools at your disposal and a willingness to use them.

These 51 arseholes messed with the bull. Now they can bend over and take the horns. All it takes is someone willing to wave the red cape.

After a lot of months, a lot of court hearings, and a lot of cash outlays to pay a lot of lawyers. Time is on my side, as they say.

Not really. They'd have their legal defense funds from partisans who wanted to stop you, and some of them might be represented by the union.

It's hard for government to fire people. It's one of the things that conservatives often complain about. It's very hard for government to fire people wrongfully in political retribution, which is what you want to do.

Security clearances are a privilege.

So what? So are driver's licenses. That doesn't mean that the government gets to withhold that privilege arbitrarily. If someone meets the criteria for issuing a security clearance, you can't just refuse to give it to them simply because they signed a letter you didn't like.

Being willing to discuss intelligence matters in the way they did using the veneer of the federal government to issue something that looks like an official position of said government? Beyond fireable.

Did they do that? Is there any indication that they tried to make their letter look like it was issued by the federal government?

These 51 arseholes messed with the bull. Now they can bend over and take the horns. All it takes is someone willing to wave the red cape.

Your little revenge fantasy is based on a mistaken belief that there's nothing protecting government employees from "the bull," which in this case is a new Administration seeking to exact political retribution based on lawful activities outside of work.

None of the stuff you mention is criminal. I don't think any of it is illegal. Very little of it would even support being fired under applicable civil service rules - Albaby

-------------

Are you saying that we are more-or-less stuck with this sort of governance,

*Lying with the intent of interfering with governance (RUSSIARUSSIARUSSIA)
*Lying with the intent of altering elections (Hunter's laptop)
*Selective prosecution of political enemies (not just Trump, but sentencing grandmas for praying on sidewalks while letting Antifa rioters walk)
*Treating parents at school board meetings like terrorists
*Incompetence at basic functions (the Secret Service) -
nice list, kudos to Dope

There are humans involved with conceiving, planning, ordering, carrying out, and covering up every item on dope's list. Yet somehow most of these actual humans are not even identified, let alone sanctioned.

So how do you play the governing game when the administrative state is isolated, protected, and not accountable to the citizenry. Vote in a new president? Pointless, as far as the swamp goes, since a new president who, according to you, is powerless to drain even a drop of swamp.

So how do you play the governing game when the administrative state is isolated, protected, and not accountable to the citizenry. Vote in a new president? Pointless, as far as the swamp goes, since a new president who, according to you, is powerless to drain even a drop of swamp.

Hard work.

There's no magic bullet. There's no way to "play the governing game" that only involves taking less than an hour out of one day every four years to vote in a Presidential election. That's the fallacy - the belief that all it takes is one election to make significant changes to the federal government.

You would need to go out there and convince lots and lots of people that they should prioritize government reform as an important issue in electing not just the President, but Congressbeings as well. A movement. You'd have to devote a lot of energy not just to getting people to care about this issue enough to vote it, but to care about it more than other issues. That's going to be hard to do, because most voters will care about other things far more than the Civil Service and government personnel reform, but that's what you would need to do.

BTW, most government agencies are very accountable - they're just not accountable solely to the President, which is what seems to tick a lot of people off. They serve two masters (to oversimplify): the President and Congress. Few agencies could withstand pissing off both the President and Congress. But they frequently find themselves between a rock and a hard place, with Congressional leaders (especially leaders in their respective Committees) that are pushing the agencies hard to do some things, and the President trying to implement his agenda through his appointees.

They'd have their legal defense funds from partisans who wanted to stop you, and some of them might be represented by the union.

That's fine. Their knowledge still degrades by the day, and I still get what I want (which is them out of the job they want to do).

It's hard for government to fire people. It's one of the things that conservatives often complain about. It's very hard for government to fire people wrongfully in political retribution, which is what you want to do.

<Shit-eating grin>
Why, heaven forbid that I want to retaliate against a bunch of people who abused their positions to help out the democrats!
</Shit-eating grin>

So what?

So what? Their entire reason for being revolves around being able to peddle in privileged information. I take that away, they're reduced to speaking spots on MSNBC. Or for the less telegenic ones, driving a forklift for Home Depot. I'm good either way.

Did they do that?

They used weasel words "this laptop has all the earmarks of Russian Disinformation" inject fear, uncertainty and doubt into the political zeitgeist and spare Joe Biden from an embarrassing scandal that might have cost him the election.

So yes, they did. They knew damn well what they did: they put their thumb on the scale and they used their positions to do it. Retribution is not only warranted...but necessary.

Your little revenge fantasy is based on a mistaken belief that there's nothing protecting government employees from "the bull," which in this case is a new Administration seeking to exact political retribution based on lawful activities outside of work.

All this is conjecture, of course. The government has millions of ways to make the lives of the people it disfavors very difficult.

I'm showing you how it can be done.

If you think this isn't happening already...ask yourself this:

What's Tulsi Gabbard's status with the TSA?

Thanks!

There are humans involved with conceiving, planning, ordering, carrying out, and covering up every item on dope's list. Yet somehow most of these actual humans are not even identified, let alone sanctioned.

So how do you play the governing game when the administrative state is isolated, protected, and not accountable to the citizenry. Vote in a new president? Pointless, as far as the swamp goes, since a new president who, according to you, is powerless to drain even a drop of swamp.


And notice how the abuses run in the same direction. Every. Single. Time.

That's some coincidence, dontcha think? And they wonder why these "revenge fantasies" come about. Because we're sick of it.

Their entire reason for being revolves around being able to peddle in privileged information.

Can you give an example of who you're talking about? Specifically? As I recall, all of the 51 folks you're referring to were former CIA employees. How are they in the business of peddling privileged information?

So how do you play the governing game when the administrative state is isolated, protected, and not accountable to the citizenry. Vote in a new president? Pointless, as far as the swamp goes, since a new president who, according to you, is powerless to drain even a drop of swamp.


The best attempt I've seen in my lifetime was by Al Gore during the Clinton administration. His "National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR)"

Its goal was to make the federal government "work better, cost less, and get results Americans care about".[1] The initiative aimed to streamline processes, cut bureaucracy, and implement innovative solutions. NPR was active until 1998. During its five years, it catalyzed significant changes in the way the federal government operates, including the elimination of over 100 programs, the elimination of over 250,000 federal jobs, and the consolidation of over 800 agencies. NPR introduced the use of performance measurements and customer satisfaction surveys, and encouraged the use of technology. NPR is recognized as a success and had a lasting impact.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership...

I was employed by the federal government at the time and was encouraged by some of the changes I saw. The program got rid of some layers of inefficient and redundant middle management. I was skeptical that such changes would last and was disappointed to see that many of he positions that had been eliminated came creeping back in over time. Bureaucracy tends to grow top heavy.

The agency I worked for had mostly dedicated and hard working people at the lower levels, but upper management was bloated and inefficient, and often incompetent. That agency, once known for high morale and job satisfaction has fallen far down in the rankings.

I would never trust Trump to do anything but make government worse. Look at Putin's Russia if you want to see a blueprint for Trump's 'reinventing government'.

Can you give an example of who you're talking about? Specifically? As I recall, all of the 51 folks you're referring to were former CIA employees. How are they in the business of peddling privileged information?

Obviously, since I'm not privy to the information they have I can't provide an exacting example. But let's look at one Mike Morrel for example:

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/17/639670921/former-ci...

This is a guy I used to have a lot of respect for. Now he runs around acting as if his security clearance is a right:
KELLY: Well, let me ask you this. You, and almost all of the other living former CIA directors and deputy directors, issued a joint statement yesterday, in which you argued that revoking John Brennan's clearance is an attempt to stifle free speech - your words. Also, you mentioned that none of you has ever seen the approval or removal of security clearance being used as a political tool before. Is that right?

MORELL: That's absolutely correct. You know, I worked at the CIA for 33 years. For seven of those years, I was on the CIA leadership team where one of my responsibilities was to make final determinations on the revocation of security clearances. And it was always - somebody had done something wrong either legally or something of questionable behavior. But I never saw it done for political reasons. To me and to us as a group, the signees of the letter, it was unprecedented.

The premise of the NPR reporter's question is bogus and the assertion that this is an 'attempt to stifle free speech' is specious. They're not permitted to talk about what they see in classified reports. Not at all. Bogus, as I said.

What does MM do for a living? He gives interviews as a "security expert". That entails talking to his buddies, reviewing any reports and likely being brought in as a part of the odd Red Team from time to time to review things.

Take all that away and his cred as a "security expert" vanishes.

What does MM do for a living? He gives interviews as a "security expert". That entails talking to his buddies, reviewing any reports and likely being brought in as a part of the odd Red Team from time to time to review things.

Take all that away and his cred as a "security expert" vanishes.

Why? He's still a security expert. He's still got all the experience and training and knowledge. He doesn't make his living "peddling" privileged information - he's not allowed to sell classified material to other people no matter what his clearance.

It's worth noting that Trump did not end up revoking Brennan's security clearance. Almost certainly for many of the reasons discussed on this thread.

Why? He's still a security expert.

Whose knowledge isn't current, is cut off from his network, and thus has an expiring level of relevance.

He doesn't make his living "peddling" privileged information - he's not allowed to sell classified material to other people no matter what his clearance.

He, along with the other 50 arseholes, used their positions to insinuate there was Russian influence behind Hunter's Laptop.

They used the prestige of their former positions to drive home the implication that the whole thing was a nothingburger and they did it to explicitly sway an election. Why were they able to do that? Because of the implicit trust that Americans place in the people that are charged with assembling, seeing and comprehending secret information.

They abused that trust, and now they need to pay.

It's worth noting that Trump did not end up revoking Brennan's security clearance.

Which says more about Trump and the degree of ruthlessness that he should have...but doesn't.

The democrats are lucky *I'm* not President. Were I so, the next 10 generations of dems would know not to mess with the spirit and the fabric of our Constitutional Republic. Believe that.

What's Tulsi Gabbard's status with the TSA? - dope

------------

drop the mic moment

...but generally it's really, really hard for the government to impose sanctions against anyone without following due process and having a legal basis for doing it.

As it should be. That's why nobody was punished when it was declared that HRC was under investigation about a month before the 2016 election. (But, yeah, it's a liberal/Democrat conspiracy against the right-wing.)

I was employed by the federal government at the time and was encouraged by some of the changes I saw. The program got rid of some layers of inefficient and redundant middle management. I was skeptical that such changes would last and was disappointed to see that many of he positions that had been eliminated came creeping back in over time. Bureaucracy tends to grow top heavy. - ges

----------------

Well put. If only we could retain the spirit of NPR we all would be better off. And I agree the employees in the trenches levels basically doing their job honorably as best they can with no agenda, that is until an agenda is imposed from above.

We can wonder if Trump/Musk will revive some of that NPR bipartisanship or we can wonder if Kamala even perceives there is an issue.

(But, yeah, it's a liberal/Democrat conspiracy against the right-wing.)

Reading this board, one would come to the conclusion that the democrats are pure as the driven snow.

and it was always - somebody had done something wrong either legally or something of questionable behavior. But I never saw it done for political reasons. To me and to us as a group, the signees of the letter, it was unprecedented. - MORELL

-------------

He is right, it should never be done for political purposes. It should be done as a matter of SOP when you leave government or the job that required the TS clearance in the first place. These retirees have six or seven figure retirement plans and no further homage should be expected. Or if homage is required, grant in the form of golf club memberships, not access to secret information you cannot talk about, so why have it.

Reading this board, one would come to the conclusion that the democrats are pure as the driven snow.

As a registered Democrat for over 50 years, I can assure you that the Democrats are NOT as pure as the driven snow.

However, they currently have something going for them that the Republicans don’t. They believe in democracy and the rule of law.

And, quite frankly, they’re relatively sane, especially compared to the Trump led Republican Party.

Two healthy political parties that respect the rules and our institutions seems to work best when it comes to maintaining our republic. You know, actually having policies to offer to citizens.

I strongly disliked living under several Republican presidents and disagreed with many of their policies, but I never worried about the survival of our democracy until the arrival of Trump and his total disregard for rules, institutions, laws, and truth, not to mention the unease that so many Americans blindly follow this sick, dishonest, and immoral person.

let's agree.
massive retribution regardless of trump or harris.
i man MAGA is convinced this is what america is really about, so consider it Dems reaching across the aisle and easing any disappointment.

"Reading this board, one would come to the conclusion that the democrats are pure as the driven snow." - Dope

LOL....

It looks like even the most hard core cultists cannot ignore the obviousness of Trump corruptness, incompetence, and pure selfishness, so now they desperately try to change the subject and pretend everyone else is deluded.

Here is a clue Dope since you really need the help. No one, absolutely no one here thinks Democrats are as pure as the driven snow. No one thinks they are perfect. Everyone here recognizes Democrats are human beings (and not cult like God figures). Simple human beings with strengths and weaknesses, flaws, and admirable qualities, just like everyone else.

They now Democrats can be corrupt (See Sen. Menendez), they know Democrats occasionally can be cognitively weak (see President Biden). They know Democrats can be sexually weak (See President Clinton).

No one here has said anything like you are claiming they said. You are desperate because even you (one of the most deluded people here) know deep down inside that the candidate you support is corrupt, mentally weak, incompetent, selfish, and a big time loser (no one has lost more than he has).

Wake up.

“We can wonder if Trump/Musk will revive some of that NPR bipartisanship….”

Thanks for starting my day off with a chuckle, Mike!

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.