Author Topic: Trump decries lack of ‘due process’ for men accused of sexual harassment, abuse  (Read 2194 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Restored

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,659
I think it depends on the job. Everyone should have a clearance but I don't think all of Obama's people had clearance so it is apparently not a hard rule. I believe Clinton was the same way.
Countdown to Resignation

Offline Concerned

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,848
  • Gender: Male
I think it depends on the job. Everyone should have a clearance but I don't think all of Obama's people had clearance so it is apparently not a hard rule. I believe Clinton was the same way.

I was just giving you my "line".  Clearly anyone handling the President's Daily Brief (PDB) as Porter apparently was should have a security clearance.
I adore facts and data and abhor lies and liars.

Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Where is the line?

Where is the line
Temporarily
Your clearance has to be
You beat ex-wife Colbie
Where is the line

You said you didn't hit her
The picture showed a swollen eye
You pulled the other from the shower
Could you just let her dry


« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 02:15:00 pm by edpc »
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline bolobaby

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,373
I still remain confident in my opinion.  Thank you for your reply.

You forgot to bold this part...

"See how much fun it is to play with assumptions like you do?"

Which explains the parts you chose to bold. I frame my arguments all from the position of assumption... just like you are doing.
How to lose credibility while posting:
1. Trump is never wrong.
2. Default to the most puerile emoticon you can find. This is especially useful when you can't win an argument on merits.
3. Be falsely ingratiating, completely but politely dismissive without talking to the points, and bring up Hillary whenever the conversation is really about conservatism.
4. When all else fails, remember rule #1 and #2. Emoticons are like the poor man's tweet!

Offline Emjay

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,687
  • Gender: Female
  • Womp, womp
The whole debacle puts us in the precarious position of deciding what behavior outside of government office is unacceptable. The Democrats told us that Clinton abusing women was acceptable. So why is Porter's behavior unacceptable for a lesser position. If Porter had been smoking weed, having sex with porn stars, having sex with Congressional Pages who were minors (Gerry Stutts), is that a firing offense? Is the mere presence of an accusation grounds for dismissal?

Where is the line?

A couple of ex wives who claim they were treated badly may make a guy someone you don't want to associate with ... if you believe them, that is.

But a security clearance is based (I think) on something in your background that might make you ripe for being blackmailed.  Since everyone already knows everything that happened and a lot that didn't, I don't see the blackmail problem.
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain.

Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Since everyone already knows everything that happened and a lot that didn't, I don't see the blackmail problem.


Let’s just say they let them stay in the position.  You’ve got a man who has credible evidence against him that he abuses women.  Somewhere down the road, foreign agents set him up with a woman and stage an incident.  They have pictures and audio/video.  He’s compromised.  Honey traps are common in espionage.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 08:53:48 pm by edpc »
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline Concerned

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,848
  • Gender: Male
A couple of ex wives who claim they were treated badly may make a guy someone you don't want to associate with ... if you believe them, that is.

But a security clearance is based (I think) on something in your background that might make you ripe for being blackmailed.  Since everyone already knows everything that happened and a lot that didn't, I don't see the blackmail problem.

The concerns by the investigators are not just over blackmail.  There are also concerns about trustworthiness for example.  Suppose Porter didn't disclose the fact that there was a police report or a protective order against him from those allegations from the ex-wives?  The investigators would frown on those lack of disclosures and depending upon the exact circumstances, it could be considered a felony since knowingly falsifying or concealing information on your SF-86 is felony which may result in fines and/or up to five (5) years imprisonment.  I've seen plenty of folks not disclose things that resulted in them not getting a clearance.  Of course, I don't know what Porter did or did not disclose here, but a failure to disclose can be serious business with serious consequences.
I adore facts and data and abhor lies and liars.

Offline Restored

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,659
If he lied openly during the security process, I would think he would be promptly let go.
Countdown to Resignation

Offline Concerned

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,848
  • Gender: Male
If he lied openly during the security process, I would think he would be promptly let go.

I think that's true of most "normal" Administrations.  Same when the final background investigation is produced in July with concerns from the FBI identified yet Porter was reportedly allowed to continue to have access to some of the nation's most sensitive material for months.  I think this, clearly, isn't a "normal" Administration. 
I adore facts and data and abhor lies and liars.

Offline Restored

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,659
IIRC Clinton and Obama's administrations were full of security holes. Especially Clinton's.
Countdown to Resignation

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
The concerns by the investigators are not just over blackmail.  There are also concerns about trustworthiness for example.  Suppose Porter didn't disclose the fact that there was a police report or a protective order against him from those allegations from the ex-wives?  The investigators would frown on those lack of disclosures and depending upon the exact circumstances, it could be considered a felony since knowingly falsifying or concealing information on your SF-86 is felony which may result in fines and/or up to five (5) years imprisonment.  I've seen plenty of folks not disclose things that resulted in them not getting a clearance.  Of course, I don't know what Porter did or did not disclose here, but a failure to disclose can be serious business with serious consequences.

I read that he disclosed it.   Don't remember which article but it was one of the first posted here on this subject.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.