(08-16-2018 12:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Perhaps you guys can explain this. Brennan was not working for the government, so him having a security clearance allowed him to do what exactly that would not have to be first known to the trump administration?
Good question. So why does he need one?
He doesn't. But as I said, he might need one in the future...for this or another administration should they need his expert opinion on something. Now, that's not possible without another extensive process for him to obtain one. That's why it's nothing more than petty to revoke it now. It was harming nothing for him to have it. It's just petty political nonsense from this flailing administration.
Oh it hurts alright. That is why they (and you) protest so much. It takes away some of the authority of his attacks on the president. An embarrassed ex government employee who has been stripped of his security clearance no longer holds the weight the networks payed for.
(08-16-2018 12:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Perhaps you guys can explain this. Brennan was not working for the government, so him having a security clearance allowed him to do what exactly that would not have to be first known to the trump administration?
Good question. So why does he need one?
He doesn't. But as I said, he might need one in the future...for this or another administration should they need his expert opinion on something. Now, that's not possible without another extensive process for him to obtain one. That's why it's nothing more than petty to revoke it now. It was harming nothing for him to have it. It's just petty political nonsense from this flailing administration.
Oh it hurts alright. That is why they (and you) protest so much. It takes away some of the authority of his attacks on the president. An embarrassed ex government employee who has been stripped of his security clearance no longer holds the weight the networks payed for.
Ridiculous. They pay him for his knowledge of how things work in government, the military and on the world stage. Whether he still holds a security clearance or not is irrelevant to that experience. And in fact, this will only make him MORE in demand by the networks and therefore worth MORE to them.
(This post was last modified: 08-16-2018 02:44 PM by Redwingtom.)
Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.
Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.
Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs.
A good leader tries to embody the best qualities of his or her organization. A good leader sets the example for others to follow. A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself.
Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities. Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.
If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.
William H. McRaven, a retired Navy admiral, was commander of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014. He oversaw the 2011 Navy SEAL raid in Pakistan that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
Well I guess this guys opinion settles it.....not!
The guy probably is near the top of the cabal that created this crap show. He leaked the initial dossier crap to CNN to guarantee himself a job later. He is in no way some great saint of democracy. He is a cancer that thankfully now has been excised from our government.
As for OBL, I didn’t know he fired a shot or busted down doors in Pakistan. Yeah right, he’s the hero. (I think Hussein and Hillary have already claimed their heroism in the killing of OBL anyway)
(08-16-2018 12:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Perhaps you guys can explain this. Brennan was not working for the government, so him having a security clearance allowed him to do what exactly that would not have to be first known to the trump administration?
Good question. So why does he need one?
He doesn't. But as I said, he might need one in the future...for this or another administration should they need his expert opinion on something. Now, that's not possible without another extensive process for him to obtain one. That's why it's nothing more than petty to revoke it now. It was harming nothing for him to have it. It's just petty political nonsense from this flailing administration.
Oh it hurts alright. That is why they (and you) protest so much. It takes away some of the authority of his attacks on the president. An embarrassed ex government employee who has been stripped of his security clearance no longer holds the weight the networks payed for.
Ridiculous. They pay him for his knowledge of how things work in government, the military and on the world stage. Whether he still holds a security clearance or not is irrelevant to that experience. And in fact, this will only make him MORE in demand by the networks and therefore worth MORE to them.
Of course it will....explains his gratitude to the administration for dumping his ass.
(08-16-2018 12:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Perhaps you guys can explain this. Brennan was not working for the government, so him having a security clearance allowed him to do what exactly that would not have to be first known to the trump administration?
Good question. So why does he need one?
He doesn't. But as I said, he might need one in the future...for this or another administration should they need his expert opinion on something. Now, that's not possible without another extensive process for him to obtain one. That's why it's nothing more than petty to revoke it now. It was harming nothing for him to have it. It's just petty political nonsense from this flailing administration.
Brenan has proven to be outrageously hostile to the current administration. Frankly, I cant remember any previous CIA Director conducting himself as Brennan has. He has been very public and very hostile to most any inititive this administration has undertaken. Why on earth would they ever bring in a guy for advice who wants the administration to fail? His irrational hate of Trump has made him worthless as an asset. No need for him to have security clearance at this point. In fact, his clearance may even be a liability (especially if they suspect him of being at least one source of the early WH leaks)---thus its revocation makes sense.
So--yes the revocation is unprecedented---but so was Brennan's behavior.
(This post was last modified: 08-16-2018 02:56 PM by Attackcoog.)
(08-15-2018 03:04 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: If the end result of this partisan tit-for-tat is removing security clearances for ex-government employees, then we are all winners.
Why would an EX-government employee have a security clearance in the first place?
To get rich, of course.
Sounds asinine to me for an ex employee to retain any level of security clearance. Maybe it's just me though.
Last night on his radio show Mark Levin mentioned that retaining security clearance is needed for transition meetings from outgoing to incoming administrations.
He said it's also a professional courtesy.
But he also said it's professional courtesy to not go around blasting the incoming administration. When you start making the mainstream media circuit gives extra credence to what you say -- even if you don't have any "security" insight into what you're saying.
The sitting president has a duty and responsibility to ensure security clearances are correct and protect the best interest of the citizens of the United States.
To me, it only makes sense an avowed communist doesn't have a security clearance.
The puzzler is why he ever had one in the first place.
lol...and he would have been completely within his rights to do so since she has publicly admitted that she violated US law by illegally recording classified conversations in the situation room---and has indicated she intends to make them to public.
(08-16-2018 01:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: This was in the can. You revoke the security clearance in case someone needs your opinion. Everyone of these people are tied the Russian investigation. Omarosa started dropping tapes. Does she have one where a Trump knows that the stolen emails are going to drop??????
(08-16-2018 01:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: Hold this til you need to distract......
Good. That means it's been in the works for a while and didn't just happen yesterday.
After throwing so much crap against the wall trying to damage this POTUS and seeing it get flung right back in your face, you'd think the radleft/estbalishment left would get a clue and think before they act.
Wait a minute... forget I said that. Think before they act -- year, right.
(08-15-2018 03:02 PM)VA49er Wrote: I'm not sure why anyone no longer in a former job that required a security clearance would still have that security clearance after leaving the job. Seems logical to me for that clearance to be revoked, no matter the politics, etc.
Losing a clearance as soon as that person exits that position should be AUTOMATIC for any member of any political party. Hear that Libs, any party.
(08-15-2018 04:24 PM)gdunn Wrote: The day I leave the job I lose my clearance. They cost money and the company won't keep it up unless I'm still employed but doing other things with them that require it. But to reactivate it won't be an issue if done within a time period. I think it's 5 years or something. I haven't thought much or looked into it.
Exactly. When I retired from the FD my ID card was immediately taken away. I didn't gripe, why should I? I wasn't working there anymore. Stupid Libs want their cake and to eat it too. Screw all of them. Let them biatch, they will anyway so just give them more noose to hang themselves with their stupid fake outrage.
(08-16-2018 12:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Perhaps you guys can explain this. Brennan was not working for the government, so him having a security clearance allowed him to do what exactly that would not have to be first known to the trump administration?
Good question. So why does he need one?
He doesn't. But as I said, he might need one in the future...for this or another administration should they need his expert opinion on something. Now, that's not possible without another extensive process for him to obtain one. That's why it's nothing more than petty to revoke it now. It was harming nothing for him to have it. It's just petty political nonsense from this flailing administration.
Brenan has proven to be outrageously hostile to the current administration. Frankly, I cant remember any previous CIA Director conducting himself as Brennan has. He has been very public and very hostile to most any inititive this administration has undertaken. Why on earth would they ever bring in a guy for advice who wants the administration to fail? His irrational hate of Trump has made him worthless as an asset. No need for him to have security clearance at this point. In fact, his clearance may even be a liability (especially if they suspect him of being at least one source of the early WH leaks)---thus its revocation makes sense.
So--yes the revocation is unprecedented---but so was Brennan's behavior.
Yea,
I'm not seeing a Mike Pompeo or Gina Haspel seeking out a commie-kook like Brennan for his deep knowledge or "advice". If Haspel finds she needs a predecessor to bounce something off of, I'm sure Pompeo will take that call.
(08-16-2018 12:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Perhaps you guys can explain this. Brennan was not working for the government, so him having a security clearance allowed him to do what exactly that would not have to be first known to the trump administration?
Good question. So why does he need one?
He doesn't. But as I said, he might need one in the future...for this or another administration should they need his expert opinion on something. Now, that's not possible without another extensive process for him to obtain one. That's why it's nothing more than petty to revoke it now. It was harming nothing for him to have it. It's just petty political nonsense from this flailing administration.
Oh it hurts alright. That is why they (and you) protest so much. It takes away some of the authority of his attacks on the president. An embarrassed ex government employee who has been stripped of his security clearance no longer holds the weight the networks payed for.
Ridiculous. They pay him for his knowledge of how things work in government, the military and on the world stage. Whether he still holds a security clearance or not is irrelevant to that experience. And in fact, this will only make him MORE in demand by the networks and therefore worth MORE to them.
Well, then he should be thanking the Drumpf, right?
(08-15-2018 03:02 PM)VA49er Wrote: I'm not sure why anyone no longer in a former job that required a security clearance would still have that security clearance after leaving the job. Seems logical to me for that clearance to be revoked, no matter the politics, etc.
Losing a clearance as soon as that person exits that position should be AUTOMATIC for any member of any political party. Hear that Libs, any party.
/
Winning Wednesday: Trump revokes Brennan's security clearance.
![[Image: pissoffbrennan.jpg]](https://www.tapwires.com/files/images/2018/March/17/pissoffbrennan.jpg)
![[Image: VZK8Rp12ytfOXA79ZjfX_w1doogH9HGvo4GO4W2U...910e115319]](https://i.redditmedia.com/VZK8Rp12ytfOXA79ZjfX_w1doogH9HGvo4GO4W2UzMM.png?w=695&s=8e4c6f4f481c49c39c0b66910e115319)
