Revoke My Clearance Too

[ashurbanipal]

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

There is that, I suppose...

 

[<alt>doxygen]

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.

You cannot "just restore" a clearance. It takes a couple of weeks just to get a temporary clearance, and the real thing requires a full background check.

Have you ever held one? My first TS clearance was expedited, and it took over a month. 6 months was the norm.

The point is : Trump is a petulant child, and he's having a hissy fit. There is no other reason for this nonsense.

 

[GDViking]

That is not what happened.

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

That is a tantrum.

That is not a tantrum most of twumps tweets are tantrums.

This was someone pointing out a man being vindictive in a way that was against American interests.

 

[danarhea]

I thought there were more than two Republicans in the country.

There are, and they all wish they had that t-shirt. :mrgreen:

 

[ecofarm]

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

I don't base my analysis or worldview on the lunatic fringe. You do? Apparently you've been sucked into some kind of vortex and have begun speaking a foreign language. Don't let them do that to you.

 

[trouble13]

I don't base my analysis or worldview on the lunatic fringe. You do? Apparently you've been sucked into some kind of vortex and have begun speaking a foreign language. Don't let them do that to you.

I'm not bot saying I believe that narrative but it is the one the majority of them are trying to sell to the public. That includes McRaven.

That's not to say that he isn't capable of offering our current intelligence community anything but of value if he wanted to and of course was aked. He just made it known, in grandstanding fashion, that he has not interest in assisting this administration.

He wants to be a martyr, so let him be one. He is of zero value to the current administration. If something changes, they can reevaluate his status at that time.

for now let him have his 15 minutes of fame. He can do the news shows and talk shows and complain about how mean Trump is to him for honoring his request. He can have a national audience to play the fool for.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[Lord of Planar]

If you think he was the lesser of the evils, you were had. Pure and simple.

He was the lesser evil for people who want to be left alone, and not pay for others, and be told PC crap.

I guess he is the greater evil for those who want to suck the USA's teats.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

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.

Well if they are consulting with him he is still working and active. If he has been fired or retired usually they reduce or strip your clearance unless you need it for other work. Clearances are not given to people for life. Everybody and their brother would have a clearance if that was the case. When I was an MP I had many different clearances as my job changed. But when I left the job usually my clearance was reduced. When I left the Army my clearance was gone all together. Getting clearance the first time is very time consuming but having it reinstated is much quicker. All your prior history does not change or need to be reinvestigated.


This clown shouting out to the world that he still even has a clearance shows just how ignorant he is. It doesn't get much clearer than that. He is clearly full of hate and vengeance and should not even have a clearance if he cannot control his outburst.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The point is : Trump is a petulant child, and he's having a hissy fit. There is no other reason for this nonsense.

The reasons given were sound for removal. Only a stupid president wouldn't have revoked such a person's clearance.

Did you watch the video linked in post 140?

 

[Exactice]

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.



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



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.

I never once indicated a whim I specifically highlighted Professional Courtesy. Meaning Once your professional responsibility ends you then lose your RIGHTS specific to that professional job. If you retain a contract position or advisory role you then can reapply for your clearance level respective to the position you are rehired for. BUT the need to maintain the same level as you Retired position is NOT and has NOTHING to do with rights, 1st Amendments etc.

This is with any Professional JOB or position period. Again take away Top Echelon positions like a security tech, with TS clearance, once they separate from X position they lose their credentials. If they apply for a contract job or advisory, the old TS clearance is not always reactivated, they re-apply based on the contract/advisory contract which may NOT be the same clearance level or credential level.


Now you use your points of thousands of people....First off you can criticize the president all you want, Brennan is currently employed, hired by a News Organization (MSNBC) as a contributor. Does that not seem like a potential hazard in the light of leaks and potential leaks from X echelon level individual.

If you do your JOB, Shut your MOUTH and Focus on your job then you have NO reason to worry about your security clearance. FBI and CIA are supposed to be A-political individuals, YOU can have your 1st amendment rights. If you want to then become critic and take your position as a critic and professional courtesies afforded to is RIGHTFULLY in Jeopardy.

Its pretty simply. WHILE employed shut your damn mouth and work. If you dont like it Quit, if you dont like your boss, quit. If your Job is more important dont make it political.

If and when you quit expect to lose any professional courtesies that maybe bestowed on the position should you lose your OWN professional courtesy.

Pretty simple....

 

[Rogue Valley]

Very reminiscent of Richard Nixon's "Enemies List" of Democrats, journalists, and artists that had criticized him.

Weirdly enough, it seems that History does repeat itself.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Now you use your points of thousands of people....First off you can criticize the president all you want, Brennan is currently employed, hired by a News Organization (MSNBC) as a contributor. Does that not seem like a potential hazard in the light of leaks and potential leaks from X echelon level individual.

Any fool can see the conflict of interest.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Very reminiscent of Richard Nixon's "Enemies List" of Democrats, journalists, and artists that had criticized him.

Weirdly enough, it seems that History does repeat itself.

Are you under the impression that having a list of people who are against you, isn't common for people in high places? I would be surprised if a single one didn't have such a list, maintained by someone.

 

[JasperL]

Well if they are consulting with him he is still working and active. If he has been fired or retired usually they reduce or strip your clearance unless you need it for other work.

They don't "usually" do it for some senior people in intelligence like Brennan. That's why he and many others retained their security clearances, because it was "general" practice to let them remain intact until the next scheduled expiration.

Clearances are not given to people for life. Everybody and their brother would have a clearance if that was the case. When I was an MP I had many different clearances as my job changed. But when I left the job usually my clearance was reduced. When I left the Army my clearance was gone all together. Getting clearance the first time is very time consuming but having it reinstated is much quicker. All your prior history does not change or need to be reinvestigated.

This clown shouting out to the world that he still even has a clearance shows just how ignorant he is. It doesn't get much clearer than that. He is clearly full of hate and vengeance and should not even have a clearance if he cannot control his outburst.

No one believes clearances for for life. And it being "much quicker" doesn't change the FACT that it was and is general practice for senior people like Brennan to retain theirs. If Trump rescinded it for cause, fine. The problem is the dumbass can't keep his mouth shut and told the WSJ he rescinded it and is considering rescinding others for political reasons - disloyalty to Dear Leader.

 

[Exactice]

Any fool can see the conflict of interest.

Thats what I have said so many times, YET they defend his right to maintain. SO Blind its ridiculous.

 

[Exactice]

They don't "usually" do it for some senior people in intelligence like Brennan. That's why he and many others retained their security clearances, because it was "general" practice to let them remain intact until the next scheduled expiration.



No one believes clearances for for life. And it being "much quicker" doesn't change the FACT that it was and is general practice for senior people like Brennan to retain theirs. If Trump rescinded it for cause, fine. The problem is the dumbass can't keep his mouth shut and told the WSJ he rescinded it and is considering rescinding others for political reasons - disloyalty to Dear Leader.

I 100% Agree, as stated its been an on going Professional Courtesy. That being said the SAME courtesy has not been extended to TRUMP. WHAT prior president has has a prior/retired CIA Director call the POTUS Treasonous? NONE they have taken it to the new level.

YOU bring the heat you take the heat.... and cry when you actually get called on it.......

 

[Lord of Planar]

Thats what I have said so many times, YET they defend his right to maintain. SO Blind its ridiculous.

He has every right to say what he wants as long as it isn't classified. It would be foolish to give a partisan hack continued access to classified material.

He obviously isn't going to be used as a consultant, having partisan bias, and that's what the professional courtesy of for. So they can consult with the current people running things.

 

[jnug]

I 100% Agree, as stated its been an on going Professional Courtesy. That being said the SAME courtesy has not been extended to TRUMP. WHAT prior president has has a prior/retired CIA Director call the POTUS Treasonous? NONE they have taken it to the new level.

YOU bring the heat you take the heat.... and cry when you actually get called on it.......

Courtesy or lack thereof, professional or otherwise is not the reason Trump has used to take the clearance from Brannan.

 

[Exactice]

He has every right to say what he wants as long as it isn't classified. It would be foolish to give a partisan hack continued access to classified material.

He obviously isn't going to be used as a consultant, having partisan bias, and that's what the professional courtesy of for. So they can consult with the current people running things.

People ask me how I dont see it as silencing 1st Amendment rights, I ask HOW they heck they cannot see exactly what you posted.... Its pretty much Black and White...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Courtesy or lack thereof, professional or otherwise is not the reason Trump has used to take the clearance from Brannan.

I believe that what his press secretary said is true.

 

[Lord of Planar]

People ask me how I dont see it as silencing 1st Amendment rights, I ask HOW they heck they cannot see exactly what you posted.... Its pretty much Black and White...

They are indoctrinated, and the power of confirmation bias runs strong in their blood.

 

[Exactice]

Courtesy or lack thereof, professional or otherwise is not the reason Trump has used to take the clearance from Brannan.

What? Trump did NOT take his clearance away due to lack of Professional Courtesy. I used that a part of the whole example. The WHOLE example I used and likely the specified concerning reason is that he is a HIRED MSNBC contributor.

Secondly, its a Professional Courtesy to provide outgoing Directors with maintained clearances. BUT in the grand scheme and scope of General Clearances, ONCE you leave the relevant position, your CAC card is deactivated, The security codes are changed, or your privileged access demoted or removed. FOR the Hundreds of Thousands of individuals NOT CIA Directors that have TS clearances. The moment of separation its removed.....

 

[jnug]

What? Trump did NOT take his clearance away due to lack of Professional Courtesy. I used that a part of the whole example. The WHOLE example I used and likely the specified concerning reason is that he is a HIRED MSNBC contributor.

Secondly, its a Professional Courtesy to provide outgoing Directors with maintained clearances. BUT in the grand scheme and scope of General Clearances, ONCE you leave the relevant position, your CAC card is deactivated, The security codes are changed, or your privileged access demoted or removed. FOR the Hundreds of Thousands of individuals NOT CIA Directors that have TS clearances. The moment of separation its removed.....

Trump stripped him of his clearance because of his early involvement in Intelligence activities that resulted in what Trump calls a "witch hunt" otherwise known as the Russian Interference Investigation etal. Trump himself told us this already TWICE since last night.

 

[JasperL]

I never once indicated a whim I specifically highlighted Professional Courtesy. Meaning Once your professional responsibility ends you then lose your RIGHTS specific to that professional job. If you retain a contract position or advisory role you then can reapply for your clearance level respective to the position you are rehired for. BUT the need to maintain the same level as you Retired position is NOT and has NOTHING to do with rights, 1st Amendments etc.

You're describing a different reality than the one we inhabit, where it's common for people like Brennan to lose clearance when they exit their job. That's not the practice. That's been explained 100 times.

And as French explained, it does implicate 1A rights. These officials have, as has been common practice for decades at least, retained their clearances. You can't then strip only those people of them because they're exercising a 1A right - being critical of POTUS or the administration. If he'd stripped EVERY person, that's different, but in choosing to only punish his critics, he's swerved right over the gray line for the 1A.

This is with any Professional JOB or position period. Again take away Top Echelon positions like a security tech, with TS clearance, once they separate from X position they lose their credentials. If they apply for a contract job or advisory, the old TS clearance is not always reactivated, they re-apply based on the contract/advisory contract which may NOT be the same clearance level or credential level.

That's not general practice at the top levels....

Now you use your points of thousands of people....First off you can criticize the president all you want, Brennan is currently employed, hired by a News Organization (MSNBC) as a contributor. Does that not seem like a potential hazard in the light of leaks and potential leaks from X echelon level individual.

Brennan was punished for criticizing POTUS.

If you do your JOB, Shut your MOUTH and Focus on your job then you have NO reason to worry about your security clearance. FBI and CIA are supposed to be A-political individuals, YOU can have your 1st amendment rights. If you want to then become critic and take your position as a critic and professional courtesies afforded to is RIGHTFULLY in Jeopardy.

If you want to assert that a person like the thousands who work in Oak Ridge for private contractors lose their 1A rights with their security clearance, you'll have to make that argument explicit.

Its pretty simply. WHILE employed shut your damn mouth and work. If you dont like it Quit, if you dont like your boss, quit. If your Job is more important dont make it political.

If and when you quit expect to lose any professional courtesies that maybe bestowed on the position should you lose your OWN professional courtesy.

Pretty simple....

OK, the courts don't agree with you.

 

[jnug]

I believe that what his press secretary said is true.

But not what the President himself has said? Thats rich.

So your argument is what...that the person that stripped the clearance did not know his own head when he did it, but that Sara Sanders from the Briefing Room podium divined what he had in his mind. Keep in mind that Sanders has said on multiple occasions that she can divine what is in Trump's head.