ThunderHorse
Verified Military
This issue shouldn't be divisive at all. The fact that we got here shows how wild the Democrats got.
This issue shouldn't be divisive at all. The fact that we got here shows how wild the Democrats got.
Interesting. Thank you for the clarification.Yes.
Yes.
Here's the analogy:
A house plant is the clearance you get once the the gardeners finish cultivating it (completing your investigation). These particular house plants have a 5-year lifespan with regular care (you work a job that requires it), but will survive for only maybe 1 year due to neglect alone (you lose the job requiring it, but not due to a clearance-related violation).
If you start taking care of it again within that 1 year (find a new clearance-required job), it'll stop wilting and live out the remainder of those 5 years.
If, on the other hand, you lost the job because you set the plant on fire or let the neighbor Rabbit munch on it (violated the terms of your clearance), then the plant dies and you restart the whole process when you hire in for a new job that requires it, but it'll be much harder to get the gardeners to trust you with a house plant again.
EDIT: Clarified a point or two.
Politico got $8m in total from the USG. They got a grand total of $44k from USAID. You can see all the outlays here: USAspending.govRead the room, Al!
On the Politico story you might not be tracking- Politico got $8M of USAID money for subscriptions. Trump shut off USAID. Politico missed payroll for the first time ever.
Now, I have this issue with noticing. I noticed that the democrats are super mad about the USAID slush fund going away, and all the people calling for it are saying that USAID is politically motivated. Politico has been a stalwart anti-Trump voice that was (apparently) funded by an organization (USAID) that 97% of employees who donated politically did so to benefit left-wing causes. That noticing leads me to more questions.
The USAID scandal is going to be the scandal that blows the lid off the deep state, and we are just getting started.
(FWIW, Politico blamed the payroll issue on a "technical issue").
Why were they getting any money from the USG at all?Politico got $8m in total from the USG. They got a grand total of $44k from USAID. You can see all the outlays here: USAspending.gov
The acquisition code for about 50% of the funding is for “Newspaper and Periodicals”. I’m guessing it’s probably for subscriptions or some kind of paid news service. The DoD used to do the same thing with STRATFOR, back when that existed.Why were they getting any money from the USG at all?
$4 million for subscriptions? To a site where I can read articles for free? Doesn't that seem like... a lot?The acquisition code for about 50% of the funding is for “Newspaper and Periodicals”. I’m guessing it’s probably for subscriptions or some kind of paid news service. The DoD used to do the same thing with STRATFOR, back when that existed.
I’m seeing that Politico has a boutique feed called “PoliticoPro”, which apparently is $10k per year. Compare Pro Plus & Analysis Subscription Plans | POLITICO Pro$4 million for subscriptions? To a site where I can read articles for free? Doesn't that seem like... a lot?
AFAIK,STRAFOR wasn't politically biased.
Many years ago, back when I was a young intel officer, I asked for the reasoning why there were any groups of people **at all** that were off limits to being recruited. If HUMINT is all about "placement and access," don't we want to recruit people who have... placement and access? Like, this ENTIRE LIST <whatever it was> of prohibited categories of people?Five, does anyone actually believe the intel community doesn't have journalists on retainer? General George Washington had journalists spying for him. I think next to prostitution it's the next most common source of HUMINT.
I am done. I'm grumpy this morning. I need more of Trump's Winning to make me happy...
Many years ago, back when I was a young intel officer, I asked for the reasoning why there were any groups of people **at all** that were off limits to being recruited. If HUMINT is all about "placement and access," don't we want to recruit people who have... placement and access? Like, this ENTIRE LIST <whatever it was> of prohibited categories of people?
Reasonings:
1) protect people who AREN'T sources. "I couldn't POSSIBLY be a CIA spy, I'm a ***."
2) protect against double agents. Sources who are close to the target run the risk of "going native," and that's especially true of outsiders who earn their way into communities.
3) ...I had something else when I started typing but I've lost it; if I remember what it is later, I'll post it