(08-18-2018 02:59 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(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 by 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.

crazy times is the nice version.....

it's staring everyone straight in the face.....the existing evidence is overwhelming and fully documented on this site alone.....

I'm thinking after the mids, the wolves will be let loose.....

I'm a patient feller....

(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.

Well--lets say the revocation is exactly for his unprecedented level of hate speech spewed nightly on TV. The reality is former government officials keeping their security clearance after leaving government service is strictly a courtesy. The other side of that expected courtesy was that former government officials would maintain secrets and not seek to overtly undermine and not regularly attempt to publicly embarrass the current serving administration. Brennan frankly has long passed the point of not really keeping his end of the bargain.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/08/18/the-u...plorables/

Deplorables keep winning. Untouchables continue to make themselves look bad.

"...Trump’s one-man crusade against The Untouchables is working. Regular Americans see this crowd’s shameless sense of entitlement and their resentment for anyone outside their circle. Their hatred for Trump is just an extension of their hatred for those he is defending. That’s why Trump will continue to fill up school auditoriums in the Midwest while The Untouchables will continue to fill up their columns with whining."

(08-19-2018 10:15 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://amgreatness.com/2018/08/18/the-u...plorables/

Deplorables keep winning. Untouchables continue to make themselves look bad.

"...Trump’s one-man crusade against The Untouchables is working. Regular Americans see this crowd’s shameless sense of entitlement and their resentment for anyone outside their circle. Their hatred for Trump is just an extension of their hatred for those he is defending. That’s why Trump will continue to fill up school auditoriums in the Midwest while The Untouchables will continue to fill up their columns with whining."

I swear on my life some of 'they' read this board......

there used to be a poster who's brother wrote for USAToday.....haven't seen him post in quite some time....

hmmmmmm....

this board is an untapped gold mine of the 4 corners and the fly-over intellect.....

this board is always a step ahead......

I think the revocation of his security clearance has more to do with those swampers still on the inside. If Brennen kept his SC then the insiders could ‘legally’ leak to him. Then he is free to leak on the MSM airwaves. Despicable really.

(08-18-2018 03:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 02:59 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

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

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

(08-17-2018 12:53 PM)VA49er Wrote:  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 by 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.

crazy times is the nice version.....

it's staring everyone straight in the face.....the existing evidence is overwhelming and fully documented on this site alone.....

I'm thinking after the mids, the wolves will be let loose.....

I'm a patient feller....

I'd like to see those government resources used against those who abused them. So that those people think twice before doing it next time. Brennan is #1 on the list.

(08-19-2018 12:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 03:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 02:59 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

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

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

crazy times is the nice version.....

it's staring everyone straight in the face.....the existing evidence is overwhelming and fully documented on this site alone.....

I'm thinking after the mids, the wolves will be let loose.....

I'm a patient feller....

I'd like to see those government resources used against those who abused them. So that those people think twice before doing it next time. Brennan is #1 on the list.

be patient.....DJT has nothing to lose......

he's going to roast those POS......

he's from Yonkers and knows how to do it........

that's why they're shivering in das boots......

they're fuxxored and they know it.....

that's how you play 'the big boy table game'......

I don’t have privileges to put in orders at previous hospitals I worked at. This guy doesn’t work for the government anymore, so he should have no access to government info anymore either.

(08-19-2018 03:00 PM)dfarr Wrote:  I don’t have privileges to put in orders at previous hospitals I worked at. This guy doesn’t work for the government anymore, so he should have no access to government info anymore either.

The mere fact that he has a clearance does not entitle him to any government information. Anything he gets would have to be given to him by the trump administration.

(08-18-2018 03:17 PM)Attackcoog 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.

Well--lets say the revocation is exactly for his unprecedented level of hate speech spewed nightly on TV. The reality is former government officials keeping their security clearance after leaving government service is strictly a courtesy. The other side of that expected courtesy was that former government officials would maintain secrets and not seek to overtly undermine and not regularly attempt to publicly embarrass the current serving administration. Brennan frankly has long passed the point of not really keeping his end of the bargain.

I think you're reaching here and making a pretty big assumption.

Keeping your clearance does not suspend your 1st amendment rights under the Constitution. Besides, trump isn't personally embarrassed by anything.

(08-20-2018 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 03:00 PM)dfarr Wrote:  I don’t have privileges to put in orders at previous hospitals I worked at. This guy doesn’t work for the government anymore, so he should have no access to government info anymore either.

The mere fact that he has a clearance does not entitle him to any government information. Anything he gets would have to be given to him by the trump administration.

Or someone in the Trump administration. Not all there are Trump supporters. They could, as I understand it, share what they wanted with him and then he could use it with no liability to the leaker. At least if Brennen loses his clearance the leaker will be prosecutable.

(08-20-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 03:17 PM)Attackcoog 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.

Well--lets say the revocation is exactly for his unprecedented level of hate speech spewed nightly on TV. The reality is former government officials keeping their security clearance after leaving government service is strictly a courtesy. The other side of that expected courtesy was that former government officials would maintain secrets and not seek to overtly undermine and not regularly attempt to publicly embarrass the current serving administration. Brennan frankly has long passed the point of not really keeping his end of the bargain.

I think you're reaching here and making a pretty big assumption.

Keeping your clearance does not suspend your 1st amendment rights under the Constitution. Besides, trump isn't personally embarrassed by anything.

No---you're the one reaching. The security clearance--or it's revocation---does not in any way affect your freedom of speech. He is free to criticize the administration either way. He is a TV commentator and a member of the media. There is no need to give him a security clearance. In fact, a security clearance is not needed for his position as a mass media commentator. So its revocation has zero affect on Brenan financially. Its merely a signal that the current administration foresees no possible instance where they would ever need or value his input.

(08-20-2018 12:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 03:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

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

(08-17-2018 12:53 PM)VA49er Wrote:  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.

Well--lets say the revocation is exactly for his unprecedented level of hate speech spewed nightly on TV. The reality is former government officials keeping their security clearance after leaving government service is strictly a courtesy. The other side of that expected courtesy was that former government officials would maintain secrets and not seek to overtly undermine and not regularly attempt to publicly embarrass the current serving administration. Brennan frankly has long passed the point of not really keeping his end of the bargain.

I think you're reaching here and making a pretty big assumption.

Keeping your clearance does not suspend your 1st amendment rights under the Constitution. Besides, trump isn't personally embarrassed by anything.

No---you're the one reaching. The security clearance--or it's revocation---does not in any way affect your freedom of speech. He is free to criticize the administration either way. He is a TV commentator and a member of the media. There is no need to give him a security clearance. In fact, a security clearance is not needed for his position as a mass media commentator. So its revocation has zero affect on Brenan financially. Its merely a signal that the current administration foresees no possible instance where they would ever need or value his input.

First, that's not at all what I said...and second, trump is not going to be president forever. At least I don't think so.

And I've said it countless times on this thread already, that no, he does not need the clearance for his current role. That being said, there is absolutely ZERO harm by letting him keep the clearance. He has access to no information unless the trump administration grants it. This is nothing bet a dick move by a fragile and petty man.

(08-20-2018 12:03 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 03:00 PM)dfarr Wrote:  I don’t have privileges to put in orders at previous hospitals I worked at. This guy doesn’t work for the government anymore, so he should have no access to government info anymore either.

The mere fact that he has a clearance does not entitle him to any government information. Anything he gets would have to be given to him by the trump administration.

Or someone in the Trump administration. Not all there are Trump supporters. They could, as I understand it, share what they wanted with him and then he could use it with no liability to the leaker. At least if Brennen loses his clearance the leaker will be prosecutable.

I don't think you understand it.

(08-20-2018 01:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 12:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 03:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-17-2018 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What security reasons? He's not working for the government, so he has no access to anything sensitive.

Well--lets say the revocation is exactly for his unprecedented level of hate speech spewed nightly on TV. The reality is former government officials keeping their security clearance after leaving government service is strictly a courtesy. The other side of that expected courtesy was that former government officials would maintain secrets and not seek to overtly undermine and not regularly attempt to publicly embarrass the current serving administration. Brennan frankly has long passed the point of not really keeping his end of the bargain.

I think you're reaching here and making a pretty big assumption.

Keeping your clearance does not suspend your 1st amendment rights under the Constitution. Besides, trump isn't personally embarrassed by anything.

No---you're the one reaching. The security clearance--or it's revocation---does not in any way affect your freedom of speech. He is free to criticize the administration either way. He is a TV commentator and a member of the media. There is no need to give him a security clearance. In fact, a security clearance is not needed for his position as a mass media commentator. So its revocation has zero affect on Brenan financially. Its merely a signal that the current administration foresees no possible instance where they would ever need or value his input.

First, that's not at all what I said...and second, trump is not going to be president forever. At least I don't think so.

And I've said it countless times on this thread already, that no, he does not need the clearance for his current role. That being said, there is absolutely ZERO harm by letting him keep the clearance. He has access to no information unless the trump administration grants it. This is nothing bet a dick move by a fragile and petty man.

I think your "logic' is based more on your opinion of trump than any facts.

I believe the actual language regarding the continuation of the security clearance after leaving government service requires the individual to "act in the manner consistent with their current government employment". I dont believe its common practice for Justice Department employees to routinely accuse the president of treason or publicly discuss cases currently being investigated. Frankly, Brenans current job isnt really conducive to maintaining the spirit of the extension of his security clearance. I just heard this morning on the radio that a security clearance of an Obama analyst was jerked after they brought to light some buddy buddy Obama comrads defense contracts being awarded.

I have a feeling this is not as unusual as its being portrayed. What I suspect is its done more often than we think--but there are no tweets about it.

(08-20-2018 03:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 01:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 12:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 03:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Well--lets say the revocation is exactly for his unprecedented level of hate speech spewed nightly on TV. The reality is former government officials keeping their security clearance after leaving government service is strictly a courtesy. The other side of that expected courtesy was that former government officials would maintain secrets and not seek to overtly undermine and not regularly attempt to publicly embarrass the current serving administration. Brennan frankly has long passed the point of not really keeping his end of the bargain.

I think you're reaching here and making a pretty big assumption.

Keeping your clearance does not suspend your 1st amendment rights under the Constitution. Besides, trump isn't personally embarrassed by anything.

No---you're the one reaching. The security clearance--or it's revocation---does not in any way affect your freedom of speech. He is free to criticize the administration either way. He is a TV commentator and a member of the media. There is no need to give him a security clearance. In fact, a security clearance is not needed for his position as a mass media commentator. So its revocation has zero affect on Brenan financially. Its merely a signal that the current administration foresees no possible instance where they would ever need or value his input.

First, that's not at all what I said...and second, trump is not going to be president forever. At least I don't think so.

And I've said it countless times on this thread already, that no, he does not need the clearance for his current role. That being said, there is absolutely ZERO harm by letting him keep the clearance. He has access to no information unless the trump administration grants it. This is nothing bet a dick move by a fragile and petty man.

I think your "logic' is based more on your opinion of trump than any facts.

I believe the actual language regarding the continuation of the security clearance after leaving government service requires the individual to "act in the manner consistent with their current government employment". I dont believe its common practice for Justice Department employees to routinely accuse the president of treason or publicly discuss cases currently being investigated. Frankly, Brenans current job isnt really conducive to maintaining the spirit of the extension of his security clearance.

Link please?

(08-20-2018 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-18-2018 03:17 PM)Attackcoog 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.

Well--lets say the revocation is exactly for his unprecedented level of hate speech spewed nightly on TV. The reality is former government officials keeping their security clearance after leaving government service is strictly a courtesy. The other side of that expected courtesy was that former government officials would maintain secrets and not seek to overtly undermine and not regularly attempt to publicly embarrass the current serving administration. Brennan frankly has long passed the point of not really keeping his end of the bargain.

I think you're reaching here and making a pretty big assumption.

Keeping your clearance does not suspend your 1st amendment rights under the Constitution. Besides, trump isn't personally embarrassed by anything.

Actually you're more accountable for your actions while holding a clearance. Remember first amendment says you can say what you want to, you can call your boss a peckerhead and while you won't go to jail, you can lose your job. Brennan can say what he wants, he did, and lost his clearance. He can still criticize Trump. Nothing has changed except he doesn't have a clearance. It's a privilege not a right.