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