John Brennan's Security Clearance

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[oldmanfan]

Easiest solution to this is to pass a law stating that all security clearances from previous administrations are terminated upon inauguration day.  If you need guys brought back in your grant them temporary clearance as needed.  Simple.

 

That way you don't have a president going off the deep end potentially just because his feelings are hurt.

[donbb]

8 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

bless your tender and naive heart... 

 

 

Bless your Canadian spleen

[3rdnlng]

18 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Easiest solution to this is to pass a law stating that all security clearances from previous administrations are terminated upon inauguration day.  If you need guys brought back in your grant them temporary clearance as needed.  Simple.

 

That way you don't have a president going off the deep end potentially just because his feelings are hurt.

The former Director of the CIA is casting dispersions about the POTUS on his paid TV gig, and acting as if he has knowledge presumably from his secret sources. Can you see what problems this might cause? In addition, a security clearance cannot just be reissued without a fair amount of time going by. Can you see what problems this might cause?

[row_33]

38 minutes ago, donbb said:

 

Bless your Canadian spleen

 

you are 100% assuming because someone isn't charge that they are innocent completely?

 

when you are retained by a government you almost always have immunity from prosecution for your actions during your tenure, you have to have this protection

 

you are subject to prosecution under severe negligence or criminal activity, but it's often they don't bother if it's not worth their while to pursue this

 

they just cut you loose for the rest of your life from further work....

 

 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The former Director of the CIA is casting dispersions about the POTUS on his paid TV gig, and acting as if he has knowledge presumably from his secret sources. Can you see what problems this might cause? In addition, a security clearance cannot just be reissued without a fair amount of time going by. Can you see what problems this might cause?

A security issue could be issued essentially immediately if a guy has had prior top level clearance.  Certainly that could be written into law.

 

I would prefer Brennan not be as vocal as he has been, but he is I think genuinely concerned about what is going on.  Those concerns would be best expressed to members of Congress in my opinion, but he has a right to speaking as we all do. 

 

Do you not see what problems it might cause when a president deliberately takes security clearance  away from people because he has a personal vendetta, or because he is upset about an investigation that involves his own administration?  Imagine if Nixon had had that unfettered power during Watergate.  He tried to use it on the Saturday night massacre, and luckily the legislative and judicial branches did their jobs.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

A security issue could be issued essentially immediately if a guy has had prior top level clearance.  Certainly that could be written into law.

 

I would prefer Brennan not be as vocal as he has been, but he is I think genuinely concerned about what is going on.  Those concerns would be best expressed to members of Congress in my opinion, but he has a right to speaking as we all do. 

 

Do you not see what problems it might cause when a president deliberately takes security clearance  away from people because he has a personal vendetta, or because he is upset about an investigation that involves his own administration?  Imagine if Nixon had had that unfettered power during Watergate.  He tried to use it on the Saturday night massacre, and luckily the legislative and judicial branches did their jobs.

Do you have any idea how well his words would be received in Congress? Do you know anything about the guy? He was actively involved in trying to prevent Trump's presidency and then a coup once he won the election. For your own sake I suggest you educate yourself about theshit the Deep State has been doing before getting into a discussion about the Deep State.

[Deranged Rhino]

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

A security issue could be issued essentially immediately if a guy has had prior top level clearance.  Certainly that could be written into law.

 

I would prefer Brennan not be as vocal as he has been, but he is I think genuinely concerned about what is going on.  Those concerns would be best expressed to members of Congress in my opinion, but he has a right to speaking as we all do. 

 

Do you not see what problems it might cause when a president deliberately takes security clearance  away from people because he has a personal vendetta, or because he is upset about an investigation that involves his own administration?  Imagine if Nixon had had that unfettered power during Watergate.  He tried to use it on the Saturday night massacre, and luckily the legislative and judicial branches did their jobs.

 

That's not what happened though. 

 

There's strong evidence to point to which shows Brennan played a role in a coup attempt, and did so by working with foreign intelligence services including Russian. What's happening to Brennan has been brought on entirely by his actions and crimes. 

[donbb]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That's not what happened though. 

 

There's strong evidence to point to which shows Brennan played a role in a coup attempt, and did so by working with foreign intelligence services including Russian. What's happening to Brennan has been brought on entirely by his actions and crimes. 

 

If there was strong evidence of what you claim Brennan would be behind bars awaiting trial. 

[Deranged Rhino]

It's coming. Bottom to top roll up, as I've been saying for months. Brennan is near the top of the chain, not the bottom. 

 

Those falling over themselves to defend a man with as shady of a past as Brennan (and doing so not because they like Brennan but because their overlords in the DNC/MSM  programmed them to do so), are exposing their ignorance and partisanship. 

 

Pay attention to who they are.

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, donbb said:

 

If there was strong evidence of what you claim Brennan would be behind bars awaiting trial. 

Was there not strong evidence against Hillary due to her violations of security with her private email server? Just wait on Brennen.

Edited August 16, 2018 by 3rdnlng

[donbb]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Was there not strong evidence against Hillary due to her violations of security with her private email server?

 

You guys waited until page 2 for a BUT HILLARY! Great job - you're getting better.

[Deranged Rhino]

Bring something of substance to the board, Gary. It's not hard. 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, donbb said:

 

You guys waited until page 2 for a BUT HILLARY! Great job - you're getting better.

Page 3, not that it matters. Hillary broke the law and hasn't been taken to task for it----yet. Same as Brennan.

Edited August 16, 2018 by 3rdnlng

[row_33]

nothing done by the Dems is ever prosecuted, even when it's clearly breaking the law

 

 

anyone paying attention by 1974  knew forever that the CIA/FBI and others are corrupt and working solely for hire.

 

[donbb]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Page 3, not that it matters. Hillary broke the law and hasn't been taken to task for it----yet. Same as Brennan.

 

Page 3 - even more impressive!

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Bring something of substance to the board, Gary. It's not hard. 

 

You got it Tommy 

[oldmanfan]

16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Do you have any idea how well his words would be received in Congress? Do you know anything about the guy? He was actively involved in trying to prevent Trump's presidency and then a coup once he won the election. For your own sake I suggest you educate yourself about theshit the Deep State has been doing before getting into a discussion about the Deep State.

Your paranoid rantings about the deep state aside, the proper place to voice such objections is with Congress so they can carry out their constitutionally prescribed duty to be a check and balance against the Executive branch.

16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That's not what happened though. 

 

There's strong evidence to point to which shows Brennan played a role in a coup attempt, and did so by working with foreign intelligence services including Russian. What's happening to Brennan has been brought on entirely by his actions and crimes. 

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.

 

What the president has yet to figure out is that people pay attention to what he says and then hold him accountable for such.

[B-Man]

All that can be said in condolence to John Brennan about losing his security clearance might be something along the lines of, “Try not to lie repeatedly to the U.S. Congress. Please do not allege that the current president of the United States is a traitor. And do not hire yourself out to partisans to issue near daily unproven invective, supposedly sanctified and monetized by your past tenure and present access to the highest level of covert U.S. intelligence.”

 

That"s not too much to ask.

 

-- Victor Davis Hanson

[3rdnlng]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

Your paranoid rantings about the deep state aside, the proper place to voice such objections is with Congress so they can carry out their constitutionally prescribed duty to be a check and balance against the Executive branch.

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?

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, donbb said:

 

If there was strong evidence of what you claim Brennan would be behind bars awaiting trial. 

 

And if he were behind bars, you'd be claiming it's a personal vendetta by a fascist in the White House.

 

There will never be any discussing it with you.  Your opinion is entirely emotional based on your preferences for the personalities involved.  You wouldn't accept any evidence anyone provided.

[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.