Shouldn't Kevin McCarthy's security clearance be under review about now ?

[eppur_se_muova]

If he's going to go handing out sensitive security information to Russian operatives, shouldn't that zero out what clearance he has ?

[zipplewrath]

1. No

He's the speaker of the House. He needs access to classified information. Until and unless it is shown that he has committed a crime of exposing the information to foreign persons or country. At that point he should be removed from office. Until then, he gets the information to which he is entitled.

[Escurumbele]

3. Isn't giving tucker all that information a crime? I would think so...

He should be taken out of from Congress, he does not deserve to be there.

[zipplewrath]

4. No

Dumb as the day is long, but remember, the Jan 6th commission released tons of information and videos. There's a good likelihood that much of that video was already in the public domain.

[allegorical oracle]

9. That committee viewed many hours of that video, according to the chairman, but carefully screened

it before it was released to the public to ensure that it wouldn't jeopardize Capitol security (camera and hideaway locations). Don't believe the committee released anywhere near 40,000+ hours of video for public viewing.

[drray23]

2. elected officials dont have and dont need security clearance

they are briefed in. In our form of government, elected officials dont have to be given a clearance by the executive branch, it would pose a constitutional problem. The legislative branch is independent of the executive and this includes getting clearances.

[Mike Niendorff]

5. How about Tucker Carlson's?

Seems to me, someone ought to be asking that question.


MDN

[onenote]

6. Did the New York Times need a security clearance to publish the Pentagon Papers?

Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2023, 10:02 AM - Edit history (1)

No they didn’t. And Carlson doesn’t need one either.

[Mike Niendorff]

7. You're missing my point

I'm not arguing about the Ellsberg case or about the First Amendment rights of a journalistic organization to receive and publish documents from a whistleblower.

I'm talking about a sitting Speaker of the House waiving all security protocols and delivering 40,000 hours of non-vetted internal security footage to a friendly propagandist who certainly also does not have the security clearance to view this material. The material is not being published by a journalist, it is being WITHHELD from all journalists, and instead turned over -- non-vetted and non-verifiable -- to a specific Party Media source for him to use as he sees fit.

If you consider this even remotely similar to the Ellsberg case, I have a bridge to sell you.


MDN

[onenote]

8. And you're missing my point.

From a First Amendment standpoint, Carlson has no greater need for a security clearance to view those videos than the NY Times needed to view and publish the classified Pentagon Papers. And Ellsberg didn't give the Papers to every newspaper, he gave them to the Times.

Sorry, not interested in your shaky bridge.

[Mike Niendorff]

10. Again: you are misunderstanding my post.

My argument is not about Carlson, whether or not you consider him a "journalist" (I 100% do not).

My argument is about McCarthy, in his official government capacity, and the actions he has taken under color of that authority.

McCarthy is not a whistleblower. He *is* the government.

And he is funneling this information not to a journalistic organization who will deliver the full goods to the general public -- but rather to a corporate proxy, who will then withhold that information from the general public and release only partisan-processed and partisan-approved "truths" to advance their common partisan agenda.

This is "freedom of the press" in the same way that Pravda is freedom of the press.


MDN

[onenote]

12. McCarthy acted irresponsibly. But he didn't act illegally.

Have you seen any suggestion by Schumer, Jeffries, Bennie Thompson etc. that McCarthy acted ultra vires when he gave Carlson access to the videos? I haven't. And I don't believe they would be silent if they thought there was such an argument to be made.

[allegorical oracle]

11. Agree. Have worked as a journalist at two dailies. When unsolicited info comes in "over the

transom," it goes through a thorough review, often lasting weeks, with lawyers of all stripes who are experienced in security, defamation, and authentication of such information. It then is further researched through multiple levels of researchers, editors and a standard of re-verifying facts with a minimum of two independent outside sources.

Fox is widely viewed as barely a valid news outlet because it ignores the usual "level-of-care" standards of professional journalism.

[spanone]

13. kevin only answers to greene & gaetz

[purr-rat beauty]

14. He certainly can be questioned as to his motive

seeing he didn't release the information equitably amongst media outlets

quite partisan of him