John Brennan's Security Clearance

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

He had me at "80's porn stache"

 

 

He had me at "Don't call me stupid!"

 

[TH3]

18 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

Everyone has an opinion my man, and your seems to be "everything is fair game unless it's happening to my people". Interestingly brennan seems to share your opinion. 

 

When in doubt, I go to this: 

 

If the clearance can be revoked, and the president choose to revoke it, time to move along. 

 

Brennan is a cancer, and seems an awful lot like the guy who retires but can't stay away from the office. He's all about telling you how it should be, the way things should go, and how dumb everyone is but him. The only difference is that at one point, he had the ability to ruin lives as he saw fit. 

 

Trump simply told him it was time to go home.  He did him a favor. There's nothing more pathetic than an old man wandering around, muttering about the good old days when you could bust heads with impunity when the world has passed him by. 

 

 

And that makes him different from the posters on this board...Fox, MSNBC, Trump...in what way?

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, it wouldn't.  You'd have to do a gap investigation and readjudicate the clearances of nearly everyone, which would mean shutting down the government for as much as two years.  

I don't think so.  Presidential campaigns are run for years now.  In that time you should be able to look at the current folks in their jobs and make a determination who you want to keep.

 

Plus look at the current system.  The president has the power to determine who gets clearance and who doesn't, correct?  well, let's say the current head of the CIA comes to Trump and says they absolutely need to get some background info from Brennan on an issue.  Trump could with a stroke of a pen give Brennan his clearance back for that purpose.

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, baskin said:

And that makes him different from the posters on this board...Fox, MSNBC, Trump...in what way?

 

No posters on this board played a central role in organizing and inventing the "Russian Collusion/Conspiracy" narrative. No posters on this board made secret trips to Moscow in March of 2016. No posters on this board spied on Congress and the press - then lied about it under oath. No poster on this board murdered an American Journalist in Los Angeles in 2013 because he was writing an expose on them. 

 

There was cause to remove Brennan's clearances. Just like there is cause to indict him for seditious conspiracy. The only question left is what will happen first: Brennan's indictment or Brennan's "suicide". 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

15 minutes ago, baskin said:

And that makes him different from the posters on this board...Fox, MSNBC, Trump...in what way?

well, in no particular order:

 

...no one mentioned is the former director of the CIA;

...no one mentioned had access to information of vital interest to our national security;

...no one else mentioned carries the weight of the burden of responsibility of knowledge about whom/what/where/why/and how we operate as a nation, who lives and who dies as a result;

...no one else mentioned had so thoroughly abdicated said responsibility as it relates to the politicization of his role CIA director emeritus;

...no one else mentions is retired and hanging around the office

 

 

other that that, brennan = fox = msnbc = trump = baskin

 

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[DC Tom]

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I don't think so.  Presidential campaigns are run for years now.  In that time you should be able to look at the current folks in their jobs and make a determination who you want to keep.

 

Then what did this mean:

Quote

Congress should pass a law saying that security clearances are revoked the day of inauguration of a new administration.

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Plus look at the current system.  The president has the power to determine who gets clearance and who doesn't, correct?  well, let's say the current head of the CIA comes to Trump and says they absolutely need to get some background info from Brennan on an issue.  Trump could with a stroke of a pen give Brennan his clearance back for that purpose.

 

That's not how the current system works.  The president can't readjudicate a clearance with the stroke of a pen.

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Then what did this mean:

 

 

 

 

That's not how the current system works.  The president can't readjudicate a clearance with the stroke of a pen.

What it meant is you should clear the decks for a new administration. Let them do their homework ahead of time and decide what people who are in secure positions they want to have stay on, and which one they do not.  By having it in law that all must have their credentials pulled means the chief exec can determine whose he wants to accept and not accept.  The law could be written in that way.

 

My interest would be in a process where the chief executive has his authority over clearances, but where there is some protection in the system to ensure it is not being done for nefarious purposes.

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

What it meant is you should clear the decks for a new administration. Let them do their homework ahead of time and decide what people who are in secure positions they want to have stay on, and which one they do not.  By having it in law that all must have their credentials pulled means the chief exec can determine whose he wants to accept and not accept.  The law could be written in that way.

 

My interest would be in a process where the chief executive has his authority over clearances, but where there is some protection in the system to ensure it is not being done for nefarious purposes.

 

So the President shouldn't have fluid authority over the executive branch as things change?

 

And again, I don't think what you're describing, even if it were desirable, which it isn't, could be enacted by law because it modifies Constitutionally prescribed roles in the separation of powers.  It would likely require amendment.

Edited August 17, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

What it meant is you should clear the decks for a new administration. Let them do their homework ahead of time and decide what people who are in secure positions they want to have stay on, and which one they do not.  By having it in law that all must have their credentials pulled means the chief exec can determine whose he wants to accept and not accept.  The law could be written in that way.

 

What "decks?"  Elected officials?  Senate-confirmed?  Appointed?  Executive branch alone, or Congress and Judicial branches?  Federal workers?  All of them, or just the SES, or SES and GS over a certain grade?

 

Your statement is overly broad, is my point.  Put a little bit of thought in to what you're saying.

 

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

My interest would be in a process where the chief executive has his authority over clearances, but where there is some protection in the system to ensure it is not being done for nefarious purposes.

 

The Chief Executive has ultimate authority over classification and security, by act of Congress.  That authority is not, however, unfettered and absolute, and not often exercised because the president cannot adjudicate all 5 million clearances in the country.

 

Which brings up the question again: which of those 5.1 million clearances do you want to cancel at inauguration? 

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

What "decks?"  Elected officials?  Senate-confirmed?  Appointed?  Executive branch alone, or Congress and Judicial branches?  Federal workers?  All of them, or just the SES, or SES and GS over a certain grade?

 

Your statement is overly broad, is my point.  Put a little bit of thought in to what you're saying.

 

 

The Chief Executive has ultimate authority over classification and security, by act of Congress.  That authority is not, however, unfettered and absolute, and not often exercised because the president cannot adjudicate all 5 million clearances in the country.

 

Which brings up the question again: which of those 5.1 million clearances do you want to cancel at inauguration? 

I would suggest all of them.  My model would be similar to what some businesses do with a change in CEO.   Senior management files resignation letters and the new guy either ignores them or accepts.  And I may be mistaken but if a president is re-elected his cabinet does the same.

 

I understand your point about the sheer numbers being unwieldy.  My concern would be for more senior leaders.  And again to try and have a process that tries to negate a president doing so to protect himself against an investigation. 

 

Good points though.   Make me think about how I'd execute such a strategy.

12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

So the President shouldn't have fluid authority over the executive branch as things change?

 

And again, I don't think what you're describing, even if it were desirable, which it isn't, could be enacted by law because it modifies Constitutionally prescribed roles in the separation of powers.  It would likely require amendment.

You're saying Congress could not legislate this because constitutionally it is an executive power?  Good point.  Then if he abuses that power the other two branches could assert their control

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

I would suggest all of them.  My model would be similar to what some businesses do with a change in CEO.   Senior management files resignation letters and the new guy either ignores them or accepts.  And I may be mistaken but if a president is re-elected his cabinet does the same.

 

I understand your point about the sheer numbers being unwieldy.  My concern would be for more senior leaders.  And again to try and have a process that tries to negate a president doing so to protect himself against an investigation. 

 

Good points though.   Make me think about how I'd execute such a strategy.

Security clearances generally have a sunset clause. Look to that as a way to a solution.

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

So the President shouldn't have fluid authority over the executive branch as things change?

 

And again, I don't think what you're describing, even if it were desirable, which it isn't, could be enacted by law because it modifies Constitutionally prescribed roles in the separation of powers.  It would likely require amendment.

 

Actually, it probably wouldn't.  There's nothing in the Constitution that constrains it to any given branch either way.  

 

In fact, the current policy was written in to the USA PATRIOT Act, and is covered by several regulations in the CFR.  Including the appeals process...which Brennan is welcome to pursue, but he'd apparently rather just whine about it on TV.  Why would that be?

[dpberr]

Why does anyone retain security clearance upon leaving the government?  I never understood why you could leave the employ of the federal government, yet still have a very valuable, very important benefit.  

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, dpberr said:

Why does anyone retain security clearance upon leaving the government?  I never understood why you could leave the employ of the federal government, yet still have a very valuable, very important benefit.  

 

It's a feature not a bug. It's how the machine works, it's a feeder system from government service into think tanks/defense contracting/media consulting. 

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, dpberr said:

Why does anyone retain security clearance upon leaving the government?  I never understood why you could leave the employ of the federal government, yet still have a very valuable, very important benefit.  

 

they get to use the info to make a lot of money lobbying

 

McDonnell Douglas is a great client to use clearance over.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You're saying Congress could not legislate this because constitutionally it is an executive power?  Good point.  Then if he abuses that power the other two branches could assert their control

 

I'm saying I'm not sure if they could.

 

But the rest of your post makes no sense.

 

If Congress couldn't legislate this, because it's a Constitutional issue, under what authority are you asserting the legislative and judicial branches could act which supersedes the Constitution?

[oldmanfan]

40 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'm saying I'm not sure if they could.

 

But the rest of your post makes no sense.

 

If Congress couldn't legislate this, because it's a Constitutional issue, under what authority are you asserting the legislative and judicial branches could act which supersedes the Constitution?

I'm looking at the current situation where the president stated he pulled the clearance in relation to an ongoing investigation involving his administration.   That could be construed as an abuse of his constitutional authority and the other two branches them would exert the proper checks and balances.

 

it would be similar to Nixon and the Saturday Night massacre.  In that case Congress and the courts stepped in.

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I'm looking at the current situation where the president stated he pulled the clearance in relation to an ongoing investigation involving his administration.   That could be construed as an abuse of his constitutional authority and the other two branches them would exert the proper checks and balances.

 

it would be similar to Nixon and the Saturday Night massacre.  In that case Congress and the courts stepped in.

 

You're missing my point.

 

If we're talking about specific Constitutionally prescribed authority, on what grounds should branches of government not imbued with Constitutional authority be permitted to act against the Constitutionally prescribed duties of the third branch?

 

There is no body of law higher than the Constitution.

 

Also, as an aside, given your rejection of the very deliberate official statement given in regards to Brennan's loss of clearance, which it's important to note does not contradict, but rather expands on what the President said were his reasons, what role does a former government employee have in a current ongoing investigation of which he is neither part nor party?

Edited August 17, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I'm looking at the current situation where the president stated he pulled the clearance in relation to an ongoing investigation involving his administration.   That could be construed as an abuse of his constitutional authority and the other two branches them would exert the proper checks and balances.

 

it would be similar to Nixon and the Saturday Night massacre.  In that case Congress and the courts stepped in.

Go back to the drawing board on this. Brennan didn't lose his SC due to the Mueller investigation but due to lying to Congress and setting up the false premise that started the investigation.

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Go back to the drawing board on this. Brennan didn't lose his SC due to the Mueller investigation but due to lying to Congress and setting up the false premise that started the investigation.

That is not what the president said.  

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You're missing my point.

 

If we're talking about specific Constitutionally prescribed authority, on what grounds should branches of government not imbued with Constitutional authority be permitted to act against the Constitutionally prescribed duties of the third branch?

 

There is no body of law higher than the Constitution.

 

Also, as an aside, given your rejection of the very deliberate official statement given in regards to Brennan's loss of clearance, which it's important to note does not contradict, but rather expands on what the President said were his reasons, what role does a former government employee have in a current ongoing investigation of which he is neither part nor party?

I get your point about the constitutional difficulties, and it causes me to rethink how this could be done.  As far as my rejection of the carefully worded official statement, the president's statement to the WSJ paints a different scenario.  Which should we believe?

[DC Tom]

56 minutes ago, dpberr said:

Why does anyone retain security clearance upon leaving the government?  I never understood why you could leave the employ of the federal government, yet still have a very valuable, very important benefit.  

 

Technically, people don't.  

 

Again, the clearance process is two-phase: a background check, and then adjudication of the background check.  The background check package is portable - it is, after all, you.  The info doesn't change when you move.  The adjudication isn't - if HHS adjudicates and grants someone a secret clearance, and that person moves to DOJ, they don't really take the clearance with them.  What does happen is that DOJ does their own adjudication, but it's much easier to do because they already know the person had an active clearance.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

13 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 As far as my rejection of the carefully worded official statement, the president's statement to the WSJ paints a different scenario.  Which should we believe?

 

I'd ask you to read both again.

 

The official statement does not contradict what was reported by the Wall Street Journal.

 

[DC Tom]

15 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I get your point about the constitutional difficulties, and it causes me to rethink how this could be done.  As far as my rejection of the carefully worded official statement, the president's statement to the WSJ paints a different scenario.  Which should we believe?

 

Then you're simply making a choice about which source to believe.  Which is fine.

 

And pretending it's an absolute fact.  Which is stupid.

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Then you're simply making a choice about which source to believe.  Which is fine.

 

And pretending it's an absolute fact.  Which is stupid.

I don't know which is factual or not.  Which is the point.  The president needs to finally realize his words have meaning.

 

And your stupid shtick?  Very old, very tiring.

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'd ask you to read both again.

 

The official statement does not contradict what was reported by the Wall Street Journal.

 

The president indicated quite clearly that Brennan as well as potentially others would have their clearances removed because of the Russia investigation.  I think you should read each without confirmation bias looking to support a preconceived idea.

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I don't know which is factual or not.  Which is the point.  The president needs to finally realize his words have meaning.

 

His spoken words.  Written policy...that you can apparently ignore.

 

But don't call you stupid.  Got it. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The president indicated quite clearly that Brennan as well as potentially others would have their clearances removed because of the Russia investigation.  I think you should read each without confirmation bias looking to support a preconceived idea.

 

Again, explain how what was reported by the Wall Street Journal contradicted the official policy statement from the White House.

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

His spoken words.  Written policy...that you can apparently ignore.

 

But don't call you stupid.  Got it. 

No.  Which is valid?  That's the point.  Which you refuse to acknowledge.  Does the president believe the statement put out by his administration or not?

[Buffalo_Gal]

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

IThe president indicated quite clearly that Brennan as well as potentially others would have their clearances removed because of the Russia investigation.  I think you should read each without confirmation bias looking to support a preconceived idea.

2

Well, yeah. When you attempt a coup, and fail, expect to have your clearance revoked. Oh. And to end up indicted.

Again. Revoking John Brennan's security clearance is well within the purview of the President. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Buffalo_Gal

[row_33]

Trump said he was gonna do it

 

and they didn't believe he would

 

and then he went and did it

 

 

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Again, explain how what was reported by the Wall Street Journal contradicted the official policy statement from the White House.

President's statement:

 

“I call it the rigged witch hunt, [it] is a sham,” Mr. Trump said in an interview. “And these people led it!”

 

And that is why he pulled the clearance and may on others.

 

This was not stated in the official White House release.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

President's statement:

 

“I call it the rigged witch hunt, [it] is a sham,” Mr. Trump said in an interview. “And these people led it!”

 

And that is why he pulled the clearance and may on others.

 

This was not stated in the official White House release.

 

Right, but just because it wasn't repeated doesn't mean it's contradictory.

 

Explain how it's contradictory.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Right, but just because it wasn't repeated doesn't mean it's contradictory.

 

Explain how it's contradictory.

Because the official statement gives reasons for pulling the clearance. And none of those are the same as what the president said in his WSJ article.

6 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Well, yeah. When you attempt a coup, and fail, expect to have your clearance revoked. Oh. And to end up indicted.

Again. Revoking John Brennan's security clearance is well within the purview of the President. 

Yeah he attempted a coup. Right.

 

 I have already said in this thread the President has that authority, and I have said Brennan is no Boy Scout and that I would have asked for his resignation if I had been Obama when he lied about CIA secretly tagging members of Congress.

 

The president by his own words said he removed him primarily because he felt he was involved in the start of the Russia investigation.  That suggests abuse of his power

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Because the official statement gives reasons for pulling the clearance. And none of those are the same as what the president said in his WSJ article.

 

Again, not repeating is not the same as contradicting.

 

The official release unequivocally makes room for what the President has to say to the Wall Street Journal, and does not contradict it in any way; but rather it expands on what the President had to say.

 

And I'll ask you again, given that a former CIA director has no role in the ongoing investigation, and is not entitled to his security clearances; why there is any problem with the President revoking those clearances?

[LB3]

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Because the official statement gives reasons for pulling the clearance. And none of those are the same as what the president said in his WSJ article.

Yeah he attempted a coup. Right.

 

 I have already said in this thread the President has that authority, and I have said Brennan is no Boy Scout and that I would have asked for his resignation if I had been Obama when he lied about CIA secretly tagging members of Congress.

 

The president by his own words said he removed him primarily because he felt he was involved in the start of the Russia investigation.  That suggests abuse of his power

Can you post the entire quote you keep referencing? The snip you provided above does not say that it was his primary reason. It was just his standard raving about the investigation being a sham, which he hasn't wavered from since the beginning.

[Tiberius]

 

Quote

 

… it’s hard to imagine a stronger constitutional case than the president has just handed advocates of judicial review.  So far as is apparent, there was no process at all, let alone due process, or even any consultation with intelligence agencies in stripping Brennan’s clearance.  The reasons stated in the president’s memorandum appear pretextual, particularly in light of his subsequent Wall Street Journal interview seemingly acknowledging that his motive was Brennan’s role in the so-called “rigged witch hunt.” That he acted not because Brennan threatened national security but because Brennan criticized him is further shown by the list of others whose clearances have been threatened, who have in common only the president’s perception that they oppose him . . .

[Brennan] should have little difficulty in persuading a court that his clearance was revoked in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment right to criticize the president. That will then squarely present the issue of whether courts are powerless to prevent such abuse of the clearance system — and the result may be that the president’s control over security clearances, long jealously guarded, will have been weakened as a result of one president’s tantrum.

 

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-trumps-outburst-over-security-clearances-harms-presidency

[oldmanfan]

43 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Again, not repeating is not the same as contradicting.

 

The official release unequivocally makes room for what the President has to say to the Wall Street Journal, and does not contradict it in any way; but rather it expands on what the President had to say.

 

And I'll ask you again, given that a former CIA director has no role in the ongoing investigation, and is not entitled to his security clearances; why there is any problem with the President revoking those clearances?

There is no problem unless he does so to obstruct the investigation into his administration.   Theoretically.  And that is why the president saying he did so because of him supposedly starting the investigation is troubling.

 

Again compare to Watergate and the Saturday Night Massacre.  Did Nixon have the right to fire those guys? Constitutionally yes since they worked under the Executive branch.  But the Congress and courts rightfully saw it as an abuse of power and used their constitutional authority.

47 minutes ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

Can you post the entire quote you keep referencing? The snip you provided above does not say that it was his primary reason. It was just his standard raving about the investigation being a sham, which he hasn't wavered from since the beginning.

Here you go.  I tried to copy the White House statement but I ciuldn't in my phone, but it's readily available

 

"I call it the rigged witch hunt, (it) is a sham," Mr. Mr. Trump told the Journal, which posted its story on its website Wednesday night. "And these people led it!"

He added: "So I think it's something that had to be done."

 

So there you go.

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

There is no problem unless he does so to obstruct the investigation into his administration.   Theoretically.  And that is why the president saying he did so because of him supposedly starting the investigation is troubling.

 

Again compare to Watergate and the Saturday Night Massacre.  Did Nixon have the right to fire those guys? Constitutionally yes since they worked under the Executive branch.  But the Congress and courts rightfully saw it as an abuse of power and used their constitutional authority.

 

Several things:

 

What authority does the CIA have to start such an investigation?  Do you know what their authority is chartered to be?

 

John Brennan no longer works for the federal government.  He is neither part nor party to the ongoing investigation.  He has no role.  How would removing the security clearance of a man who no longer works for the government, and isn't a part of the ongoing investigation in any way similar to the Saturday Night Massacre?

 

The President didn't fire Brennan.  Brennan has no role in the ongoing investigation.  The removal of his security clearance doesn't have any impact of any sort on any function of government, or the investigation into the President.

 

How is the removal of his clearances, which he held at the pleasure of the President, problematic in any way?

[Tiberius]

Just exhaust a poster by asking more and more questions!