It's like he went out of his way to pick the worst most damaging possible choice.

The traditional U.S. intelligence partners (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) will not be able to trust the U.S. anymore if she is in charge of intelligence. They would be completly justified in cutting the U.S. out of the traditional group. That is why her confirmation is a threat to national security (among other things such as her being a Kremlin propaganda repeater). 

There are other very bad picks remaining now that Gaetz is out, of course RFK Jr. and nominated defence secretary Fox News guy.

But I think the confirmation of Gabbard would be the most consequentially dangerous one of all the bad picks.

 

Can Russia’s ‘girlfriend’ Tulsi Gabbard keep US secrets? - CSMonitor.com

Maybe its like Trumps version of DEI. He doesnt pick the best choice, just the one that will piss off lefties the most

2 minutes ago, mdr224 said:

Maybe its like Trumps version of DEI. He doesnt pick the best choice, just the one that will piss off lefties the most

Funny comment.

Protecting U.S. national security should be a completely bipartisan concern.

It's not only "lefties" who have deep concerns about Gabbard as head of intelligence.

I guess if there was a department of Crystals she might be a good fit. 

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Funny comment.

Protecting U.S. national security should be a completely bipartisan concern.

It's not only "lefties" who have deep concerns about Gabbard as head of intelligence.

I guess if there was a department of Crystals she might be a good fit. 

But Harris was a good choice to be POTUS. lol 

Isn't her agency one of those on Musk's chopping block?

Just now, stevenl said:

Isn't her agency one of those on Musk's chopping block?

I very seriously doubt that.

Also consider Musk's "agency" is really a real thing that has power to chop anything.

It's just an advisory mechanism. 

A flame post has been removed, please discuss the topic and not other posters.

ANOTHER reason why the Dems lost:

 

Biden COULD order FBI background checks on all potential cabinet member selections. Perfectly legal, not "lawfare" but protecting US security. Sleepy Joe won't, he's too busy pardoning turkeys.

 

BTW, just putting this out there - if Don Jr had been convicted of a crime, do you think daddy dearest would hesitate for a SECOND pardoning him?

Just now, HappyExpat57 said:

ANOTHER reason why the Dems lost:

 

Biden COULD order FBI background checks on all potential cabinet member selections. Perfectly legal, not "lawfare" but protecting US security. Sleepy Joe won't, he's too busy pardoning turkeys.

 

BTW, just putting this out there - if Don Jr had been convicted of a crime, do you think daddy dearest would hesitate for a SECOND pardoning him?

First I heard that Biden has that power over cabinet picks for a president elect. Can you please post a link to confirm? I do agree if really does have that power, he should use it.

Of course that doesn't mean autocrat Trump would care. Remember he wants recess appointments to avoid the advise and consent function of the senate entirely. 

I remember long ago when republicans cared a lot about national security.

Many still do. We'll need to count on them to stop Gabbard.

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I remember long ago when republicans cared a lot about national security.

Many still do. We'll need to count on them to stop Gabbard.

This is one time I agree with you.  Gabbard is a terrible pick.  By the way, word is her father, Mike, is planning on switching back to the GOP and running for governor of Hawaii. He used to be a Republican and became a Democrat.  Said he couldn't get anything done in this solid blue state.  So far he hasn't done anything to speak of.

2 hours ago, mdr224 said:

Maybe its like Trumps version of DEI. He doesnt pick the best choice, just the one that will piss off lefties the most

He definitely doesn't pick from the best because competent people would be constantly pointing out his incompetence, as happened last time. He has learned he needs people who will not challenge him, and spineless grifters are certainly his priority. 

Yes someone who served on two tours during war for their country is a super threat.

 

Wait no this is just more of the same old garbage that lost the election. But rant on.

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's like he went out of his way to pick the worst most damaging possible choice.

The traditional U.S. intelligence partners (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) will not be able to trust the U.S. anymore if she is in charge of intelligence. They would be completly justified in cutting the U.S. out of the traditional group. That is why her confirmation is a threat to national security (among other things such as her being a Kremlin propaganda repeater). 

There are other very bad picks remaining now that Gaetz is out, of course RFK Jr. and nominated defence secretary Fox News guy.

But I think the confirmation of Gabbard would be the most consequentially dangerous one of all the bad picks.

 

Can Russia’s ‘girlfriend’ Tulsi Gabbard keep US secrets? - CSMonitor.com

 

Talks about bad picks then comes up with this nonsense story.   

There have been a few posts about Tulsi's military service as an officer.

Yes, she served two tours in a war zone and deserves commendation for that, however it's her time as an elected official that is questionable.  For instance, the men who set up and paid for her meeting with Assad were part of his military apparatus and not peacemakers as claimed.  And why did she take it upon herself to meet with him.  That is the job of the State Department.  Pasty Mink did the same thing when she to went to Hanoi to meet with North Vietnamese officials during the Vietnam War.

And don't get me going on how honorable ALL U.S. military officers are.  I've had a few experiences with some that have not been very honorable.

I DO agree that some of the comments made here about her character are uncalled for.

Here's some good news.

Gabbard who I rate as the worse of the remaining picks rated most likely to not make it.

 

Gabbard is currently a Lt Col in the Army Reserve.  At a minimum she holds a current Secret or even a TS (Top Secret) SCI.  If she indeed she is a current threat to national security OPM should initiate proceedings to have her clearance suspended or even revoked immediatlely. Even in security clearance matters due process is followed and a quasi type of hearing is held before a final decision is made. These claims about Gabbard are not new so why has not any action been taken during the last 4 years?? 

8 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Gabbard is currently a Lt Col in the Army Reserve.  At a minimum she holds a current Secret or even a TS (Top Secret) SCI.  If she indeed she is a current threat to national security OPM should initiate proceedings to have her clearance suspended or even revoked immediatlely. Even in security clearance matters due process is followed and a quasi type of hearing is held before a final decision is made. These claims about Gabbard are not new so why has not any action been taken during the last 4 years?? 

Big difference with being the head of intelligence.

It's a fact that she has voiced false Russian propaganda points.

There should be zero doubt with a person in such.a position.

Some posts which have shorten a quoted message, just to suit the posted reply, against forum rules have been removed.

 

Rule 28. You will not make changes to messages quoted from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. Do not shorten any post in a way that alters the context of the original post. Do not change the formatting of the post you are quoting

Plus a flame post and replies have also been removed. Try discussing the topic, not other posters.
 

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Big difference with being the head of intelligence.

It's a fact that she has voiced false Russian propaganda points.

There should be zero doubt with a person in such.a position.

Fine then why does she still hold an active US DOD security clearance? Someone who is a threat to national security should  not even hold a commisssioin in the Army or Army Reserve.  I have held two DOD clearances in the past and I knew people who had clearances suspended and subequently revoked for being "less of a threat" than Gabbard currentlly is alleged to be.  

Actually a DNI has to be cleared at the TS level. 

3 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Fine then why does she still hold an active US DOD security clearance? Someone who is a threat to national security should  not even hold a commisssioin in the Army or Army Reserve.  I have held two DOD clearances in the past and I knew people who had clearances suspended and subequently revoked for being "less of a threat" than Gabbard currentlly is alleged to be. 

Fine. Revoke her clearances. Regardless she is completely UNQUALIFIED for.that cabinet post.

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Fine. Revoke her clearances. Regardless she is completely UNQUALIFIED for.that cabinet post.

That is my point .  There she still is and it is not Jan 20, 2025 yet.  Her being unqualified  is the opinon of many.  The confirmaition hearing for her willl come in due time. 

 

Lastly being unqualified for a cabint position and being a threat to national security are two different things.   We shall in which box or boxes Lt Col Gabbard falls into. 

Why is it hard to understand that a security clearance at her current position (member of Congress) doesn't make her any less a threat to national security in a position she is clearly unfit for?

Same with Hegseth.  Yes, he was in the military as a junior officer.  That does not make him any less unfit as Secretary of Defense.

The only qualifications Trump requires is that his people are loyal to HIM (not necessarily the Constitution) and that they look good on TV.  That's not so bad for the Department of Commerce.  For National Security and Defense, it's a monumental trainwreck waiting to happen.

11 minutes ago, JTXR said:

Why is it hard to understand that a security clearance at her current position (member of Congress) doesn't make her any less a threat to national security in a position she is clearly unfit for?

Same with Hegseth.  Yes, he was in the military as a junior officer.  That does not make him any less unfit as Secretary of Defense.

The only qualifications Trump requires is that his people are loyal to HIM (not necessarily the Constitution) and that they look good on TV.  That's not so bad for the Department of Commerce.  For National Security and Defense, it's a monumental trainwreck waiting to happen.

1) I was not onboard with Hegseth in the first place

2) I have serious reservatioin about Gabbard. But the claim made by some that she is a Russian asset (you know Hilary) has not been proven. At least not yet.  

3) Yes anyone can be compromised.  

4) Gabbard's highest level clearance probably comes from her status a Lt Col in the Army Reserve.  I do not know what type of clearance members of Congress have but Gabbard left congress so that clearance is not longer active.

5) Hegseth is not a member fo the active army or reserves so whatever clearance he held is no longer active.

34 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Big difference with being the head of intelligence.

It's a fact that she has voiced false Russian propaganda points.

There should be zero doubt with a person in such.a position.

So, all of a sudden, you're big on National Security.  Where was this concern the last 4 years when you let every Yahoo in the world into the country on the southern border?  Nobody got vetted.  People just streaming in with no repercussions.

Discredited scumbag intelligence turd John Brennan doesn't like Tulsi. That is the best recommendation I can think of!

29 minutes ago, LALes said:

So, all of a sudden, you're big on National Security.  Where was this concern the last 4 years when you let every Yahoo in the world into the country on the southern border?  Nobody got vetted.  People just streaming in with no repercussions.

 Not all of a sudden. Stop lying. 

55 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

That is my point .  There she still is and it is not Jan 20, 2025 yet.  Her being unqualified  is the opinon of many.  The confirmaition hearing for her willl come in due time. 

 

Lastly being unqualified for a cabint position and being a threat to national security are two different things.   We shall in which box or boxes Lt Col Gabbard falls into. 

She'll probably withdrawal before the hearing as is usually done when they know they don't have the votes.

 

Well, it's now a gang of convicts and sex offenders. A pity that Epstein couldn't join them. 😳

1 hour ago, sqwakvfr said:

Gabbard is currently a Lt Col in the Army Reserve.  At a minimum she holds a current Secret or even a TS (Top Secret) SCI.  If she indeed she is a current threat to national security OPM should initiate proceedings to have her clearance suspended or even revoked immediatlely. Even in security clearance matters due process is followed and a quasi type of hearing is held before a final decision is made. These claims about Gabbard are not new so why has not any action been taken during the last 4 years?? 

Classified radio traffic used to be encrypted and had to be decrypted by someone who had a crypto clearance.  New technology changed that and all radio operators had to have their security clearance upgraded from secret to top secret.  What is not well known is there are several categories of classifications above top secret.