Ex-CIA official Gets Owned by Trump Supporter on Security Clearance

After watching that, is there anyone here feeling easy about Mr. Mudd still having security clearance?
 
I think he's paid to appear on the show because of his background in intelligence and his ranking, not because he has a security clearance.
I think he was paid because he is exactly the demographic at the heart of this story:

He is a former employee of the CIA that had a security clearance. He has Since left the CIA and kept his security clearance.

He currenlty works as a security consultant while retaining his security clearance that he received from hia prior job.

He would not be given his current employment gigs if he was not able to keep his clearance even though he no longer works for the CIA.

"Does he currently make money off of his current security clearance?" is a moot point because he would not be in his current job without it.
 
Last edited:
Someone needs to tell guests like Mudd, that they aren't auditioning for an Oliver Stone flick.

It's so embarrassing watching these clowns put on their "How dare you, Sir! I'm so personally offended!" act.
 
Complains about Trump silencing the voices of those in the CIA (even though that isn't the case); shortly after, tries to silence the opposing commentator from stating an inconvenient fact about him...

Supreme hypocritical insanity. It's scary how people like this are the ones that are put in power. And if it weren't for Trump they wouldn't even be talking; they would've stayed in the shadows, and we wouldn't have gotten to see them for what they really are.
 
After watching that, is there anyone here feeling easy about Mr. Mudd still having security clearance?

I do recall arguing against a few people here now shaking their head here, about why security clearance should be revoked from everyone no longer in the position that requires it.

An entire new, modern system should be in place.

Former employee's should be placed on a different list, and those needing their "advice" should have to get permission to "consult" with them. Streamline it...a reworking of the system. Current system is highly flawed and we even saw it with Obama and all the leaks. Far too many people have access than needed and it causes issues like spoken about in the video, former government members make way too much off their past access and it helps spread corruption.
 
This should probably go in the "do you trust the MSM" thread, but I think this fits here too:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...e8-badd-7c9f29a55815_story.html?noredirect=on
"From early in its history, cable news found the panel format — featuring people from different perspectives and disciplines — to be a lively (and cost-efficient) way to deliver opinions on current events. The discussions can be enervating, enlightening or infuriating, depending on who is on which side of the food fight."

"it’s often hard to tell the reporters from the opinion slingers, especially when the panels bleed into the delivery of the news itself."

"And yet panels with multiple talking heads arguably make the situation more fraught for them by lumping them with former politicians, think-tank scholars and opinionated party hacks — a blending of news reporting and commentary that’s bound to leave some viewers confused."

"Philip Mudd and Will Hurd aren’t reporters. Yet from their perches on CNN or Fox or MSNBC, in the mix of a developing news story, they both certainly look like part of “the news media.”
 
"The Spies That Came Into the TV Studio"

https://www.politico.com/magazine/a...claper-michael-hayden-former-cia-media-216943

Cliffs: the past, former CIA (or other alphabet employees) would leave their jobs and live a quiet retirement and perhaps write their memoirs.

However, they now spend their "retirement" cashing checks as talking heads on cable news.

No matter where you sit on the Trump/Brennan squabble, its an interesting read. But, please note this essay was written months ago.
 
Everyone who has been in the military knows that having a "top secret" clearance will get you paid when you get out. Contractors that work with the government hire then all the time. When my buddy left UCLA he got job real quick. He said it was secret clearance that put him over other people.
 
I have tried to time stamp (start) the video. The good times start at 3:40.



I love how they go bat shit crazy when they get called out and exposed.

He absolutely makes a ton more money with his clearance. I know this because my company works with the U.S. Department of Energy (nuclear stuff) and the U.S. Department of Defense on large contracts. Contractors with clearance are required, or you don't make the big money and often cannot even be considered for the contract. I would say it bumps pay by about $100K annually at a minimum per individual. It's a real big ticket to the high dollar game.

Lol
 
Where’s my big paycheck at then, TS? Goddamn, I had a clearance once. Now I want that big paycheck.
 
I think all officials should lose their security clearance when they leave the office for which they needed that clearance.

Lot of them work as advisers taking away their clearances add more hoops and makes bringing them back to the fold when necessary far more political. Of course there is a massive monetary incentive too.
 
I think all officials should lose their security clearance when they leave the office for which they needed that clearance.
That's ridiculous. Are you under the impression that one retains access to information merely by having a clearance?
 
Back
Top