Whistleblower Says White House Overturned 25 Denied Security Clearances

MSG Stan Hutchison - Well... no.
The primary driver of the American Revolution was taxation on colonial goods while those colonists did not have representation in Parliament looking after their interests. Once those taxes became onerous enough to bring passions to a boil, armed insurrection broke out.
So thus far only part of that is true. We have representatives in government, but they don't represent most people's interests. The remedy for that is November 3, 2020, not revolution.
Something that is lost in the noise.

1SG (Join to see) - I agree. I was just mention those days because of the end results; no King, no locality to a person, a leader, above country.

1SG (Join to see) - As an interesting history aside I've read that colonial leadership really didn't want representation either, though they complained about it a lot. It was a useful rallying cry. They knew how that how actual representation in the UK would play out is that they would get some token representation and just be outvoted (a concern that ended up reflected in the proportionment of our senators and by extension the electoral college) but then lose that rhetorical point. We had been given too much autonomy, the concerns of the British lands were too distant and culturally we grew too far apart.

I completely agree the more normal and better process to get rid of Trump is the 2020 election. I hope the impeachment process will serve to illustrate why he should be voted out. A conviction to remove in the Senate would be a valid Constitutional process but would open too large a can of worms.

SPC Kevin Ford - As most things are, it came down to money. Taxation with representation goes over like a fart in church also, as illustrated by all the weeping and gnashing of teeth that folks making too much in high tax states don't get as much of a tax deduction - ironic, as this is in effect (if not in means) exactly what the liberal position was - wealthy folks paying more of their "fair share". Weird how people of means - which all of these people that get hit with SALT limits of $10k are - vote with their feet.

Cpl (Join to see) There is a lot of noise on right wing sites about interim clearances given that happened well below the level of Obama. What Obama did do was tighten up the process substantially.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2017/01/20/security-clearance-reform-obama-administration

What is going on with Trump is different than what has happened with prior administrations.

https://www.justsecurity.org/52120/white-house-system-security-clearances-intelligence-emergency/

BO hired van jones a felon into his inner circle and valerie jaret, an iranian american who has family ties with known terrorists, the muslim brotherhood, tell me again how he "tightened it up."

They don't, but in practice for most of us the investigators do effectively deny security clearances based on their recommendation.

For a little bit of context there is only one known instance where this happened with a top Obama administration official, Ben Rhodes (edit to add: was accused to have happened is more accurate. Known to have happened is a bit of an overreach). That doesn't make it OK there either, but points to a difference in scope.