270
Top Trump counterterrorism official placed on leave after ex claims she solicited funds from ‘sugar daddies’
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
270 points (98.6% liked)
politics
29509 readers
4293 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm sure she's a fucking piece of shit the world would be a better place without, but how is accepting voluntarily made gifts from someone else any kinda crime? There might be aspects to this we don't know yet, but considering the original source for all of this is the Daily Mail and the Trump Administration I think it's safe to assume this is 100% pure misogynistic bullshit and they're just destroying the career of this woman (who thought the leopards wouldn't eat her face) because she refused to fuck someone with the power to throw a tantrum about it.
Its not a crime but stuff like this effects your security clearance and your clearance effects your job
Lol id like to gesture at the admin as a whole.
Affects.
Stuff like what? Being stalked?
Can you not think of a scenario where your taking money from people can lead to compromising situations for the country?
Generally, once upon a time, people with bad financial situations did not get security clearance. Gambling debt? No clearance. Sugar baby? No clearance. It opens you up to being compromised.
Can you not think of a scenario where a Trump administration supporting executive would lie out of their asses to punish a woman who denied their advances?
The fucking president of the country might as well have his picture in the dictionary next to the entry on "bad financial situations," if you genuinely believe that's what this is about I've got a cryptocurrency to sell you
We are all painfully aware of the felon in chief.
Yes. It’s pretty obvious. People in these positions need to not be so easily compromised by something as simple as money whether that is the president or anyone else.
And yes woman are treated worse and often the fall girls for a corrupt admin. But it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be removed. They all need to be.
Fair enough, being willing to work for this administration in any capacity demonstrates a lack of either intellect or morals or both that ought to be disqualifying for any government jobs, but by the same token I'm not going to take an allegation from someone affiliated with this administration about one of their own at face value. If a trustworthy voice like a Democratic lawmaker comes forward and says "I have information showing this person is corrupt and needs to be removed" I would be prepared to believe them, but a complaint from an executive who was happy to do business with this administration is meaningless.
At the end of the day any Trump administration official being removed from their job is a good thing, but we really shouldn't be taking claims made by anyone in their orbit at face value just because they're saying things we want to hear.
They are lying, but not for that reason. This nest of vipers is just getting started.
You could READ the article. Wild idea, I know, but it does an alright job explaining why her actions raise security concerns.
Taking statements made by the Daily Mirror and an executive who did business with the Trump administration and was trying to fuck one of its members at face value is indeed a wild idea
What?? Outrageous. Hmmpf!
Elected vs appointed.
There are legal mechanisms for the removal of elected officials
Wow
Sex is often used in espionage- soliciting is one of those things that causes you to lose a security clearance (selling or buying- legal or not)
Sex work should be legal, but in this context it doesn’t matter as it’s a security risk.
In THIS context it’s also makes it evident how she got her job anyway, which is something par for the course with republicans
These sorts of transactional relationships create leverage that can be used against someone. They could also be used to obtain information socially.
On its own, do your thang girl. But when you have certain kinds of jobs, there are things you must abstain from.
Also it shows you are able to be bribed.
It’s a crime because she must have lied about the gifts on her security clearance check.
A government employee having those kinds of relationships is a huge security risk, especially at DHS.
Was that stated in the article? Or are you just making it up?
Unreported income and relationships means she lied during her security clearance investigation. Which is a crime.
It is a major security risk. Someone who sells a relationship for large sums of money is more likely to agree to sell secrets for large sums of money. Then questions need to be asked where this money is going. She allegedly claimed sugar daddies paid off her college loans. What else did they pay for. Who has financial influence over her. She sought to conceal this from her employer, which is a crime. I doubt she paid taxes on the income either.
She has a transactional personality, is comfortable deceiving DHS, is in the process of committing a crime and has opaque finances. This all points to her being a textbook target for approach by foreign intelligence or anyone who wants information.
Accepting gifts inplies a sense of obligation. When you're in a position of authority, that is leverage.
No fucking way.