• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Revokes Security Clearance of John Brennan, Former C.I.A. Director

roguenuke said:
It still has to be done fairly, and isn't really "revoked". That is why it is simply allowed to become inactive/expire after 2 years, not revoked unless there is evidence of a security risk because revocation is a type of punishment, an indication that the person who had their clearance revoked did something that showed they should not have a clearance, whereas just allowing it to expire does not come with that same indication, that red flag on this person.

It has nothing to do with how good a job anyone else is doing. It has to do with fairness and the normal operation of security clearances. They should not be simply revoked (which again is a red flag and makes it harder later to reinstate, if able at all) from anyone. In fact, nothing should be done outside of the normal procedures for how they use, come about, are investigated, are revoked/expire, etc., especially not when there is a connection to the decision being made based off of a political statement. There may be the rare occasion when someone's clearance should be different, but that should be based on the situation showing a security risk that isn't otherwise covered by the established rules and precedence.

In fact, if Trump had not have targeted others after first threatening Brennan's security clearance and clearly stated that it was because of his lying to Congress, done, most people would have accepted it even if they suspected that it was being done from political motivation. But that isn't what happened. Trump made it political with what he said about it, what his staff put out about it, and even by threatening to remove the clearances of others who were speaking out against him.
Click to expand...


AHHH Fairly to who???? ITS NOT LAW or Constitutionally protected, Its Executive Privilege. I know what you mean and trying to say about norms and procedures, but understand the FACTS.. the POTUS can do this no if ands or butts. This is WHY I said in my earlier or other post. THIS SHOULD be Concerning to ALL parties NOT just Trump.... If a DEM POTUS is in and does this to Repubs it will be an uproar.


So there SHOULD be some type of actual LAW or Legitimate procedure across the board EITHER to maintain or NOT... that cannot be diverted due to political recourse. When apply for a clearance there is NONE, so at the time of employment termination/separation that should be the cut off as well.


Fair again to WHO? USUALLY when someone is revoked they are replaced with an able body person, THAT was Mike Pompeo and then Gina Haspel. If someone is FIRED then they are replaced with the NEXT capable person to continue to pertinent job. its not left vacated so the ONLY person that can do it is the one that was released. Many of these positions are Political Appointees to begin with..... That means we know there is some political partisanship when they get PUT in period. That also means with it shifts.....there will be POLITICAL backlash....


As for your mid point again the justification is not quite clear yet..... there will likely be a ruling of some sort... but facts are POTUS can currently do it... And again, you agree that there are SOME situations where clearances can be terminated immediately. Anyways we are beating the Dead horse.


As for your last point.... I agree... Trump talks too damn much and needs a gawt damn filter. Sadly the list LOOKS extremely partisan, BUT also Many on the list are warranted for odd misdeeds and actions beyond the norm.

Sally Yates, declining a Direct order from the POTUS.
Comey, Fired FBI Director. if you are fired you should NOT even be considered to maintain a clearance
Bruce Ohr, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page all connected to some back room wheeling and dealing.

Sure these are out spoken critics but some really off the wall case for these people.

Now again, if People, Pelosi, Mueller, Schummer, Maxine Waters active members, active clearances that are direct out spoken critics pertinent to ACTIVE jobs. Then I have a personal issue. But if they are retired in the weeds... meh.....

let me be clear AGAIN... THIS goes for BOTH sides of the AISLE if this happened the other way as well I would feel the same......HONESTLY.... Safeguarding our systems to me is more important so to revoke more often then to maintain sounds good to me especially when you have completed your job.
 
roguenuke said:
They are bogged down with such issues all the time. And it is their job to address such things.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court receives 7-8,000 petitions annually. During a busy year, the court hears 75-85 cases.

This nonsense will likely not even be heard by lower courts.

It is not the job, outside of small claims and L&T, to hear frivolous cases. Maybe Traffic courts. :doh
 
OldFatGuy said:
The Supreme Court receives 7-8,000 petitions annually. During a busy year, the court hears 75-85 cases.

This nonsense will likely not even be heard by lower courts.

It is not the job, outside of small claims and L&T, to hear frivolous cases. Maybe Traffic courts. :doh
Click to expand...

It is only a frivolous case according to you. It is a pretty important constitutional rights case, whether decided for the President or Brennan.
 
Exactice said:
AHHH Fairly to who???? ITS NOT LAW or Constitutionally protected, Its Executive Privilege. I know what you mean and trying to say about norms and procedures, but understand the FACTS.. the POTUS can do this no if ands or butts. This is WHY I said in my earlier or other post. THIS SHOULD be Concerning to ALL parties NOT just Trump.... If a DEM POTUS is in and does this to Repubs it will be an uproar.


So there SHOULD be some type of actual LAW or Legitimate procedure across the board EITHER to maintain or NOT... that cannot be diverted due to political recourse. When apply for a clearance there is NONE, so at the time of employment termination/separation that should be the cut off as well.


Fair again to WHO? USUALLY when someone is revoked they are replaced with an able body person, THAT was Mike Pompeo and then Gina Haspel. If someone is FIRED then they are replaced with the NEXT capable person to continue to pertinent job. its not left vacated so the ONLY person that can do it is the one that was released. Many of these positions are Political Appointees to begin with..... That means we know there is some political partisanship when they get PUT in period. That also means with it shifts.....there will be POLITICAL backlash....


As for your mid point again the justification is not quite clear yet..... there will likely be a ruling of some sort... but facts are POTUS can currently do it... And again, you agree that there are SOME situations where clearances can be terminated immediately. Anyways we are beating the Dead horse.


As for your last point.... I agree... Trump talks too damn much and needs a gawt damn filter. Sadly the list LOOKS extremely partisan, BUT also Many on the list are warranted for odd misdeeds and actions beyond the norm.

Sally Yates, declining a Direct order from the POTUS.
Comey, Fired FBI Director. if you are fired you should NOT even be considered to maintain a clearance
Bruce Ohr, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page all connected to some back room wheeling and dealing.

Sure these are out spoken critics but some really off the wall case for these people.

Now again, if People, Pelosi, Mueller, Schummer, Maxine Waters active members, active clearances that are direct out spoken critics pertinent to ACTIVE jobs. Then I have a personal issue. But if they are retired in the weeds... meh.....

let me be clear AGAIN... THIS goes for BOTH sides of the AISLE if this happened the other way as well I would feel the same......HONESTLY.... Safeguarding our systems to me is more important so to revoke more often then to maintain sounds good to me especially when you have completed your job.
Click to expand...

It should be an uproar no matter who does it, whichever Party the person belongs to who abuses their powers by trying to "punish" their political opponents by removing things like their security clearance. The safeguard is in not allowing government officials to abuse their power by "punishing" their political objectors/detractors in any way, even if something they have "executive power" to do.
 
roguenuke said:
It is only a frivolous case according to you. It is a pretty important constitutional rights case, whether decided for the President or Brennan.
Click to expand...

I make you a wager. If you're correct, $10k to the philanthropy of your choice. If I'm right, $100 to the philanthropy of your choice

There are no guarantees that clearances will be kept for future resumes and personal earnings. Practices, customs, and SOP's are not enforceable law, or the purview of the courts. If anything, they diminish the value of clearances.

The nights skies are filled with miracles. This isn't one of them.
 
roguenuke said:
It should be an uproar no matter who does it, whichever Party the person belongs to who abuses their powers by trying to "punish" their political opponents by removing things like their security clearance. The safeguard is in not allowing government officials to abuse their power by "punishing" their political objectors/detractors in any way, even if something they have "executive power" to do.
Click to expand...

I do agree. That is why instead of taking the power away from the president as lets face it ONLY Trump is the guttiest one to mess with it... he will be out in 2 years or 6 years....but future Presidents will likely not be a nuts as this guy.

How about we just fix the BASIC policy and keep it simple. You leave the job relevant your Security clearance is stopped, But a provision for those relevant if needed to be called back at the highest levels. It was said in a News debate NO Obama hold over has EVER been called into a briefing anyways. SO its kinda moot, say we let the 2 years go.... and not call Brennan in anyways... his SC expires and in a year from 2017 anyways and call it a day.... Trump is seems to be picking up on something and taking a lot of people for fools....and guess what..... they are biting.....
 
roguenuke said:
They are bogged down with such issues all the time. And it is their job to address such things.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS would refuse to even consider such a case.
 
Exactice said:
Understood.

Here are 2 points.

1) Your access and ability to access material is likely halted though. I am assuming you just cant walk into work one day pop in your CAC cards and start perusing through information. BUT if they need arises to bring you on contract your access can be reinstated?
1a) I really dont know what Brennan's agreement is but I would assume simlar. That his access has been terminated, but his Clearance is active on the books. BUT it does NOT seem like that, It seem (Opinion) That he still has access and contacts based on his clearance level. This is to deter the opportunity to limit his ability to continue talking with those active in the community so that he does not have the temptation to "leak"
1b) I think there were some points of "CAUSE" the warrant to withdraw his clearance, BUT again could be partisan talking points.

2) Political WHIM it is, I am acknowledging WHILE it does NOT look good, IT does seem childish and does seem like a political whim. Regardless it is his executive privilege to do so.

3) IF YOU ARE ACTIVE and in the JOB I agree that you need to adjudicated. ONCE you retire. Its practice to let it expire.... "practice/norm" BUT its NOT law or a part of a constitution. If they feel they want to terminate prior to expiration its their obligation to do so. AS long as its not relavent to an active contact no? AGAIN we are talking about NORMS/Practices/courtesies. But Im talking strictly legal ability.


So again I Know what you all are arguing about honestly. AGAIN though is it really that big a deal if he has or has not any access as retired? Im sure Gina Haspel is doing a fine job? So why again is Brennan relevant?
Click to expand...

I have to disagree on point 2. Trump's revocation of Brennan's security clearance was not on a whim. His stated reason had to do with Brennan's participation in the abuse of the FISA Court. Another valid reason would have been Brennan's history of leaking classified information. Even if it has just been over Brennan's anti-Trump banner, that is actually good enough as well. Why should a former CIA official openly hostile to the Commander in Chief on a daily basis be trusted with a security clearance?
 
roguenuke said:
It is only a frivolous case according to you. It is a pretty important constitutional rights case, whether decided for the President or Brennan.
Click to expand...

You do not have the foggiest clue what you are talking about. You are just making it up as you go along. The president can revoke a security clearance for any reason or no reason at all. Security clearances are not covered by the First Amendment. There is no constitutional right that guarantees that you can hold onto a clearance until it expires.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You do not have the foggiest clue what you are talking about. You are just making it up as you go along. The president can revoke a security clearance for any reason or no reason at all. Security clearances are not covered by the First Amendment. There is no constitutional right that guarantees that you can hold onto a clearance until it expires.
Click to expand...

Everything the government can do to a person, has control over when it comes to a person is covered by the 1st Amendment if the action is being taken by the government solely due to a person speaking something the government does not like. It doesn't matter if a person has a constitutional right to that thing or not.
 
roguenuke said:
Everything the government can do to a person, has control over when it comes to a person is covered by the 1st Amendment if the action is being taken by the government solely due to a person speaking something the government does not like. It doesn't matter if a person has a constitutional right to that thing or not.
Click to expand...

You are quite simply making it up as you go along. You are attempting to make the first amendment mean whatever you want it to mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom