(08-16-2018 07:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

how is his freedom of speech being silenced? he's just not allowed to access potential speech, correct?

(08-17-2018 11:22 AM)Lush Wrote:  

(08-16-2018 07:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

how is his freedom of speech being silenced? he's just not allowed to access potential speech, correct?

it's part of the fine print in his contract......

(08-17-2018 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 08:57 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 08:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 08:39 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 08:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  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.

If he's not actively working in a position that requires it, why does he need it?

(08-17-2018 11:32 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 08:57 AM)VA49er Wrote:  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.

If he's not actively working in a position that requires it, why does he need it?

He doesn't. As far as going through the whole process again, I'm not 100% sure how that works now, but I can explain how it worked in my day.

To receive a final security clearance, you needed to pass a background check. For a secret it was called a National Agency Check, which was basically a check of records, while for a top secret it was a Background Investigation, which was more intense and included interviews and more. Once you had filled out the application (SF-86) you could be granted an interim clearance. Once the investigation was completed successfully, you could get a final clearance. Your clearance could go up or down, as long as the highest level was supported by the appropriate completed investigation. You might have a TS at one command, reduced to secret at a command that did not handle TS information, restored to TS at a subsequent command, as long as you had a current BI with a satisfactory result. The BI had to be renewed, IIRC every 10 years.

So you could pull his clearance, and as long as he had a current BI, a subsequent administration could restore it. And if the BI had expired, they could still give him an interim once he completed and submitted the SF86. The 10 year rule applies if he kept the clearance. He would have to update his BI at 10 year intervals. If he no longer has the clearance, then the BI does not need to be updated. And the BI is the expensive part.

My point in all of this is that I'm trying to identify a reason why the whole process again argument has merit, and based on the way things were done in my day, I don't see one. If anything, letting him keep the clearance, which means another BI is required at the 10-year mark, is going to be at least as expensive, if not more, than the possibility that we might have to rerun the BI if we brought him back at some future point. Certainty versus possibility. And obviously the bring him back in to consult argument has ways around it as well. So I'm just not buying those arguments.

The expense is the BI, not the clearance itself. The clearance is typing a piece of paper and signing it. If he keeps the clearance, the BI has to be renewed anyway. If the clearance is pulled, then the BI has to be renewed if and only if we bring him/her back in after the prior BI has expired. And if we do bring him back in, we can always give him an interim. I don't see the problem.

And while he or she is not employed by the government or a government contractor, he or she has no "need to know" and thus cannot receive any classified information anyway, so I fail to understand any reason why he or she should have a clearance.

The only obvious reason for a guy like Brennan to have a clearance is so people can leak information to him. And that does not serve the national security interests of the country.

(08-17-2018 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 11:32 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 08:57 AM)VA49er Wrote:  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.

If he's not actively working in a position that requires it, why does he need it?

He doesn't. As far as going through the whole process again, I'm not 100% sure how that works now, but I can explain how it worked in my day.

To receive a final security clearance, you needed to pass a background check. For a secret it was called a National Agency Check, which was basically a check of records, while for a top secret it was a Background Investigation, which was more intense and included interviews and more. Once you had filled out the application (SF-86) you could be granted an interim clearance. Once the investigation was completed successfully, you could get a final clearance. Your clearance could go up or down, as long as the highest level was supported by the appropriate completed investigation. You might have a TS at one command, reduced to secret at a command that did not handle TS information, restored to TS at a subsequent command, as long as you had a current BI with a satisfactory result. The BI had to be renewed, IIRC every 10 years.

So you could pull his clearance, and as long as he had a current BI, a subsequent administration could restore it. And if the BI had expired, they could still give him an interim once he completed and submitted the SF86. The 10 year rule applies if he kept the clearance. He would have to update his BI at 10 year intervals. If he no longer has the clearance, then the BI does not need to be updated. And the BI is the expensive part.

My point in all of this is that I'm trying to identify a reason why the whole process again argument has merit, and based on the way things were done in my day, I don't see one. If anything, letting him keep the clearance, which means another BI is required at the 10-year mark, is going to be at least as expensive, if not more, than the possibility that we might have to rerun the BI if we brought him back at some future point. Certainty versus possibility. And obviously the bring him back in to consult argument has ways around it as well. So I'm just not buying those arguments.

neither is any other sane person.....

(08-17-2018 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 11:32 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 08:57 AM)VA49er Wrote:  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.

If he's not actively working in a position that requires it, why does he need it?

He doesn't. As far as going through the whole process again, I'm not 100% sure how that works now, but I can explain how it worked in my day.

To receive a final security clearance, you needed to pass a background check. For a secret it was called a National Agency Check, which was basically a check of records, while for a top secret it was a Background Investigation, which was more intense and included interviews and more. Once you had filled out the application (SF-86) you could be granted an interim clearance. Once the investigation was completed successfully, you could get a final clearance. Your clearance could go up or down, as long as the highest level was supported by the appropriate completed investigation. You might have a TS at one command, reduced to secret at a command that did not handle TS information, restored to TS at a subsequent command, as long as you had a current BI with a satisfactory result. The BI had to be renewed, IIRC every 10 years.

So you could pull his clearance, and as long as he had a current BI, a subsequent administration could restore it. And if the BI had expired, they could still give him an interim once he completed and submitted the SF86. The 10 year rule applies if he kept the clearance. He would have to update his BI at 10 year intervals. If he no longer has the clearance, then the BI does not need to be updated. And the BI is the expensive part.

My point in all of this is that I'm trying to identify a reason why the whole process again argument has merit, and based on the way things were done in my day, I don't see one. If anything, letting him keep the clearance, which means another BI is required at the 10-year mark, is going to be at least as expensive, if not more, than the possibility that we might have to rerun the BI if we brought him back at some future point. Certainty versus possibility. And obviously the bring him back in to consult argument has ways around it as well. So I'm just not buying those arguments.

The expense is the BI, not the clearance itself. The clearance is typing a piece of paper and signing it. If he keeps the clearance, the BI has to be renewed anyway. If the clearance is pulled, then the BI has to be renewed if we bring him/her back in after the prior BI has expired. And if we do bring him back in, we can always give him an interim. I don't see the problem.

Thanks for the background info. I'm still of the opinion these folks don't need a high level security clearance once they've left their position and your commentary reinforces my thought process on the matter.

https://spectator.org/john-brennan-a-sec...the-start/
"The real story about John Brennan’s security clearance is not that he lost it under a Republican president but that he once got one. One of the peculiar footnotes of Brennan’s history is that he obtained a position in Bill Casey’s CIA after having supported the Soviet-backed American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War. Had Casey conducted the polygraph test in which Brennan admitted to voting for Soviet proxy Gus Hall in 1976, Casey would have tossed him out of the office. Casey hated communists. Whoever hired Brennan must have been a Deep State holdover from the Carter years....

The only criticism that Trump deserves for yanking Brennan’s security clearance is its delay. He should have done it on day one. Brennan was a security risk from the start — an anti-American radical of staggering proportions who should never have been permitted within a hundred-mile radius of Langley. Putin, Trump once said, is “laughing his ass off” at the mayhem dolts like Brennan have caused. Putin is also no doubt laughing at the spectacle of a former communist rising to the top of the CIA, then conducting in his retirement an attempted coup against a patriotic president on the claimed grounds that he is insufficiently hostile to Mother Russia.

(08-17-2018 12:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://spectator.org/john-brennan-a-sec...the-start/
"The real story about John Brennan’s security clearance is not that he lost it under a Republican president but that he once got one. One of the peculiar footnotes of Brennan’s history is that he obtained a position in Bill Casey’s CIA after having supported the Soviet-backed American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War. Had Casey conducted the polygraph test in which Brennan admitted to voting for Soviet proxy Gus Hall in 1976, Casey would have tossed him out of the office. Casey hated communists. Whoever hired Brennan must have been a Deep State holdover from the Carter years....
The only criticism that Trump deserves for yanking Brennan’s security clearance is its delay. He should have done it on day one. Brennan was a security risk from the start — an anti-American radical of staggering proportions who should never have been permitted within a hundred-mile radius of Langley. Putin, Trump once said, is “laughing his ass off” at the mayhem dolts like Brennan have caused. Putin is also no doubt laughing at the spectacle of a former communist rising to the top of the CIA, then conducting in his retirement an attempted coup against a patriotic president on the claimed grounds that he is insufficiently hostile to Mother Russia.

I just wish that Trump had said those words.

(08-17-2018 12:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 12:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://spectator.org/john-brennan-a-sec...the-start/
"The real story about John Brennan’s security clearance is not that he lost it under a Republican president but that he once got one. One of the peculiar footnotes of Brennan’s history is that he obtained a position in Bill Casey’s CIA after having supported the Soviet-backed American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War. Had Casey conducted the polygraph test in which Brennan admitted to voting for Soviet proxy Gus Hall in 1976, Casey would have tossed him out of the office. Casey hated communists. Whoever hired Brennan must have been a Deep State holdover from the Carter years....
The only criticism that Trump deserves for yanking Brennan’s security clearance is its delay. He should have done it on day one. Brennan was a security risk from the start — an anti-American radical of staggering proportions who should never have been permitted within a hundred-mile radius of Langley. Putin, Trump once said, is “laughing his ass off” at the mayhem dolts like Brennan have caused. Putin is also no doubt laughing at the spectacle of a former communist rising to the top of the CIA, then conducting in his retirement an attempted coup against a patriotic president on the claimed grounds that he is insufficiently hostile to Mother Russia.

I just wish that Trump had said those words.

that's not his style.....his style is the same as mine.....the style above is yours.....

the end result is the same...

as I've mentioned many a time Owl, we basically say the same thing......we just do it differently....

I'm a champion of that dichotomy.....

I think we can all agree that he doesn't really need it...at least not now...but there is still no benefit whatsoever to revoking it.

(08-17-2018 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think we can all agree that he doesn't really need it...at least not now...but there is still no benefit whatsoever to revoking it.

The benefit is obvious. Someone that doesn't need the clearance shouldn't have the clearance for obvious security reasons.

(08-17-2018 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think we can all agree that he doesn't really need it...at least not now...but there is still no benefit whatsoever to revoking it.

If he doesn't need it then why not revoke it?

(08-17-2018 12:53 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think we can all agree that he doesn't really need it...at least not now...but there is still no benefit whatsoever to revoking it.

The benefit is obvious. Someone that doesn't need the clearance shouldn't have the clearance for obvious security reasons.

What security reasons? He's not working for the government, so he has no access to anything sensitive.

(08-17-2018 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 12:53 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think we can all agree that he doesn't really need it...at least not now...but there is still no benefit whatsoever to revoking it.

The benefit is obvious. Someone that doesn't need the clearance shouldn't have the clearance for obvious security reasons.

What security reasons? He's not working for the government, so he has no access to anything sensitive.

So he doesn't need it.

And at his age I doubt he'll be appointed back into a position in the government requiring it.

(08-17-2018 01:00 PM)gdunn Wrote:  And at his age I doubt he'll be appointed back into a position in the government requiring it.

Um, does it matter in politics? MaxSin is turning 80 and it shows. Her brain is mush but she's still a representative.

(08-17-2018 11:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 11:32 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 08:57 AM)VA49er Wrote:  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.

If he's not actively working in a position that requires it, why does he need it?

He doesn't. As far as going through the whole process again, I'm not 100% sure how that works now, but I can explain how it worked in my day.

To receive a final security clearance, you needed to pass a background check. For a secret it was called a National Agency Check, which was basically a check of records, while for a top secret it was a Background Investigation, which was more intense and included interviews and more. Once you had filled out the application (SF-86) you could be granted an interim clearance. Once the investigation was completed successfully, you could get a final clearance. Your clearance could go up or down, as long as the highest level was supported by the appropriate completed investigation. You might have a TS at one command, reduced to secret at a command that did not handle TS information, restored to TS at a subsequent command, as long as you had a current BI with a satisfactory result. The BI had to be renewed, IIRC every 10 years.

So you could pull his clearance, and as long as he had a current BI, a subsequent administration could restore it. And if the BI had expired, they could still give him an interim once he completed and submitted the SF86. The 10 year rule applies if he kept the clearance. He would have to update his BI at 10 year intervals. If he no longer has the clearance, then the BI does not need to be updated. And the BI is the expensive part.

My point in all of this is that I'm trying to identify a reason why the whole process again argument has merit, and based on the way things were done in my day, I don't see one. If anything, letting him keep the clearance, which means another BI is required at the 10-year mark, is going to be at least as expensive, if not more, than the possibility that we might have to rerun the BI if we brought him back at some future point. Certainty versus possibility. And obviously the bring him back in to consult argument has ways around it as well. So I'm just not buying those arguments.

The expense is the BI, not the clearance itself. The clearance is typing a piece of paper and signing it. If he keeps the clearance, the BI has to be renewed anyway. If the clearance is pulled, then the BI has to be renewed if and only if we bring him/her back in after the prior BI has expired. And if we do bring him back in, we can always give him an interim. I don't see the problem.

And while he or she is not employed by the government or a government contractor, he or she has no "need to know" and thus cannot receive any classified information anyway, so I fail to understand any reason why he or she should have a clearance.

The only obvious reason for a guy like Brennan to have a clearance is so people can leak information to him. And that does not serve the national security interests of the country.

But it would serve the national interest of other countries, which is why he should have been revoked long ago.

Quote:Earlier this week, the White House announced it intended to revoke the security clearance of a handful of vitriolic administration critics who still hold high-level security clearances. The outrage from the leak recipients was something to behold.

While it didn’t take much convincing to get Trump’s buy-in, the prime mover of the action was Senator Rand Paul.

Paul has written an op-ed at Breitbart (here’s the link) explaining why he thinks Brennan is a unique danger.

Clear evidence concerning the bias of multiple, high-ranking current and former intelligence community officials should make us think twice about letting retired intelligence officials keep access to classified information, especially if they become talking heads on television after leaving public service.

There is a great danger that vital, secret details may be revealed on television, even inadvertently.

John Brennan is no stranger to this problem.

Paul is referring to this incident.

White House efforts to soft-pedal the danger from a new “underwear bomb” plot emanating from Yemen may have inadvertently broken the news they needed most to contain.
Right here is the problem:

At about 5:45 p.m. EDT on Monday, May 7, just before the evening newscasts, John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s top White House adviser on counter-terrorism, held a small, private teleconference to brief former counter-terrorism advisers who have become frequent commentators on TV news shows.

According to five people familiar with the call, Brennan stressed that the plot was never a threat to the U.S. public or air safety because Washington had “inside control” over it.
Keep reading…

Keep reading here....

(08-17-2018 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 12:53 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think we can all agree that he doesn't really need it...at least not now...but there is still no benefit whatsoever to revoking it.

The benefit is obvious. Someone that doesn't need the clearance shouldn't have the clearance for obvious security reasons.

What security reasons? He's not working for the government, so he has no access to anything sensitive.

if moving forward has nothing to do with access, why have clearance?

one can always advise in relative terms.....

(08-18-2018 02:54 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 12:53 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I think we can all agree that he doesn't really need it...at least not now...but there is still no benefit whatsoever to revoking it.

The benefit is obvious. Someone that doesn't need the clearance shouldn't have the clearance for obvious security reasons.

What security reasons? He's not working for the government, so he has no access to anything sensitive.

if moving forward has nothing to do with access, why have clearance?

one can always advise in relative terms.....

these same idiots that maintain they have no bias and have lost their free speech rights go right on television and do nothing but constantly exhibit their bias.

we are living in crazy times when the most obvious shite has to be explained. brennan is a seditious butthurt bastard. he is lucky losing clearance is the only thing that has happened.