Trump revokes Brennan's security clearance

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I love how this just burns your arse @Once-Ler    It's a nice way to start the day.   

A fire about 3 ft tall burns my ass.  This and you I find hilarious.

[Concerned]

For those who claimed this wasn't vindictive:

“I call it the rigged witch hunt, [it] is a sham,” Trump told The Wall Street Journal hours after the announcement was made. “And these people led it. So I think it’s something that had to be done.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/16/trump-connects-russia-probe-to-revoking-brennan-s-clearance-report.html

[aligncare]

I just gotta say this one thing in disagreement with Donald Trump: Sorry, Mr. President, I am still not tired of WINNING!

Woo hoo!

[Right_in_Virginia]

A fire about 3 ft tall burns my ass. 

Quite an admission. 

[Free Vulcan]

Brennan has now tweeted that this is a supression of his 1st amendment rights:

This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out. My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent.

Since classified data is secret and need to know, does this mean he was planning to leak more info, or what exactly?

[Slide Rule]

Brennan is one of the meanest looking guys I've ever seen.  He could definitely be the villain in a movie.

Villain in a movie?

No. Brennan is a villain in real life.

:)

[txradioguy]

Brennan has now tweeted that this is a supression of his 1st amendment rights:

Since classified data is secret and need to know, does this mean he was planning to leak more info, or what exactly?

How can someone who worked as the director of an "Intelligence" agency...be so stupid about the first amendment?

He totally shreds his claim that his First Amendment Rights are suppressed by the fact he is able to go on twitter and complain about it.


A security clearance is a privilege not a right.

[Victoria33]

The Ghost, Emjay
"Jeez, you two ganging up on @Victoria33 is definitely a low spot in your posting history /JS"

@corbe
@mystery-ak
@CatherineofAragon 

Thanks, corbe. E, plus RIV were already on Ignore, now Ghost is. I won't answer them - they are wasting their words typing them to me. What they post to me shows their real character - nasty little people who personally attack posters instead of speaking to the subject which means they are irrelevant, as in they have no redeeming value on this forum when they do that. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

To the extent former intelligence officials need to be consulted about specialized knowledge they may have, that does not require them to have security clearances.  They can be asked to provide whatever information they have regardless of whether or not they have a clearance.

The only reason former intelligence officials need a clearance is if they are going to be provided with classified information.  And the danger with that is there are not the same controls/monitoring in place for people who are no longer employed by the feds as there are for those folks still on active duty. So, it is easier for them to leak information to the press or to whomever, either for partisan purposes or any other motivation.  In the case of Brennan, there are damn good reasons to believe that he'd be willing to leak such information as part of his criticism of President he doesn't like.

The way that usually happens is that someone still in government feels comfortable telling people outside government stuff they don't actually have a need to know, if that person outside government still has the proper clearance.  Revoking those clearances is going to make people still on the "inside" less likely to leak classified information to people on the "outside".  And that's a good thing.

[txradioguy]

To the extent former intelligence officials need to be consulted about specialized knowledge they may have, that does not require them to have security clearances.  They can be asked to provide whatever information they have regardless of whether or not they have a clearance.

The only reason former intelligence officials need a clearance is if they are going to be provided with classified information.  And the danger with that is there are not the same controls/monitoring in place for people who are no longer employed by the feds as there are for those folks still on active duty. So, it is easier for them to leak information to the press or to whomever, either for partisan purposes or any other motivation.  In the case of Brennan, there are damn good reasons to believe that he'd be willing to leak such information as part of his criticism of President he doesn't like.

The way that usually happens is that someone still in government feels comfortable telling people outside government stuff they don't actually have a need to know, if that person outside government still has the proper clearance.  Revoking those clearances is going to make people still on the "inside" less likely to leak classified information to people on the "outside".  And that's a good thing.

Well said.

[Sanguine]

Do we have any idea when this tradition was started?  And, did it extend to all ex-spooks or only certain ones?

[XenaLee]

I just gotta say this one thing in disagreement with Donald Trump: Sorry, Mr. President, I am still not tired of WINNING!

Woo hoo!

Sorry, but.... I just gotta say this one thing in awe (but not shock)....

HAhahahahaha!   That's right, I said it.

That was my expression of amusement at your amazing display of adoration of Der Trump ...

for having taken an action that was a no-brainer... and just like the firing of Omarosa (finally)...

should have happened from the get-go (better late than never?). 

Carry on!   

[Bigun]

To the extent former intelligence officials need to be consulted about specialized knowledge they may have, that does not require them to have security clearances.  They can be asked to provide whatever information they have regardless of whether or not they have a clearance.

The only reason former intelligence officials need a clearance is if they are going to be provided with classified information.  And the danger with that is there are not the same controls/monitoring in place for people who are no longer employed by the feds as there are for those folks still on active duty. So, it is easier for them to leak information to the press or to whomever, either for partisan purposes or any other motivation.  In the case of Brennan, there are damn good reasons to believe that he'd be willing to leak such information as part of his criticism of President he doesn't like.

The way that usually happens is that someone still in government feels comfortable telling people outside government stuff they don't actually have a need to know, if that person outside government still has the proper clearance.  Revoking those clearances is going to make people still on the "inside" less likely to leak classified information to people on the "outside".  And that's a good thing.

Spot on!   

[Blizzardnh]

@txradioguy

You don't like him so take away his marbles he doesn't need and the Govn. may need - this hurts only the government and we are talking more than Brennan that Trump is ejecting just because he can and they didn't bow down to him.  The Antichrist will do the same thing with people who don't worship him; same principle.

de·lu·sion·aldəˈlo͞oZH(ə)nəl/adjectiveadjective: delusional

• characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."hospitalization for schizophrenia and delusional paranoia"
  • based on or having faulty judgment; mistaken."their delusional belief in the project's merits never wavers"

[Emjay]

@corbe
@mystery-ak
@CatherineofAragon 

Thanks, corbe. E, plus RIV were already on Ignore, now Ghost is. I won't answer them - they are wasting their words typing them to me. What they post to me shows their real character - nasty little people who personally attack posters instead of speaking to the subject which means they are irrelevant, as in they have no redeeming value on this forum when they do that.

@Victoria33 This is probably useless because you won't see it, but I didn't mean to take part in what Ghost posted to you.  It was beyond the pale. 

[Emjay]

"But Brennan said he feared the revocation sends "a very chilling message" to the national security community about silencing dissent, whether it is made in public or in private."

Almost.  It sends a very chilling message towards those intelligence professionals who would politicize their positions.

It does @Maj. Bill Martin ... or it should.  I saw on Fox this morning that 9 more people are on the bubble to possibly lose, not only security clearance but their jobs.  Here's hoping.

[Emjay]

I love how this just burns your arse @Once-Ler    It's a nice way to start the day.   

Children!!  I can't tell anymore if you and @Once-Ler are fighting or agreeing.

[Emjay]

Absolutely.  America can breath a heavy sigh of relief knowing the senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC News has been stripped of his security clearance.  It's true the GOP gave up fiscal and moral issues, but when the NTs left I bet they never envisioned a day when an Obama official would lose his perks.  Thank God for President Trump and his patriot supporters @Right_in_Virginia !  You saved us.

Oh, I get it now.  You were being sarcastic ... you did it more smoothly in prior posts.

[Victoria33]

Do we have any idea when this tradition was started?  And, did it extend to all ex-spooks or only certain ones?

@Sanguine

See my post #7 why their clearance is needed BY THE GOVERNMENT after agents/higher ups with secret information, knowledge of events, leave.  Due to Bob's clearance and knowledge of names of our CIA agents, he was not allowed to go to certain countries for 20 years.  One of those was Poland, where his ancestors came from and he would have liked to go there, but was not allowed. After all these years, he still cannot reveal certain knowledge - I don't ask what it is.

In the year before he went to the Pentagon, an active agent overseas turned and gave that country the names of CIA agents overseas - they were ALL killed.

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

See my post #7 why their clearance is needed BY THE GOVERNMENT after agents/higher ups with secret information, knowledge of events, leave.  Due to Bob's clearance and knowledge of names of our CIA agents, he was not allowed to go to certain countries for 20 years.  One of those was Poland, where his ancestors came from and he would have liked to go there, but was not allowed. After all these years, he still cannot reveal certain knowledge - I don't ask what it is.

In the year before he went to the Pentagon, an active agent overseas turned and gave that country the names of CIA agents overseas - they were ALL killed.

Thanks, Marcella. 

I heard a bit more on this question today.  Apparently, this consideration is within the last 30 years and is only extended to a top few senior agency officials.  Since it's the spooks, we don't know exactly when or by whom.

I suspect it is a tradition that may have just come to an abrupt end.

Regardless, why would an agent need clearance to tell the government what they already know?  Also, they could be given temporary clearance if the were called back in for something specific.

And, of course, the success of this sort of thing would depend on the good character of the agent involved, something which appears to be severely lacking in this coven of bureaucrats.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Sanguine

See my post #7 why their clearance is needed BY THE GOVERNMENT after agents/higher ups with secret information, knowledge of events, leave.  Due to Bob's clearance and knowledge of names of our CIA agents, he was not allowed to go to certain countries for 20 years.  One of those was Poland, where his ancestors came from and he would have liked to go there, but was not allowed. After all these years, he still cannot reveal certain knowledge - I don't ask what it is.

In the year before he went to the Pentagon, an active agent overseas turned and gave that country the names of CIA agents overseas - they were ALL killed.

That is a very fine explanation for why the government may need to ask former spooks for information they acquired while still serving.  But unless they are being given classified information after retirement, which they should not be, then there is no reason for them to still have a clearance.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Oh, I get it now.  You were being sarcastic ... you did it more smoothly in prior posts.

Nobody is perfect @Emjay .

You used to have comments about the news, instead of just the posters.