To all the "Brilliant" democrat legal minds that were on CNN, MSNBC, etc. today saying that Trump's action revoking Brennan's security clearance is ILLEGAL, site what specific law he broke. He did not tell Brennan stop appearing on cable TV and I'll let you keep your clearance so not sure how this can even come close to violating 1st amendment rights. As for security clearance, anyone that is no longer employed by the government should automatically have their credentials revoked after 6 months. Anyone FIRED should have them revoked immediately.
(08-16-2018 05:05 PM)usmbacker Wrote: Don Lemon Compares Trump To A “Dictator” For Revoking John Brennan’s Security Clearance…
My first thought when I saw that video
Lemon really is kinda dumb. Bye the way, is there an open sewer near his studio? He always looks like he just got a whiff of a nasty fart from one of his guest's.
(This post was last modified: 08-16-2018 07:16 PM by Attackcoog.)
(08-16-2018 05:05 PM)usmbacker Wrote: Don Lemon Compares Trump To A “Dictator” For Revoking John Brennan’s Security Clearance…
My first thought when I saw that video
Lemon really is kinda dumb. Bye the way, is there an open sewer near his studio? He always looks like he just got a whiff of a nasty fart from one of his guest's.
(08-16-2018 01:58 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: Fox News talks about this. A Colorado man killing his wife and NOW a teenage kid who needs a kidney.
Meanwhile Omarosa is on the other networks claiming Trump knew about the Wikileaks email dump a week before it happened.
Fox has integrity and knows Omarosa makes the Clintons look honest by comparison. The rest are just DNC news outlets. At best, they are looking for the next Kim Kardashian type story to boost their ratings.
(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.
You really don't need the people from the previous administration that much, whether its business or government. They got all they needed in the transition period.
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.
Shame that McRaven ties himself to Brennan. We KNOW he perjured himself before Congress on more than one occassion. And the only ones using McCarthy tactics are the Democrats.
(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.
(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??????
There's a lot of irony here.
Quote:The outrageous whitewash issued Wednesday by the CIA panel John Brennan hand-picked to lead the investigation into his agency’s spying on Senate staffers is being taken seriously by the elite Washington media, which is solemnly reporting that officials have been “cleared” of any “wrongdoing“.
But what the report really does is provide yet more evidence of Brennan’s extraordinary impunity.
The panel concluded that CIA officials acted reasonably by scouring Senate computer drives in early 2014 when faced with a “potential security breach”. (That “breach” had allowed Senate staffers investigating CIA torture to access, more than three years earlier, a handful of documents Brennan didn’t want them to see.)
But the CIA also released a redacted version of the full report of an earlier investigation by the CIA’s somewhat more independent inspector general’s office. And between the two reports, it is now more clear than ever that Brennan was the prime mover behind a hugely inappropriate assault on the constitutional separation of powers, and continues to get away with it.
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.
(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.
They keep them because these people are often used as resources by future administrations. Now, they can't be without getting the clearance issued again.
So, it's just a courtesy extended by the POTUS? Good to know. I don't see any issue with terminating the security clearance. In fact, once the person leaves the job, IMO, all security clearances should be revoked.
(This post was last modified: 08-17-2018 07:48 AM by VA49er.)
(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.
They keep them because these people are often used as resources by future administrations. Now, they can't be without getting the clearance issued again.
So, it's just a courtesy extended by the POTUS? Good to know. I don't see any issue with terminating the security clearance. In fact, once the person leaves the job, IMO, all security clearances should be revoked.
(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.
They keep them because these people are often used as resources by future administrations. Now, they can't be without getting the clearance issued again.
So, it's just a courtesy extended by the POTUS? Good to know. I don't see any issue with terminating the security clearance. In fact, once the person leaves the job, IMO, all security clearances should be revoked.
I had no idea they kept them.
I didn't either and it makes no sense. (I get the reasoning, but it still doesn't make sense). I mean, sure, let them keep the clearing while the new Admin gets up and running but it makes ZERO sense to keep that clearance indefinitely.
(08-15-2018 02:58 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: OT but Shepherd Smith is a smarmy cuck.
If I was Trump I'd tweet this: Yes, it's retaliation for posing a threat to the national security of this country and because it is completely within my purview to remove any clearance from any individual who reports to the executive office.".
(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.
They keep them because these people are often used as resources by future administrations. Now, they can't be without getting the clearance issued again.
So, it's just a courtesy extended by the POTUS? Good to know. I don't see any issue with terminating the security clearance. In fact, once the person leaves the job, IMO, all security clearances should be revoked.
I had no idea they kept them.
I didn't either and it makes no sense. (I get the reasoning, but it still doesn't make sense). I mean, sure, let them keep the clearing while the new Admin gets up and running but it makes ZERO sense to keep that clearance indefinitely.
Think about it though...if they are not used by a future administration after they leave it, it does no harm whatsoever for them to keep them. They can't get anything using it unless authorized by the current administration. trump won't be in charge forever. So if the next administration wants to use Brennan for something, he'll need to go through the whole process again...wasting everyone's time and money.
I know, it's mostly symbolic and won't ever be used...but that leads to my conclusion as to why this is just a petty dick move by a shallow man who can't seem to stand the heat you get as a president, warranted or not.
(This post was last modified: 08-17-2018 08:49 AM by Redwingtom.)
(08-15-2018 03:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: They keep them because these people are often used as resources by future administrations. Now, they can't be without getting the clearance issued again.
So, it's just a courtesy extended by the POTUS? Good to know. I don't see any issue with terminating the security clearance. In fact, once the person leaves the job, IMO, all security clearances should be revoked.
I had no idea they kept them.
I didn't either and it makes no sense. (I get the reasoning, but it still doesn't make sense). I mean, sure, let them keep the clearing while the new Admin gets up and running but it makes ZERO sense to keep that clearance indefinitely.
Think about it though...if they are not used by a future administration after they leave it, it does no harm whatsoever for them to keep them. They can't get anything using it unless authorized by the current administration. trump won't be in charge forever. So if the next administration wants to use Brennan for something, he'll need to go through the whole process again...wasting everyone's time and money.
I know, it's mostly symbolic and won't ever be used...but that leads to my conclusion as to why this is just a petty dick move by a shallow man who can't seem to stand the heat you get as a president, warranted or not.
It's really simple, If someone is needed in the future, simply give that person back his/her security clearance. IMO, there is absolutely no need to for folks no longer in the know to keep a security clearance. IMO, there is too much risk involved for folks that don't require that clearance any longer to keep the clearance.
(08-17-2018 07:47 AM)VA49er Wrote: So, it's just a courtesy extended by the POTUS? Good to know. I don't see any issue with terminating the security clearance. In fact, once the person leaves the job, IMO, all security clearances should be revoked.
I had no idea they kept them.
I didn't either and it makes no sense. (I get the reasoning, but it still doesn't make sense). I mean, sure, let them keep the clearing while the new Admin gets up and running but it makes ZERO sense to keep that clearance indefinitely.
Think about it though...if they are not used by a future administration after they leave it, it does no harm whatsoever for them to keep them. They can't get anything using it unless authorized by the current administration. trump won't be in charge forever. So if the next administration wants to use Brennan for something, he'll need to go through the whole process again...wasting everyone's time and money.
I know, it's mostly symbolic and won't ever be used...but that leads to my conclusion as to why this is just a petty dick move by a shallow man who can't seem to stand the heat you get as a president, warranted or not.
It's really simple, If someone is needed in the future, simply give that person back his/her security clearance. IMO, there is absolutely no need to for folks no longer in the know to keep a security clearance. IMO, there is too much risk involved for folks that don't require that clearance any longer to keep the clearance.
I believe someone posted above that he'd have to go through the whole process again as if he never had one. If true, it's just a waste of time and money that doesn't have to happen...just to soothe a fragile ego.
(08-17-2018 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: I believe someone posted above that he'd have to go through the whole process again as if he never had one. If true, it's just a waste of time and money that doesn't have to happen...just to soothe a fragile ego.
Someone here who knows far more about this stuff than I, said that once revoked, he'll never get it back again. As I said then, that pleases me.
Phuck the lying bastard. We can thank John Brennan for the Bueller witch hunt.
(08-17-2018 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: I believe someone posted above that he'd have to go through the whole process again as if he never had one. If true, it's just a waste of time and money that doesn't have to happen...just to soothe a fragile ego.
Someone here who knows far more about this stuff than I, said that once revoked, he'll never get it back again. As I said then, that pleases me.
Phuck the lying bastard. We can thank John Brennan for the Bueller witch hunt.
I'm certain if one constructed a pyramid with hill-lair-liar at the top, that POS would be stone #2.....
I simply want to see some people burn......not in hell (since I don't believe in that).....but literally get tossed in front of congress and incarcerated.....
there's no other way to fix the healing process w/o that happening within the current system...
#termlimitsandoversightgoddammit
pay them like a dadgum CEO and be done with it......
(This post was last modified: 08-17-2018 10:27 AM by stinkfist.)
/
Winning Wednesday: Trump revokes Brennan's security clearance.
