John Brennan's Security Clearance

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Azalin said:

 

I suggest that you're clinging to preconceived notions with increasing desperation, and you react by reiterating the same preconceived notions with increasing desperation?

 

I'm not talking at all about Comey or the Russians - that crap is being discussed in a different thread. This is about Brennan and his security clearance being revoked, and the reason for that happening. The material is all there for you to review for yourself, should you choose to. If you decide to ignore that information, fine. Don't expect anyone to consider your attempts at discussion to be serious though.

 

And what have I said in this thread that makes my previous post 'the height of hypocrisy'?

 

With regard to your final paragraph - drama doesn't earn you points, but if it helps you feel like you've disengaged with a semblance of dignity, then by all means....

I'll respond to you because it seems you'd actually be interested in discussion.  I have said perhaps the best thing to do is simply take clearance away when new administrations come in.  Others pointed out some things that made me think about it.

 

i also pointed out the president has the right to do so, but if he does so to potentially obstruct investigation into his administration it could constitute an abuse of that power and if so Congress and the courts should step in.  My point was theoretical (again I pointed it out) but driven by the president's own words in the WSJ interview.  But when I point that out I'm told we shouldn't actually take those words as having meaning, or somehow twist them into them agreeing with the official statement that had no referral to his WSJ comment.

 

Brennan in his role as a private citizen is very critical of the president.  Perhaps overly critical when he talked about treason.  How exactly do the comments of a now private citizen lead to revoking clearance?  I don't see that.  Nor honestly do I think it ultimately is a big deal, because I am quite sure if the current CIA director needed input from Brennan she'd get it despite all this stuff.

[Thurmal34]

Nothing more than a cowardly attempt to stifle free speech.

 

Brennan doesn’t need a clearance and doesn’t care if he still has one. Good for him. His record of service speaks for itself...

 

My Dad is 73 and still has his top secret clearance from his time at Da Nang, which ended in Nov 1970. Never been revoked. 

 

Any bets on what would happen if he tweeted something critical of prez thinskin?

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Thurmal34 said:

Nothing more than a cowardly attempt to stifle free speech.

 

[3rdnlng]

21 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I'll respond to you because it seems you'd actually be interested in discussion.  I have said perhaps the best thing to do is simply take clearance away when new administrations come in.  Others pointed out some things that made me think about it.

 

i also pointed out the president has the right to do so, but if he does so to potentially obstruct investigation into his administration it could constitute an abuse of that power and if so Congress and the courts should step in.  My point was theoretical (again I pointed it out) but driven by the president's own words in the WSJ interview.  But when I point that out I'm told we shouldn't actually take those words as having meaning, or somehow twist them into them agreeing with the official statement that had no referral to his WSJ comment.

 

Brennan in his role as a private citizen is very critical of the president.  Perhaps overly critical when he talked about treason.  How exactly do the comments of a now private citizen lead to revoking clearance?  I don't see that.  Nor honestly do I think it ultimately is a big deal, because I am quite sure if the current CIA director needed input from Brennan she'd get it despite all this stuff.

How is removing Brennan's security clearance at this point obstructing an investigation? Furthermore your comments about Trump being King tells us all where your mindset is.

[Thurmal34]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

How is removing Brennan's security clearance at this point obstructing an investigation? Furthermore your comments about Trump being King tells us all where your mindset is.

 

Yeah right on here - nothing to do with anything investigatory.

 

Just a weak coward afraid of criticism and using his bully pulpit to retaliate (in his mind).

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Thurmal34 said:

 

Yeah right on here - nothing to do with anything investigatory.

 

Just a weak coward afraid of criticism and using his bully pulpit to retaliate (in his mind).

How does removing Brennan's security clearance silence him in any way? Brennan lied to Congress on multiple occasions, leaked to the media, put a high end asset in Russia in danger and claimed that he had information that would sink Trump. Do you actually think he should have a security clearance?

[Thurmal34]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

How does removing Brennan's security clearance silence him in any way? Brennan lied to Congress on multiple occasions, leaked to the media, put a high end asset in Russia in danger and claimed that he had information that would sink Trump. Do you actually think he should have a security clearance?

 

Oh? Is that what he’s done? 

 

I don’t care if he has one or not. Nor does he.

 

What I care about is the punitive nature of the removal. It’s just more paint in a picture of an insecure charlatan who loves to have his ego stroked. 

[3rdnlng]

Just now, Thurmal34 said:

 

Oh? Is that what he’s done? 

 

I don’t care if he has one or not. Nor does he.

 

What I care about is the punitive nature of the removal. It’s just more paint in a picture of an insecure charlatan who loves to have his ego stroked. 

He is a security risk.

[Thurmal34]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

He is a security risk.

 

 

To who? 

 

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

 

 

To who? 

 

 

The country.  

 

Agree or disagree with it...but why do you think the grant security clearances?  

[Thurmal34]

Hi Tom - respect your stuff, maybe you missed my first post here?

 

My Dad still has his from almost 50 years ago. He still has his top secret clearance. Is he a risk?

 

I mean, it doesn’t even matter. Brennan doesn’t care.

 

Yet here we are - hook, line, and sinker. Another distraction from what’s really going on. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2018 by Thurmal34

[DC Tom]

Just now, Thurmal34 said:

Hi Tom - respect your stuff, maybe you missed my first post here?

 

My Dad still has his from almost 50 years ago. He still has his clearance.

 

I mean, it doesn’t even matter. Brennan doesn’t care.

 

Yet here we are - hook, line, and sinker. Another distraction from what’s really going on. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, he doesn't.  Clearances require periodic re-investigation or they expire.  He does not have a clearance from 1970.

 

 

[Thurmal34]

Funny. He’s here, right now, asleep in my house in Mass. We had a long talk about this topic tonight. I have a first person account.

 

But I’ll believe you, because you said it. 

 

 

[DC Tom]

Just now, Thurmal34 said:

Funny. He’s here, right now, asleep in my house in Mass. We had a long talk about this topic tonight. I have a first person account.

 

But I’ll believe you, because you said it. 

 

 

 

Believe me because I worked on background checks and clearances for half a decade.  I know how they're granted, and how they're taken away.  

 

Was your father reinvestigated within the past 5-10 years?  No?  Then he doesn't have an active clearance.  He's either mistaken, or senile, or you're a !@#$ing moron.  I'm betting on the last one.

[Azalin]

58 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I'll respond to you because it seems you'd actually be interested in discussion.  I have said perhaps the best thing to do is simply take clearance away when new administrations come in.  Others pointed out some things that made me think about it.

 

i also pointed out the president has the right to do so, but if he does so to potentially obstruct investigation into his administration it could constitute an abuse of that power and if so Congress and the courts should step in.  My point was theoretical (again I pointed it out) but driven by the president's own words in the WSJ interview.  But when I point that out I'm told we shouldn't actually take those words as having meaning, or somehow twist them into them agreeing with the official statement that had no referral to his WSJ comment.

 

Brennan in his role as a private citizen is very critical of the president.  Perhaps overly critical when he talked about treason.  How exactly do the comments of a now private citizen lead to revoking clearance?  I don't see that.  Nor honestly do I think it ultimately is a big deal, because I am quite sure if the current CIA director needed input from Brennan she'd get it despite all this stuff.

 

I am, thanks.

 

I actually had a fairly lengthy reply mostly finished and accidentally nuked it.

 

So in brief:

 

Most of us here were not originally Trump supporters. In fact, I can only think of one person who still posts here that actually was pro-Trump while there were still others vying for the Republican nomination. I did not consider myself as supporting Trump, rather vehemently opposing Hillary. Many others here did the same. I only bring this up because many of the people you've locked horns with are not long-time Trumpists. Some are neither Republican nor conservative. We may come off as a pack of sycophants from your point of view, but that's not the case. Go back 20-24 pages in this forum and read for yourself - some of it is pretty funny, actually.

 

My only real contention with your argument is that Brennan has had his security clearance revoked for what seems like a sound reason to me. Add to that, he is now in the employ of a hyper-critical news organization, and he now becomes an inside track for sensitive information that can do far more than just put the president in a bad light. Doubly alarming to me is the cry that Brennan's constitutional freedom of speech is being violated, which makes no sense to me. In fact, I don't fully understand why anyone no longer in the employ of the federal government has any reason to have access to contemporary, classified information.

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, Azalin said:

In fact, I don't fully understand why anyone no longer in the employ of the federal government has any reason to have access to contemporary, classified information.

 

There can be a few reasons.  Research, for one - historical and scientific.  Part-time "on call" consulting gigs.

 

The thing about them too is that they're commodities.  They open doors and increase job prospects.  Lots of jobs, you can't get hired without an active clearance.  And they're also not all-encompassing "backstage passes" to secrets - need-to-know still applies.  If I have an active secret clearance with APL working on radar design, that doesn't let me just pop in to the State Department and talk about Iran's nuclear program or drop in at the NSA and chat with the codebreakers (especially the NSA.  They don't !@#$ around.  If you ever go through their gate by accident on 9/11 and tell them you have a meeting with "Mohammed," they will point lots of guns at you.  Just trust me on that.)

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Thurmal34 said:

Nothing more than a cowardly attempt to stifle free speech.

 

Brennan doesn’t need a clearance and doesn’t care if he still has one. Good for him. His record of service speaks for itself...

 

My Dad is 73 and still has his top secret clearance from his time at Da Nang, which ended in Nov 1970. Never been revoked. 

 

Any bets on what would happen if he tweeted something critical of prez thinskin?

 

How is revoking his security clearance revoking his right to free speech?  By definition, he can only disclose the top secret information he recieves via the clearance to others with the same clearance (or higher) level.  (& really doubt there's a clearance level higher than that which he held.)

[Thurmal34]

34 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

or you're a !@#$ing moron.  I'm betting on the last one.

 

I’m sure you are correct. Not worth any further discourse. 

 

Hope the Bills have a solid season this year, gotta be encouraged by Allen tonight!

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

How is revoking his security clearance revoking his right to free speech?  By definition, he can only disclose the top secret information he recieves via the clearance to others with the same clearance (or higher) level.  (& really doubt there's a clearance level higher than that which he held.)

 

 The point about free speech isn’t  about what he disclosed (nothing) it’s that he spoke up against the current adminstration. 

 

It’s retaliatory, like so much of this thin skinned administration’s behavior. Softest humans to ever govern.

 

Shouldn’t we be talking about Wilbur Ross?

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

 

How is revoking his security clearance revoking his right to free speech?  By definition, he can only disclose the top secret information he recieves via the clearance to others with the same clearance (or higher) level.  (& really doubt there's a clearance level higher than that which he held.)

 

Well...he wasn't cleared high enough to make the president's dinner (yes, that's actually a thing).  And there's a few that weren't necessarily "higher," but he certainly didn't hold (DOE Q clearance, for example).

 

It's not as simple and linear as people think, particularly when you start getting to Brennan/Strzok/Ohr levels.

 

13 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

 

I’m sure you are correct. Not worth any further discourse. 

 

Hope the Bills have a solid season this year, gotta be encouraged by Allen tonight!

 

 The point about free speech isn’t  about what he disclosed (nothing) it’s that he spoke up against the current adminstration. 

 

It’s retaliatory, like so much of this thin skinned administration’s behavior. Softest humans to ever govern.

 

Shouldn’t we be talking about Wilbur Ross?

 

No, now you're just being a patronizing !@#$.  The CFR trumps your daddy's bedtime stories.

[Thurmal34]

13 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Well...he wasn't cleared high enough to make the president's dinner (yes, that's actually a thing).  And there's a few that weren't necessarily "higher," but he certainly didn't hold (DOE Q clearance, for example).

 

It's not as simple and linear as people think, particularly when you start getting to Brennan/Strzok/Ohr levels.

 

 

No, now you're just being a patronizing !@#$.  The CFR trumps your daddy's bedtime stories.

 

Between the attacks on the free press, the retaliation against anyone who criticizes him, and the codified dog whistles, it's clear that our Dear Leader is more interested in his own peacocking pecking order than American principles.

 

The guy bragged about grabbing pussies on tape. That's sexual assault.

 

Which excuse do you have queued up for that one?