John Brennan's Security Clearance

[Doc Brown]

8 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

That OpEd lacks context.

 

Again, the President's words carry the two year long context of elements of the CIA, DOJ, and FBI working to rig a federal election, and stage a palace coup while John Brennan was heading up one of the agencies in question.

 

That's not political or vindictive.

 

The National Review piece in question carefully skips through that minefield, and attempts to place the removal of Brennan's clearances in a vacuum, marking it solely as a political decision, when it is decidedly not.

That's problematic if that's the reason as that hasn't been proven yet.  He pry should've just stuck to the official reason and not given an interview to the WSJ.  If this is ultimately about political retribution it's a bad precedent to set even though I'm no fan of Brennan.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

That's problematic if that's the reason as that hasn't been proven yet.  He pry should've just stuck to the official reason and not given an interview to the WSJ.  If this is ultimately about political retribution it's a bad precedent to set even though I'm no fan of Brennan.

 

So, in a situation where there was an ongoing coup attempt a sitting President should be required to maintain security clearances of the coup plotters until after it's been adjudicated?

Edited August 18, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Doc Brown]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

So, in a situation where there was an ongoing coup attempt a sitting President should be required to maintain security clearances of the coup plotters until after it's been adjudicated?

I would say until there's enough credible evidence to suggest there was some Deep State coup against Trump and that Brennan was directly involved.  You seem to be pretty convinced it was while I haven't seen enough evidence yet even after going through Greg's diligent and exhaustive work.   

[row_33]

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I would say until there's enough credible evidence to suggest there was some Deep State coup against Trump and that Brennan was directly involved.  You seem to be pretty convinced it was while I haven't seen enough evidence yet even after going through Greg's diligent and exhaustive work.   

 

Even if there was it won’t be dealt with

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I would say until there's enough credible evidence to suggest there was some Deep State coup against Trump and that Brennan was directly involved.  You seem to be pretty convinced it was while I haven't seen enough evidence yet even after going through Greg's diligent and exhaustive work.   

 

Intellectual exercise:

 

Let's pretend we aren't talking about President Trump.  Let's talk about a possible future President 20 years from now.

 

That President has 100% credible intelligence provided to him by the NSA that a federal election was rigged and a coup attempted by members of the civilian arms of US intelligence services.  The President OKs a counter intelligence roll up on these individuals, the final goal being their exposure and prosecution, but it's a long process.  Years long, if done properly, because the list of wrong doers involved includes leaders of the opposition political party, and simply throwing them in jail would cause mass civil unrest; so the cases made against them need to be 100% air tight and incontrovertible.

 

Durring this process some of the highest ranking intelligence officials involved realize they're completely screwed, and begin to use their retained security clearances to hamper and harm the new government's prosecution efforts by attempting to sow public discord in order to seed a citizens rebellion when the arrests start to happen.

 

Should the President be able to revoke the security clearances of those involved?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

And, on queue, the propaganda wings of the CIA/NSA have swung into action to defend Brennan at all costs.

 

 

[boyst]

9 hours ago, Thurmal34 said:

 

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?

He's not attacking the Free press.  Show me evidence of him saying he is against free press?

 

It's clear you're dishonest or having issues with where you get your sources...  I'll believe the latter 

 

I'll await your source along with gugnys...

 

Funny, drive by posters are rarely honest.

[B-Man]

BACKTRACK time? John Brennan now not completely sure Trump’s behavior is “nothing short of treasonous” [video]

 

 

Quote

 

John O. Brennan

✔@JohnBrennan

Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???

11:52 AM - Jul 16, 2018

 

 

 

“Nothing short of treasonous”? It seems pretty clear-cut how Brennan felt there. However, on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show last night, Brennan, who is now without a security clearance, wasn’t quite as adamant:

 

After Brennan said he didn’t literally mean the president committed treason, Maddow pressed him to return to the literal interpretation of the Resistance talking points:

MADDOW: But you didn’t mean that he committed treason, though?

BRENNAN: I said it was nothing short of treasonous. That was the term I used, yes.

MADDOW: That’s the – if we – if we diagram the sentence, nothing short of treasonous means it’s treason.

I mean, the reason – the reason I’m bringing this out is because when you say, I know what the Russians did and when you – knowing what the Russians did, observing the president’s behavior, you go to the word “treason” suggests that you think the president may be –

BRENNAN: The president –

MADDOW: – serving a foreign country rather than our own.

BRENNAN: Well, yes. I think he has crossed the line repeatedly in terms of his failure to fulfill the responsibility of the office. And to look Putin square in the eye and say, this should never, ever happen again.

Somebody make Brennan a “Treason, but not treason treason” t-shirt to wear for his next interview.

 

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Intellectual exercise:

 

Let's pretend we aren't talking about President Trump.  Let's talk about a possible future President 20 years from now.

 

That President has 100% credible intelligence provided to him by the NSA that a federal election was rigged and a coup attempted by members of the civilian arms of US intelligence services.  The President OKs a counter intelligence roll up on these individuals, the final goal being their exposure and prosecution, but it's a long process.  Years long, if done properly, because the list of wrong doers involved includes leaders of the opposition political party, and simply throwing them in jail would cause mass civil unrest; so the cases made against them need to be 100% air tight and incontrovertible.

 

Durring this process some of the highest ranking intelligence officials involved realize they're completely screwed, and begin to use their retained security clearances to hamper and harm the new government's prosecution efforts by attempting to sow public discord in order to seed a citizens rebellion when the arrests start to happen.

 

Should the President be able to revoke the security clearances of those involved?

100% credible intelligence?  Yes.  Revoke their security clearances.  If that's the outcome in this case a couple years down the line then everything Trump's done and said with regard to Brennan and anybody else's security clearance he takes away in the future FOR THAT REASON will be justified.

 

If Trump simply is paranoid and is just guessing this was a coup (while being irritated by ex intelligent officials who speak out against him), then this sets a bad precedent as I'm sure previous presidents would've loved to revoke security clearances of intelligence officials who spoke ill of their administration.

[Deranged Rhino]

39 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

100% credible intelligence?  Yes.  Revoke their security clearances.  If that's the outcome in this case a couple years down the line then everything Trump's done and said with regard to Brennan and anybody else's security clearance he takes away in the future FOR THAT REASON will be justified.

 

If Trump simply is paranoid and is just guessing this was a coup (while being irritated by ex intelligent officials who speak out against him), then this sets a bad precedent as I'm sure previous presidents would've loved to revoke security clearances of intelligence officials who spoke ill of their administration.

 

Look back at just modern history, through the WMD debacle, through the torture program... how many intelligence officials have publicly spoken ill of the administration, whether it be HW's, 44's, or even 43's? Notice anything?

 

We've never seen such sustained, constant attacks from the previous IC against a current president as we've seen Brennan/Clapper launch against Trump. On one hand you could say that's because they know he's compromised by Russia and thus speaking out (though, there's no evidence of that claim in over 2 years of searching for it), then on the other you could say that it's happening because Brennan and Clapper - and the former IC folk circling the wagons around them - are being overly defensive and deliberately hyperbolic. 

 

Unlike the first possibility, there's mountains of evidence to suggest why they'd be defensive. They got caught abusing the surveillance state for political purposes. We already know Clapper is a liar, he has proven that time and time again. Same with Brennan. Both have lied about their own abuses to Congress in the past. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

*********************

Look at Mudd's eyes during the opening remarks, then watch him become unhinged. 

 

Remember, Mudd was hired to CNN (from CIA) right before the Russia Narrative began. He's a paid USIC asset to push this narrative onto the mainstream... and he knows he's absolutely !@#$ED. Hence, his over the top reaction here. 

 

Projection is real. The fear is real. These people never thought they'd get caught. Tough times ahead for a lot of people, mainly people who perpetrated this (dis)information campaign, but also for those who've spent two years blindly listening to liars like Mudd propagandize them.

 

 

 

And notice how Mudd is LYING from the start. No one is talking about him being paid by the Government. The whole point is they're paid after they leave government service by think tanks and media companies (like CNN who's paying Mudd nicely for his continued treason).

[Deranged Rhino]

************************

Irony alert:

https://www.weeklystandard.com/stephen-f-hayes/benghazi-survivors-given-ndas-at-cia-memorial-service-for-woods-doherty

 

"What difference does it make?" 

 

[Doc Brown]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Look back at just modern history, through the WMD debacle, through the torture program... how many intelligence officials have publicly spoken ill of the administration, whether it be HW's, 44's, or even 43's? Notice anything?

 

We've never seen such sustained, constant attacks from the previous IC against a current president as we've seen Brennan/Clapper launch against Trump. On one hand you could say that's because they know he's compromised by Russia and thus speaking out (though, there's no evidence of that claim in over 2 years of searching for it), then on the other you could say that it's happening because Brennan and Clapper - and the former IC folk circling the wagons around them - are being overly defensive and deliberately hyperbolic. 

 

Unlike the first possibility, there's mountains of evidence to suggest why they'd be defensive. They got caught abusing the surveillance state for political purposes. We already know Clapper is a liar, he has proven that time and time again. Same with Brennan. Both have lied about their own abuses to Congress in the past. 

We've also never had a president question the findings of his intelligence agency publicly as much as Trump so it's difficult to determine the motivation of the attacks by Brennan and Clapper.  Are they just ticked off he's undermining institutions they've spent a majority of their career working for and take pride in......or are there alternative motives for the attacks?  We don't know yet.

 

I have no problem with Trump getting rid of their security clearances if that's the stated reason and Trump doesn't deviate from that reason.    

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:

We've also never had a president question the findings of his intelligence agency publicly as much as Trump so it's difficult to determine the motivation of the attacks by Brennan and Clapper.  Are they just ticked off he's undermining institutions they've spent a majority of their career working for and take pride in......or are there alternative motives for the attacks?  We don't know yet.

 

I have no problem with Trump getting rid of their security clearances if that's the stated reason and Trump doesn't deviate from that reason.    

 

To your first point, look back at Obama's first campaign and his first year in office and his comments on the WMD/Iraq blunder. He pushed back hard against the IC as a candidate and as POTUS. Sure, Trump is less artful in his words, but Obama questioned the IC in numerous ways... until he completely rolled over and exposed his belly to them. 

 

 

That is the difference. Obama was put in check. Trump has resisted. 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

Why did Trump move his team out of the Trump Tower right after he was elected and had a meeting with Admiral Rodgers? Trump has been suspicious of the IC ever since, and with good reason.

[Nanker]

I am of the opinion that John Brennan is a traitor to this country. 

[outsidethebox]

16 hours ago, 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. 

Have you always been such a drama queen? 

You don't care if he has clearance or not, it's the way it was removed?? 

Awwwww......poor baby! Was daddy Trump mean to brennan? His feelings were hurt. Such a big meanie!?????

[Doc Brown]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

To your first point, look back at Obama's first campaign and his first year in office and his comments on the WMD/Iraq blunder. He pushed back hard against the IC as a candidate and as POTUS. Sure, Trump is less artful in his words, but Obama questioned the IC in numerous ways... until he completely rolled over and exposed his belly to them. 

 

That is the difference. Obama was put in check. Trump has resisted. 

Which lends credence to the case that Brennan/Clapper, etc... have spoken out against this president simply because he's questioning (and in some cases attacking) the institutions they've spent most of their career serving.  It's difficult to tell because every party involved are proven liars.

[Nanker]

Brennan and Clapper are largely responsible for the 2nd Iraq war. They wanted it to build their empires and have their budgets stoked. They’re the worst slime that ever slithered in the Swamp that is Washington DC. 

[Taro T]

15 hours 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?

Your point on free speech is weak at best.  There were several legitimate reasons for his clearance to be revoked as outlined in the WH announcement that made the revocation public.

 

As for discussing Wilbur Ross, why should we be discussing himin a thread dedicated to Brennan's security clearance being revoked.