Revoke My Clearance Too

[Rogue Valley]

Kudos to Admiral (Ret.) McRaven. Kelly and Mattis should be embarrassed as Hell working for the Shyster-in-Chief.

 

[Exactice]

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

Here is my questions, I am the eyes and ears on the ground Human intelligence.

I had both Secret and TS clearances one point in my life, When I got out, I lost my CAC and any access. I was Honorably discharged did my service for the country honorably never did anything bad nor talk bad about any commander or line supervisor, WHY Cant I keep my clearance. Being on the ground in the mix everyday with everyday people I am a great source of everyday human intelligence. I want my TS clearance as well? Why cant I have a professional courtesy and maintain mine?

 

[jnug]

Here is my questions, I am the eyes and ears on the ground Human intelligence.

I had both Secret and TS clearances one point in my life, When I got out, I lost my CAC and any access. I was Honorably discharged did my service for the country honorably never did anything bad nor talk bad about any commander or line supervisor, WHY Cant I keep my clearance. Being on the ground in the mix everyday with everyday people I am a great source of everyday human intelligence. I want my TS clearance as well? Why cant I have a professional courtesy and maintain mine?

I suspect because your former boss or the next person in that position used the process that is in place to strip your clearance because he did not think your having it a valuable enough asset to him.

However, unless you are a former Director I highly doubt your case and Brennan's case have anything to do with each other.

 

[JasperL]

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.......

OK, we just don't agree. I'm not crying for Brennan, but the problem is revoking a security clearance for exercising a 1A right is....unconstitutional.

 

[Exactice]

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.



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



Brennan was punished for criticizing POTUS.



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.



OK, the courts don't agree with you.

Jasper let me make it clear first that I respect your opinion so thank you for being respectful.

OK that being said.

Yes I understand I have mentioned it on many occasions that AT the top levels its a professional courtesy that they maintained their Clearances. IN NO way do I deny that in the slightest. With that though I explained the unique situation for brennan and even all the current members under scrutiny. Clapper, Comey, Yates. All these people have shown their political bias and SPECIFIC to the Positions. Potential hazards to leak and more so intent to disrupt the POTUS This is NOT relevant to the positions that they maintained as well as the positions they served. Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Yates etc are NOT political positions. THEY are Public service positions. Yates Directly disobeyed a direct order from the President and was fired. Should she have a professional courtesy to maintain her clearance. Comey was FIRED from his position a fired employee should get a professional courtesy to maintain? OHR & Strozk BOTH fired should maintain?

Clapper and Brennan Both open critics, Brennan Called the President Treasonous, is that Relevant to the position of CIA director Thats not his relevant job to maintain a Clearance. HIS 1st amendment is as a NORMAL American Citizen so he can NOW live as one with the Clearances. We have Gina Haspel that is the CIA direct so she can continue that position without Brennan.

 

[Exactice]

I suspect because your former boss or the next person in that position used the process that is in place to strip your clearance because he did not think your having it a valuable enough asset to him.

However, unless you are a former Director I highly doubt your case and Brennan's case have anything to do with each other.

EXACTLY THERE IS AN ACTUAL NORMAL PROCESS. THERE IS NO PROCESS for Brennan and top level echelons ITS a Professional COURTESY that is SEPARATE from the ACTUAL PROCESS. Guess what Professional Courtesy is flexible and can be changed at any time PERIOD. If he farts wrong it can be changed... Professional Courtesy is DIFFERENT from the PROCESS.....

 

[Captain Adverse]

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.

Yes, I've held one during my service as an Army officer. For all I know it is still active in my personnel file. I haven't needed it or used it since leaving the service.

Meanwhile, all this hype about "consulting" based on the possibility their experience/expertise may be needed at some future time is IMO a load of crap.

Just more "good old boy" network malarkey, and IMO justification to allow people access to information they really have no business knowing which they can then "leak" to the public while keeping the original source safely anonymous.

Even in the rare cases in this information age when their "expertise" might actually be needed, then provisional clearances can be granted pending completion of a new background check.

What the furor is all about IMHO is that the MSM and other reporting agencies don't want to lose access to information that "former and current members" of the Administration can garner via these "consults" with people still in service who want a pipeline to leak information through.

 

[JasperL]

Jasper let me make it clear first that I respect your opinion so thank you for being respectful.

OK that being said.

Yes I understand I have mentioned it on many occasions that AT the top levels its a professional courtesy that they maintained their Clearances. IN NO way do I deny that in the slightest. With that though I explained the unique situation for brennan and even all the current members under scrutiny. Clapper, Comey, Yates. All these people have shown their political bias and SPECIFIC to the Positions. Potential hazards to leak and more so intent to disrupt the POTUS This is NOT relevant to the positions that they maintained as well as the positions they served. Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Yates etc are NOT political positions. THEY are Public service positions. Yates Directly disobeyed a direct order from the President and was fired. Should she have a professional courtesy to maintain her clearance. Comey was FIRED from his position a fired employee should get a professional courtesy to maintain? OHR & Strozk BOTH fired should maintain?

Clapper and Brennan Both open critics, Brennan Called the President Treasonous, is that Relevant to the position of CIA director Thats not his relevant job to maintain a Clearance. HIS 1st amendment is as a NORMAL American Citizen so he can NOW live as one with the Clearances. We have Gina Haspel that is the CIA direct so she can continue that position without Brennan.

The solution to all these problems is to revoke clearances for cause, and cause must mean something more than being critical of POTUS or the administration. We're allowed in a free society to have "political biases" and that right is protected by the 1A. You say they have a higher potential to leak - so show the leaks, which is a for-cause reason to strip a clearance.

Those fired might have already been stripped - Comey's was at his firing. Not sure about the others. But the point is it's unconstitutional for the POTUS to retaliate against CRITICS. My goodness, that's an autocracy, not a free country with rights protected by a Constitution.

 

[Exactice]

OK, we just don't agree. I'm not crying for Brennan, but the problem is revoking a security clearance for exercising a 1A right is....unconstitutional.

Fair enough!

Revoking Clearances for Exercising his his 1A rights? Unconstitutional? Wait now the Goal post has moved. Before people were saying he was "Silenced"? and he was losing his 1st Amendment rights? But now its he was able to exercise his 1st Amendment rights BUT then faced consequences for doing so.

UM Donald Sterling much. He exercised his 1st Amendment in the privacy of his own home and court of public opinion destroyed him. Brennan did it on Twitter and News Channels. HE is FREE to exercise his right but he now puts any "Courtesies" in jeopardy, NOT rights NO rights have been revoked, Courtesies have been revoked..... NOTHING unconstitutional.

 

[jnug]

EXACTLY THERE IS AN ACTUAL NORMAL PROCESS. THERE IS NO PROCESS for Brennan and top level echelons ITS a Professional COURTESY that is SEPARATE from the ACTUAL PROCESS. Guess what Professional Courtesy is flexible and can be changed at any time PERIOD. If he farts wrong it can be changed... Professional Courtesy is DIFFERENT from the PROCESS.....

That is BS....the same rules apply. If Trump wants to run roughshod over them, he can and that will simply go in the ever expanding book of abuses of power that he has exercised and might well end up impeached for.

I have contended for a long time that if this ever gets to impeachment Trump will be impeached as much for or more what he has done since his inauguration than anything he did up to his inauguration.

Professional courtesy..will people never tire of talking out their butt holes?

AGAIN...TRUMP TOLD US WHY HE DID IT and he didn't mention professional courtesy!!!!!!

 

[Exactice]

The solution to all these problems is to revoke clearances for cause, and cause must mean something more than being critical of POTUS or the administration.

I agree.... I see cause, He is a HIRED MSNBC Contributor that openly criticized the POTUS as Treasonous. If I had an employee that did so I would gracefully ask them to Quit, or likely fire them with that any rights related to the position terminated and likely and courtesies that likely are offered in the position be rebuked.


Cause..... You dont threaten your boss with an accusation of a penalty of the death penalty. And be a HIRED contributor to a Media outlet that has known conflicts with leaked info and potential security risk.

 

[JasperL]

Fair enough!

Revoking Clearances for Exercising his his 1A rights? Unconstitutional? Wait now the Goal post has moved. Before people were saying he was "Silenced"? and he was losing his 1st Amendment rights? But now its he was able to exercise his 1st Amendment rights BUT then faced consequences for doing so.

UM Donald Sterling much. He exercised his 1st Amendment in the privacy of his own home and court of public opinion destroyed him. Brennan did it on Twitter and News Channels. HE is FREE to exercise his right but he now puts any "Courtesies" in jeopardy, NOT rights NO rights have been revoked, Courtesies have been revoked..... NOTHING unconstitutional.

I'm a little unclear what you think the 1A protects, if not the ability to be critical of the government without "facing consequences" imposed by that government.

 

[Exactice]

That is BS....the same rules apply. If Trump wants to run roughshod over them, he can and that will simply go in the ever expanding book of abuses of power that he has exercised and might well end up impeached for.

I have contended for a long time that if this ever gets to impeachment Trump will be impeached as much for or more what he has done since his inauguration than anything he did up to his inauguration.

Professional courtesy..will people never tire of talking out their butt holes?

AGAIN...TRUMP TOLD US WHY HE DID IT and he didn't mention professional courtesy!!!!!!

OK be consistent then, If that is BS and Same RULE applies.

Then the CURRENT Process is that ALL members that have any clearance at time of separation are removed from access REGARDLESS of the Position, There is NO professional Courtesy then? If you are CALLING BS......

You guys are hilarious..... It was the POTUS constitutional RIGHT to fire Comey, same as his right to remove security clearances, NOTHING unconstitutional about it...

Now you throw in Impeachment..... Man some gotta read POTUS job description and the Constitution. (DO you also notice I use POTUS) Because its REGARDLESS of Trump or any political affiliate.

 

[jnug]

I agree.... I see cause, He is a HIRED MSNBC Contributor that openly criticized the POTUS as Treasonous. If I had an employee that did so I would gracefully ask them to Quit, or likely fire them with that any rights related to the position terminated and likely and courtesies that likely are offered in the position be rebuked.


Cause..... You dont threaten your boss with an accusation of a penalty of the death penalty. And be a HIRED contributor to a Media outlet that has known conflicts with leaked info and potential security risk.

Keep talkin'. You are billowing enough sails to make for a yacht race and that is about it.

 

[Exactice]

I'm a little unclear what you think the 1A protects, if not the ability to be critical of the government without "facing consequences" imposed by that government.

Im confused at what you think is a consequence?

Is/was/has Brennan been charged illegally, has any 4th amendment been imposed. Has Brennan lost any other abilities to apply for jobs. His professional courtesy to maintain a clearance has be revoked. If he applies for a Government Related position the requires a similar Clearance IS he being denied JUST because?

THAT would then be a consequence. NONE of what has happened. He can Be an MSNBC Contributor from now on and be as critical of the POTUS as he wants Just without the afforded clearance, IT DOES NOT allow him to do his JOB any less with or without a clearance working as a contributor. IF he wants access to Classified material HE IS NOT SUPPOSED to be sharing it with the MEDIA anyways?


So Brennan is FULLY protected by the 1A, BUT there is ALWAYS legal and personal consequences that happen.. PERIOD. I cannot walk in the middle of Compton and scream a racial term without a potential consequence. My 1st A is intact but likely I wont leave compton......


Pretty simple. Now if Brennan applies for his Clearance in a future related advisor role and is denied without CAUSE, then we have an issue. He wants to work for a media company his Clearance is NOT relevant to the Media company.

 

[jnug]

OK be consistent then, If that is BS and Same RULE applies.

Then the CURRENT Process is that ALL members that have any clearance at time of separation are removed from access REGARDLESS of the Position, There is NO professional Courtesy then? If you are CALLING BS......

You guys are hilarious..... It was the POTUS constitutional RIGHT to fire Comey, same as his right to remove security clearances, NOTHING unconstitutional about it...

Now you throw in Impeachment..... Man some gotta read POTUS job description and the Constitution. (DO you also notice I use POTUS) Because its REGARDLESS of Trump or any political affiliate.

Professional courtesy has nothing to do with it. Its a tool that the current government can use in the case of exigency. Learn something about the english language before you just blather. It is not a "professional courtesy" to those that hold it. its an advantage to those in current government who see those outside of government holding one an advantage to them and if your boss or whomever replaced him did not see fit to maintain yours its because he did not see any advantage to him in his role in government. Your creating your own circular argument.

 

[Exactice]

Keep talkin'. You are billowing enough sails to make for a yacht race and that is about it.

What am I billowing? respond to your BS comment above.

How about it. WE JUST KEEP it consistent across the board, remove ALL access at time of separation, If they are hired or employed specific to the clearance level they can reapply or reinstate, if they are NOT relevant then the Clearance stays revoked/deactivated?

How about that?

 

[vegas giants]

What am I billowing? respond to your BS comment above.

How about it. WE JUST KEEP it consistent across the board, remove ALL access at time of separation, If they are hired or employed specific to the clearance level they can reapply or reinstate, if they are NOT relevant then the Clearance stays revoked/deactivated?

How about that?

And if they are needed in a crisis....like 911 when we called in all these retired guys again....we would have to wait for the new clearance to be approved.

 

[jnug]

What am I billowing? respond to your BS comment above.

How about it. WE JUST KEEP it consistent across the board, remove ALL access at time of separation, If they are hired or employed specific to the clearance level they can reapply or reinstate, if they are NOT relevant then the Clearance stays revoked/deactivated?

How about that?

If we are willing to take the risk. Remember famously, Kennedy brought in Dean Acheson to help deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis and I suspect there are more instances than that. That one is one of the more famous instances.

Worth noting that this was not any sort of an issue that anybody talked about until the Orange Buffoon became President and saw fit to punish somebody for his involvement in an Investigation that he does not like. Perhaps we should be paying attention to why he does not like it!

 

[Exactice]

Professional courtesy has nothing to do with it. Its a tool that the current government can use in the case of exigency. Learn something about the english language before you just blather. It is not a "professional courtesy" to those that hold it. its an advantage to those in current government who see those outside of government holding one an advantage to them and if your boss or whomever replaced him did not see fit to maintain yours its because he did not see any advantage to him in his role in government. Your creating your own circular argument.

If Brennan retires sits on his LAWN chair for the REST of his days with Icetea in hand WHY for what cause should he maintain his Clearance? There is NO LAW, Statute, policy that I am aware of that allows separated individuals to maintain their clearance. YOU STATED it that there is a general process. The higher leadership is not held to this process, BUT something else allows them to maintain their clearance after separation? WHAT IS THAT? OH "PROFESSIONAL COURTESY" There is NO policy for them again that I am aware of if there is, please show me. Thanks!

 

[JasperL]

Im confused at what you think is a consequence?

Is/was/has Brennan been charged illegally, has any 4th amendment been imposed. Has Brennan lost any other abilities to apply for jobs. His professional courtesy to maintain a clearance has be revoked. If he applies for a Government Related position the requires a similar Clearance IS he being denied JUST because?

THATS would then be a consequence. NON of what has happened.


So Brennan is FULLY protected by the 1A, BUT there is ALWAYS legal and personal consequences that happen.. PERIOD. I cannot walk in the middle of Compton and scream a racial term without a potential consequence. My 1st A is intact but likely I wont leave compton......


Pretty simple. Now if Brennan applies for his Clearance in a future related advisor role and is denied without CAUSE, then we have an issue. He wants to work for a media company his Clearance is NOT relevant to the Media company.

You're referring to the practice as "professional courtesy" then claiming that as a basis for justifying Trump stripping it for any reason at all. The people who know the law appear to disagree with that analysis.

Let's take an unrelated example. My cousin has TS clearance at Oak Ridge working for a private company doing who knows what related to nuclear weapons. He can't be stripped of that for being critical of POTUS - he doesn't lose his 1A rights by virtue of holding a security clearance. His employer can FIRE HIS ASS, but the government cannot impose penalties on him by effectively firing him for being critical of the government, and then stripping him of the TS clearance he must have to do his job.

Brennan is no different. Doesn't matter how or why, but he HAS/HAD TS clearance, and government can't strip it for merely exercising his 1A rights, no matter how rude or outrageous. And Trump's people know this, which is why the announcement included 'for cause' reasons for the act. Then Trump the moron in chief was his own worst enemy by telling the WSJ everything BUT the 'for cause reasons.'

 

[jnug]

If Brennan retires sits on his LAWN chair for the REST of his days with Icetea in hand WHY for what cause should he maintain his Clearance? There is NO LAW, Statute, policy that I am aware of that allows separated individuals to maintain their clearance. YOU STATED it that there is a general process. The higher leadership is not held to this process, BUT something else allows them to maintain their clearance after separation? WHAT IS THAT? OH "PROFESSIONAL COURTESY" There is NO policy for them again that I am aware of if there is, please show me. Thanks!

Read post #269.

As for your professional courtesy argument, go to DC and make your Professional courtesy argument and see if anybody buys it.

 

[Exactice]

And if they are needed in a crisis....like 911 when we called in all these retired guys again....we would have to wait for the new clearance to be approved.

YES, What is the problem with that, More so the POTUS and ACTING DIRECTORS can also expedite and approve SCIF clearance should they need to be called on.

You guys Think that Brennan is the ONLY CIA director. What about Mike Pompeo, What about Gina Haspel? Haspel is the current Director and a career Agent, is she unable to perform her duties that she needs to immediately call Brennan?

 

[vegas giants]

YES, What is the problem with that, More so the POTUS and ACTING DIRECTORS can also expedite and approve SCIF clearance should they need to be called on.

You guys Think that Brennan is the ONLY CIA director. What about Mike Pompeo, What about Gina Haspel? Haspel is the current Director and a career Agent, is she unable to perform her duties that she needs to immediately call Brennan?

Look in a crisis its all hands on deck. These guys have information that can save lives. Why would anyone want to make that process harder? It is the stupidest plan in the world

 

[jnug]

YES, What is the problem with that, More so the POTUS and ACTING DIRECTORS can also expedite and approve SCIF clearance should they need to be called on.

You guys Think that Brennan is the ONLY CIA director. What about Mike Pompeo, What about Gina Haspel? Haspel is the current Director and a career Agent, is she unable to perform her duties that she needs to immediately call Brennan?

Who was the guy that oversaw taking Osama down? Was it anybody other than Brennan? NOPE. Seems like that would be an asset. But not to the Orange Buffoon who thinks he needs nobody but himself.