Revoke My Clearance Too

[Mason66]

U.S. Army Brigadier Gen. Anthony Tata (Ret.).

In an appearance on “Fox and Friends” Thursday, Tata said Trump was justified in revoking Brennan’s security clearance, describing him as a “clear and present danger to this nation.”

Tata refers to the former CIA director as “Communist John Brennan” because he once voted for a Communist Party candidate.

“He supports the overthrow of this particular president and he needed to have his access to information revoked … He spied on American citizens and lied in front of Congress about that spying,” Tata said.

“Question 29 on the security clearance form says, ‘Have you ever supported overthrowing the U.S. government?’ All you gotta do is look at Brennan’s tweets and he supports the removal of this president and right there that’s enough to get rid of his clearance.” Tata said.



Rand Paul Breaks Silence After Brennan’s Security Clearance Revoked, And He’s Not Alone | The Daily Caller


One military guy writes his own "emotional" opinion, the other military guy states the facts. You decide which one carries more weight. (grin)

OOh, Army against the Navy. Who is going to win?

 

[braindrain]

The next thing Banana Republicans will do is to Actually Shut Down Media. We Already Know JUST How Vulnerable our Entire Electrical Grid is.

Complete Infrastructural Malfeasance by the GOP this Century has given us this Catastrophe. All President Obama did was Delay and Defuse the Inevitable.

(But I am seeing what I pray for everyday in Real Life. Almost Everyone I Come In Contact With Is Rising To Eisenhower Status As Much As They Are Capable)

NOW, Yes The 2016 Presidential Election Should Be Thrown Out and Declared Invalid with a Special Presidential Election this November. Pass the Word.

Is there something wrong with your keyboard. Is the shift key sticking randomly.

 

[Mason66]

First, he goes after for Brennan citing security concerns but keeps him on from July 26 until yesterday. WTH? If he was a threat then you'd think he'd have done it immediately. Thar's not America first. Then he puts others on notice. Just me but I think he's considering revoking and sending a message regarding clearances for Mueller and those on his team.

There is no such thing as immediate where government is concerned.

All decisions have to be approved or at least looked at by the White House legal staff, or whoever.

I am sure if this happened immediately you would have been on here saying Trump didn't have any time to think about what he did.

 

[braindrain]

Time to Add a Special Election for President in 2018. 2016 is Invalid. Everyone Knows That.

Pence is NOW Forever Tainted. The GOP Senate is Certainly The Enemy Within, Led by McConnellism, Not the 4th Estate.

Good luck with that.

Hillary loosing really put you in a bad place didnt it.

 

[braindrain]

History isn't filled with a lot of examples of the military nullifying the results of an election ending very well.

When you are calling for a military coup to happen in the US you know you have completely lost touch with reality.

 

[Mason66]

The Admiral is attesting to Brennan’s character — and being a person with high character and unquestionable devotion to the nation, should carry weight — except to the tribal traitors that put leader before country.

There are other people that have differing opinions.

Who's opinion holds more weight?

 

[Mason66]

your babbling, I said none of those things. He asked to have his status downgraded. I'm suggesting they do as he asks. Give him what he wants. After all he is the guy that got bin Laden. He has earned having his simple request honored.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

I thought Obama got Bin Laden.

Is this another guy that got hum, but was not actually there, just like Obama?

 

[Mason66]

The idea behind why certain folks keep their clearance after they've left the office that merited that clearance in the first place is a fairly sound one, at least as I understand it. It goes that former officials in CIA, FBI, NSA, NI, SD, etc. may need to be consulted by those currently in office, and during some periods, they may need to be consulted frequently. So, we can either refuse to let them retire from a job they no longer want to do full time (good luck with that), give up the advantages that kind of consulting can obviously give us, or allow them to keep their clearances.

In actual practice, it seems to get rather more nebulous. Once people figured out that companies will pay for advice from people who are privy to secret information gathered by our intelligence agencies, it became the norm for former officials to use the fact that they have clearance to make a fortune after they "retire" from public service...which usually happens after just a few years in whatever office they've held.

Isn't a security clearance needed to access new security information?

Can't a person consult even though they don't have the clearance anymore? I mean they can't forget what they already know.

 

[Mason66]

Pointing out that we have an unfit traitor in the Whitehouse is not throwing a tantrum, it is upholding his oath to protect our country from all enemies both foreign and domestic..

That is not what happened.

This Admiral said if you did it to him, do it to me too.

That is a tantrum.

 

[trouble13]

I'm sure all requests for downgrade are honored. Why wouldn't they be? Even "no questions asked", it's obviously the right move.

Now we need to convince him that his duty extends beyond time in service and he is obligated to provide advice when requested for the rest of his life.

Why would he want to help the second coming of the nazis?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

It's okay. Obviously you don't understand the issue here. It's late. Get some sleep.

Consider your surrender accepted

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

I thought Obama got Bin Laden.

Is this another guy that got hum, but was not actually there, just like Obama?

You have to ask bear he is the one trying to claim that. Apparently he also be,I eve's if you get credit for that it earns you a lifetime of top secret clearance whether you want it or not.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[MrShangles]

Even retirees in their lawn chairs with ice tea, or long island iced tea, get riled when respected patriots are denigrated by an asshole.

Are you calling Brennon an ass hole for lying under oath, or for leaking classified information, seams like liberals like to leave out a few things,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OscarLevant]

An ad hominin and an appeal to emotion all in one sentence. Congratulations. :roll:

I am against retention of security clearances for anyone no longer holding a job that needs one.

It's been a long tradition American government and security field that former security officials retain their clearance for a consultation purposes and for testifying purposes because they need to go back to the agency and review files time to time. To disallow this is to deprive our nation of the benefit of their expertise. This has been explained a number of times by the various officials and it's unanimous consent on this issue my former and existing security personnel.

 

[JasperL]

MAINTAINING YOUR Security clearance at those JOB levels are A PROFESSIONAL Courtesy.

They're not a whim to be granted or rescinded by POTUS depending on whether he feels like it because the person criticized POTUS or the administration. This is a case where the 1A actually does apply, so clearance can't be stripped for engaging in protected speech, which if it includes ANYTHING must include criticizing our government.

Same with NOT openly disrespecting your Commanding Officer. Sure that may be implicated, BUT maintaining is NOT a right its not a law, its a privilege, if the current President does not feel you deserve nor can maintain the professional courtesy then he has the right to revoke it. Right or Wrong, you dont like it ask your congressman to make a law, until then its the POTUS's right Regardless if its trump or any other President.

David French had an article explaining it: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...ity-clearance-raises-constitutional-concerns/

If the Brennan decision winds up before the courts, it won’t be enough for the Trump administration to simply cite Article II. It won’t be enough for the Trump administration to merely note that “no one has a right to security clearance.” Administration lawyers will have to grapple with generations of case law not only holding that even members of the military possess First Amendment rights (though those rights are limited by the requirements of service) but also that — as a general rule — government employees and private citizens have a right to protection from government retaliation for the exercise of their First Amendment rights.
....
One of those limits should be that presidents cannot dispense or revoke the security clearances of private citizens (such as contractors or former government employees) in retaliation for the exercise of constitutionally protected political expression, short of evidence of disloyalty to the United States, instability, or vulnerability to improper influence. A security clearance is not a reward for good political behavior, and treating it as such has negative consequences for American national security.

And of course the adults in the Administration knew this which is why the statement about the revocation cited "instability" and lying to Congress. The only problem is the ManChild-Idiot-in-Chief then went on record in an interview with the WSJ indicating he revoked Brennan's clearance and is reviewing others' clearances basically for political reasons.

More broadly though, I can't believe you don't see the risks here. There are thousands of people with security clearances near me in Oak Ridge, most of them working for private contractors. Your analysis would put all their clearances at risk for being disloyal to Trump. Not to the country, or engaging in some act that is objectively prohibited by those holding a clearance, but being critical of the POTUS.

 

[jnug]

As for the craven, spineless, feckless Republican members of Congress and their comments on this topic, amazing to me that nobody and I do mean NOBODY had anything to say on this topic until the arrival of the mighty trump train and suddenly now, whatever Donald, kid corruption, totally invested in generating as much personal wealth from his office as he can wants must be right. LAUGHABLE...ABSURD, gutless as usual.

 

[Linc]

Yip, I describe myself as a hippie redneck hybrid, and I used to be considered right leaning, however the right moved so far towards bat **** crazy that it now appears I lean left, even though I have never moved..

The pendulum always swings but if it increases its pace much more it's going to snap the axle...

First, I apologize for going off at you as I did on that thread I won’t mention. As I always try to tell the younger Teachers, don’t be the guy who would have 99 great days of teaching and blow it all on the 100th day and then some with anger issues. IOW, don’t be me.

A Very Wise Superintendent of Schools once mentored me to have that special drawer to open only when you need to add another paper of your thoughts when angry at some one or some thing.

As for GOP Senators, I now have Lost all Hope for them. I truly believe our Joint Chiefs are our only Resort. This letter signed by such as Gen. Petraeus Used to be Enough.

 

[vesper]

Ohr is on the list too. I find that one the most perplexing considering he is currently employed at the DOJ. The other ones are mostly symbolic gestures.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

With Ohr being listed it kinda tells a story doesn't it? McCabe was forced on leave then fired. Strzok was demoted, then escorted out of the FBI building and forced on leave then later fired. Ohr has been demoted twice. It wouldn't surprise me to learn he has been placed on leave waiting for the ax to drop. After reading those recently released texts between he and Christopher Steele the guy should be before a grand jury.

 

[Parrish]

There is no such thing as immediate where government is concerned.

All decisions have to be approved or at least looked at by the White House legal staff, or whoever.

I am sure if this happened immediately you would have been on here saying Trump didn't have any time to think about what he did.

There is such a thing as immediate in government. He doesn't need approval from anyone to fire. There has been no proof, thus far, that 45 thinks about what the effects of his actions will be.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

They must not, trump and his staff got them...

Trump and his staff have to have clearance because they are currently the people with a need to know. Just because you have a clearance does not mean you can look into any secret information. Need to know limits the number of people who know which is the best way to keep a secret. That is not only common sense but a fact. As far as I know if you do not need a clearance because you retired your clearance is rendered inactive until needed.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Isn't a security clearance needed to access new security information?

Can't a person consult even though they don't have the clearance anymore? I mean they can't forget what they already know.

Hmmmm...I and my team are about to start a new operation that one of your old operations may have some effect on, and I want to get information from you that's not in the files, so I'm not exactly sure what questions to ask. But I cannot tell you about the new operation. Still, I'd like you to tell me whatever you can about how your old operation might have some bearing on my new one. What input could you give me under those circumstances?

Obviously, little or none. Try having any conversation about any complex topic where person A simply doesn't have understanding of half of the topic, and person B isn't allowed to know the part that person A does understand. I assure you, it won't go well.

 

[JasperL]

Trump and his staff have to have clearance because they are currently the people with a need to know. Just because you have a clearance does not mean you can look into any secret information. Need to know limits the number of people who know which is the best way to keep a secret. That is not only common sense but a fact. As far as I know if you do not need a clearance because you retired your clearance is rendered inactive until needed.

That's right - if you have a clearance, someone in the government has to grant you access to the material. What retaining a clearance does is allow that decision to grant you access be made at 8am, and the consultation at 8:05am on the same day. If the clearance is revoked, Brennan and the others have to go through the formal process of getting TS clearance, which would take days, weeks, months, and only then can he or others consult on a matter.

 

[BuzzwordBingo]

With all due respect to the admiral, maybe he should give up his security clearance if his bias gets in the way of his better judgement, which is what I believe has happened to Brennen. Brennan got fired by trump. He’s a bitter man who has made some comments, and acted in ways that put into question his access to classified information. As determined by POTUS.

 

[roughdraft274]

Well, challenge should be accepted. :shrug:

I've already said that IMO people who have left government service no longer need government security clearances, and they should be revoked. If the Admiral is recalled to active duty, his clearance can be restored.

Why should they be revoked? What if they are needed as a consult down the road? You don't think the guys that headed up the bin laden raid might have useful information to gleen if another raid like that is taken up in the future? Or would you want them to have to apply for a security clearance all over again and wait so that they can give advice based on new information?

I wish you would just admit that you are going along with this petty behavior simply to avoid criticizing Trump. It would make your life easier if you would be honest about it.

 

[bearpoker]

Hmmmm...I and my team are about to start a new operation that one of your old operations may have some effect on, and I want to get information from you that's not in the files, so I'm not exactly sure what questions to ask. But I cannot tell you about the new operation. Still, I'd like you to tell me whatever you can about how your old operation might have some bearing on my new one. What input could you give me under those circumstances?

Obviously, little or none. Try having any conversation about any complex topic where person A simply doesn't have understanding of half of the topic, and person B isn't allowed to know the part that person A does understand. I assure you, it won't go well.

Luckily, Trump already knows everything, so the problem won't ever come up.:mrgreen: