John Brennan's Security Clearance

[oldmanfan]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Again you should educate yourself. Do you have any idea why Congress would have any desire to bring this former executive office employee to testify in front of them?

Again I have looked at some of these articles about Deep State, etc, and they are all rantings of a given class of individuals who have a theory and try to manipulate facts to support their opinion.  Muller's job is to figure out what went on with Russian interference in our election: II would certainly be supportive of him looking into any and all possibilities including this deep state stuff.

Congress should have him before their committees to ask him relevant questions and to act as a check on excesses by the Executive Branch if required, and to act as a check on the CIA and other intelligence agencies if required. 

[DC Tom]

12 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The president himself said he did this because of the Russia investigation.  So don't tell me it's entirely due to anything else but the president being paranoid about an investigation into the potential involvement of his campaign.

 

 

As the head of the executive branch and Commander-in-Chief, I have a unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nation’s classified information, including by controlling access to it.  Today, in fulfilling that responsibility, I have decided to revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Historically, former heads of intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been allowed to retain access to classified information after their government service so that they can consult with their successors regarding matters about which they may have special insights and as a professional courtesy.

Neither of these justifications supports Mr. Brennan’s continued access to classified information.  First, at this point in my administration, any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with Mr. Brennan are now outweighed by the risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior.  Second, that conduct and behavior has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him.

Mr. Brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.  In 2014, for example, he denied to Congress that CIA officials, under his supervision, had improperly accessed the computer files of congressional staffers.  He told the Council of Foreign Relations that the CIA would never do such a thing.  The CIA’s Inspector General, however, contradicted Mr. Brennan directly, concluding unequivocally that agency officials had indeed improperly accessed congressional staffers’ files.  More recently, Mr. Brennan told Congress that the intelligence community did not make use of the so-called Steele dossier in an assessment regarding the 2016 election, an assertion contradicted by at least two other senior officials in the intelligence community and all of the facts.

Additionally, Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations — wild outbursts on the Internet and television — about this administration.  Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets, and facilities [facilitates] the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos.

More broadly, the issue of Mr. Brennan’s security clearance raises larger questions about the practice of former officials maintaining access to our nation’s most sensitive secrets long after their time in government has ended.

Such access is particularly inappropriate when former officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate their political attacks.  Any access granted to our nation’s secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal, interests.  For this reason, I’ve also begun to review the more general question of the access to classified information by government officials.

As part of this review, I am evaluating action with respect to the following individuals: James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr.

Security clearances for those who still have them may be revoked, and those who have already lost their security clearance may not be able to have it reinstated.

It is for the foregoing reasons that I have exercised my constitutional authority to deny Mr. Brennan access to classified information, and I will direct appropriate staff of the National Security Council to make the necessary arrangements with the appropriate agencies to implement this determination.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Again I have looked at some of these articles about Deep State, etc, and they are all rantings of a given class of individuals who have a theory and try to manipulate facts to support their opinion.  Muller's job is to figure out what went on with Russian interference in our election: II would certainly be supportive of him looking into any and all possibilities including this deep state stuff.

Congress should have him before their committees to ask him relevant questions and to act as a check on excesses by the Executive Branch if required, and to act as a check on the CIA and other intelligence agencies if required. 

You are trying my patience. Mueller will not do any testifying to Congress until his probe is over. Read Tom's link above.

[oldmanfan]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

 

 

That is the formal statement.  I believe in his interview with the WSJ he indicated is was due to the Russia investigation.  Again words matter.

 

Brennan is no choir boy.  He should have resigned or been fired when he was caught lying about the CIA before during the Obama administration.

[Deranged Rhino]

21 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

The president himself said he did this because of the Russia investigation. 

 

It is. Specifically John Brennan's role in creating the Russian narrative in a seditious and illegal way. 

 

Have you ever asked why Brennan would fly to Moscow in secret in March of 2016? Or does your interest in the Russian investigation stop at partisan lines?

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You are trying my patience. Mueller will not do any testifying to Congress until his probe is over. Read Tom's link above.

You are trying mine.  Congress should do its constitutional job and act as a check and balance on the Executive branch.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

That is the formal statement.  I believe in his interview with the WSJ he indicated is was due to the Russia investigation. 

 

His role in creating the Russian investigation - illegally and through seditious means. 

 

But details! 

Just now, oldmanfan said:

You are trying mine.  Congress should do its constitutional job and act as a check and balance on the Executive branch.

 

You mean as President Trump has been asking them to do on such issues as immigration and DACA?

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It is. Specifically John Brennan's role in creating the Russian narrative in a seditious and illegal way. 

 

Have you ever asked why Brennan would fly to Moscow in secret in March of 2016? Or does your interest in the Russian investigation stop at partisan lines?

I think Muller should be looking at any and all things that allowed a foreign enemy to corrupt our democracy.  I could care less who it hurts politically. 

[DC Tom]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

That is the formal statement.  I believe in his interview with the WSJ he indicated is was due to the Russia investigation.  Again words matter.

 

Brennan is no choir boy.  He should have resigned or been fired when he was caught lying about the CIA before during the Obama administration.

 

Yes, words matter.  The question is: do you give the formal, prepared statement more or less credence than the off-the-cuff statement of a sweet potato with Tourette's?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

You are trying mine.  Congress should do its constitutional job and act as a check and balance on the Executive branch.

 

I really don't understand what your !@#$ing problem is. The President alone has the right to rescind security clearances, not Congress.

 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

His role in creating the Russian investigation - illegally and through seditious means. 

 

But details! 

 

You mean as President Trump has been asking them to do on such issues as immigration and DACA?

Yes.  And that means a true bipartisan effort.  The Senate is doing so, not the House.

[donbb]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

Yes.  And that means a true bipartisan effort.  The Senate is doing so, not the House.

 

According to Billy the Senate is compromised 

[oldmanfan]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Yes, words matter.  The question is: do you give the formal, prepared statement more or less credence than the off-the-cuff statement of a sweet potato with Tourette's?

The sweet potato with Tourette's (nicely put) needs to either keep his mouth shut or realize his words mean something.

 

Do you think the formal statement is more a reflection of the truth or what comes out of his mouth?

[DC Tom]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

Yes.  And that means a true bipartisan effort.  The Senate is doing so, not the House.

 

Neither is doing so.

 

And you're arguing that the Constitutional principle of checks and balances should protect against the Constitutional principle of separation of powers?  The President can revoke clearances.  That authority is pretty much unfettered.  What checks and balances do Congress have to prevent it?

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

I really don't understand what your !@#$ing problem is. The President alone has the right to rescind security clearances, not Congress.

 

Aand if he is doing so because he is miffed at the fact that an individual had some input into an investigation involving his administration, the LEgislative bracnch has a constitutional duty to check the abuse of that power.

 

Oh, and your silly little !@#$ing thing.  Grow up.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

Aand if he is doing so because he is miffed at the fact that an individual had some input into an investigation involving his administration, the LEgislative bracnch has a constitutional duty to check the abuse of that power.

 

Oh, and your silly little !@#$ing thing.  Grow up.

 

You're a buffoon. He has the authority to revoke a clearance for whatever reason he chooses.

 

Congress has no business with regard to it, no matter what you believe.

 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Neither is doing so.

 

And you're arguing that the Constitutional principle of checks and balances should protect against the Constitutional principle of separation of powers?  The President can revoke clearances.  That authority is pretty much unfettered.  What checks and balances do Congress have to prevent it?

See above.  If he is doing so in a manner to obstruct an investigation into his administration then the legislature has an obligation.  Whether that's true in the case of Brennan is hard to know.  Unless they look into it.

As I said Brennan is no choir boy and I would have fired him for lying to Congress before.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The sweet potato with Tourette's (nicely put) needs to either keep his mouth shut or realize his words mean something.

 

He knows his words mean something, that's why he continues to tweet and bring his message directly to his base rather than relying on the unreliable media to do so for him.

 

You just don't like what he's saying, and what he's saying has evidence behind it. Brennan is a bad guy. He's done more to harm this country than he's done to aid it. And his time is coming... will it be a "drowning in a lake" or an indictment? We'll find out soon, but Brennan is not a hero nor a person worth wasting one moment of time defending. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

 If he is doing so in a manner to obstruct an investigation into his administration then the legislature has an obligation. 

 

NO THEY DO NOT.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

If he is doing so in a manner to obstruct an investigation into his administration...

 

Brennan is not running an investigation into his administration, he's running a PR campaign through the press about an illegal investigation he helped create. There's a difference, but this isn't anything close to obstruction.