Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Revokes Brennan’s Security Clearance, Considers Revoking Clearance From Others Who Allegedly Leaked to the Press

Trump Revokes Brennan’s Security Clearance, Considers Revoking Clearance From Others Who Allegedly Leaked to the Press

The decision, though announced today, was made three weeks ago

Wednesday, the White House announced former CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance had been revoked.

Brennan is no fan of Trump.

The last tweet Brennan posted yesterday makes that abundantly clear:

Media speculates that Brennan lost his security clearance for being critical of Trump, others think it’s a distraction tactic. The decision, though announced today, was made three weeks ago:

According to WH press secretary Sarah Sanders, said Brennan’s clearance was yanked for “erratic conduct and behavior.” Further elaborating that Brennan, “recently leveraged his status as a former high ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations, wild outbursts on the internet and television about this administration.”

Trump is also considering revoking security clearances from James Comey, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr. Each of whom has been accused of leaking information to the press in order to hurt Trump.

Whatever the reason, this seems most likely:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:
, ,

Comments

great first step…

now prosecute his sorry a55 for mishandling and disclosing classified material. that should put him in federal prison until he’s on his deathbed.

come to think of it, let him die there.

    Tom Servo in reply to redc1c4. | August 15, 2018 at 7:31 pm

    What I love most about this move is watching all the NeverTrumper’s heads explode with OUTRAGE! HOW DARE TRUMP SHUT OFF OUR CONDUIT TO CLASSIFIED DOCS!!!

    and as has been pointed out elsewhere, the value of Brennan’s c security classification was that sympathetic deep staters could still leak classified info to him, for him to leak to the MSM, and it wouldn’t be a crime for them to do it as long as he had his clearance.. Look and see who’s the most outraged to see who was benefiting from that setup.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Tom Servo. | August 16, 2018 at 11:57 am

      All the angst over Jared Kushner’s security clearance, but proven commie and liar Brennan is automatically entitled? And he doen’t even work for the government.

    Neo in reply to redc1c4. | August 16, 2018 at 7:47 am

    This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics.
    Wrong … this is about your security clearance.

    It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out.
    Only if you are intent on breaking the law.

    My principles are worth far more than clearances.
    So, you admit this action is warranted (because you were doing something wrong ?).

    I will not relent.
    You are unrepentant.

      Obie1 in reply to Neo. | August 16, 2018 at 7:55 am

      Ironically, a security clearance is all about suppressing freedom of speech.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Neo. | August 16, 2018 at 12:01 pm

      Agreed. And since their names have already been named and considered for awhile, Trump’s rebuttal to Brennan should be to pull the security clearances all those named NOW.

Revoke ALL of them !

I concur with Redc – they should be prosecuted

Regardless of what side of the political spectrum one may be, its absurd that anyone thinks these guys should retain their security clearances. look at the $250k gofundme for srzok

    C. Lashown in reply to Joe-dallas. | August 15, 2018 at 5:49 pm

    However, if Strzok were prosecuted, found guilty and imprisoned, it would be against the law for him to make any money from his committing those crimes… Is that correct? Book deals, GoFundMe pages, etc. would all be cast into the wind. OR…am I wrong.

      mailman in reply to C. Lashown. | August 15, 2018 at 7:05 pm

      It is a pointless argument. Ive raised this matter previously with Gofundme but all they ever say is gofuckyourself.

      One rule for Liberals and another for Conservatives.

      Milhouse in reply to C. Lashown. | August 15, 2018 at 7:49 pm

      No, it wouldn’t be. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that “Son of Sam” laws are unconstitutional.

        Rduke008 in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2018 at 10:00 am

        Yea, but what about Son of Samsung laws? 🙂

        persecutor in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2018 at 2:54 pm

        But NY enacted another law around 2001 that so far has survived challenges so there is a Son of Sam law in NY.

          Milhouse in reply to persecutor. | August 17, 2018 at 6:40 pm

          Yes, because it doesn’t do anything “Son of Sam” laws do. It doesn’t ban criminals from making money from their crimes. It doesn’t distinguish income from crimes from any other income. All it does is let the victims know when the criminal makes money, from any source, so they can collect on their judgments, if any.

I think he’s closer to $500,000 as we speak… idiots

    JOHN B in reply to gonzotx. | August 15, 2018 at 9:38 pm

    His go fund me money is coming from deep state people who wanted him to get the President and are rewarding him for his dis-service to his country.

    And a bribe to keep quiet.

    This is not coming from average people who want to help this creep.

      Aarradin in reply to JOHN B. | August 15, 2018 at 10:09 pm

      Every dollar they give him is one less they’ll be spending supporting candidates for election this fall.

      I hope he raises $10 million, then blows it on luxury items.

When an administration gets to the point where they are taking away security clearances for nothing more than leaking information to the press, we know for sure we are living under a dictatorship. Or not.

    C. Lashown in reply to Anchovy. | August 15, 2018 at 5:56 pm

    Please notice, Mr. Brennan’s security clearance was revoked 3 weeks ago….but nobody said anything about it. Not Brennan nor President Trump; crickets was all the American public heard. If this was an erroneous action by the President, then fireworks would have been going off.

    My thoughts…something very serious was revealed and Brennan doesn’t wish to reveal it, and President Trump is holding his cards close to his vest…AND, the President really loves to troll his enemies! Distraction, smoke and mirrors…he’s exceptionally good at pushing peoples buttons, getting the results he wants. Wheels within wheels…

      dmi60ex in reply to C. Lashown. | August 15, 2018 at 7:15 pm

      Perhaps Mr Brennan wanted the officials remaining at the alphabet agencies to not know they could no longer use his clearance as an excuse for those ‘” inadvertent slips of info” ,so that he could stay in that informal flow of classified info.

    Colonel Travis in reply to Anchovy. | August 15, 2018 at 6:31 pm

    Sorry, did Trump revoke the clearance of the current CIA Director? No. It was an ex-CIA Director. Not just that, but one who leaked and lied and hated this current president. This clown should have been stripped of it Jan. 20, 2017.

    alaskabob in reply to Anchovy. | August 15, 2018 at 6:54 pm

    Remind why FORMER administration officials need to retain clearances. Remind me how “consultants” for news agencies with active security access have no conflicts of interest as to what to say or not? Finally, remind me as to how restrictive this administration has been versus the last when dealing with the press?

    Ask Seth Rich while you are at it.

      Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | August 15, 2018 at 7:53 pm

      The reason former officials usually retain their clearances is that (1) there’s no reason to take them away, since they’re presumed to be honorable people who were trusted with those clearances in the first place, and (2) it might come in handy if the current administration ever feels the need to call on them for advice.

      Obviously neither of these considerations are valid in this case.

        txvet2 in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 8:33 pm

        No. Security clearances aren’t awards for being a nice guy, which he isn’t anyway. They are given to allow people to fulfill the requirements of specific jobs. They require three specific criteria: (1) that they have a NEED TO KNOW, (2) that they can pass a background check (extended background investigation for TS) and (3) that their subsequent conduct not warrant withdrawing their clearance. When they no longer require access to do their jobs, the clearances are (for most people) suspended or terminated. If the POB think they may need his services again, his access is suspended until such occasion arises. At that time, at least when I had a clearance, they also update the background investigation. Clearly he has no further need to know since he’s no longer employed by the government or by a contractor working in a sensitive capacity. (And he has admitted that he thought he’d failed his lie detector test when he lied about being a member of CPUSA, which means that he never should have had it in the first place). His clearance, then, should have been suspended the day he ceased to be employed by the government, and Trump has every right and in fact the responsibility to withdraw it based on his subsequent conduct.

          Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | August 15, 2018 at 8:49 pm

          Sorry, but you’re wrong. At that level clearances are not normally revoked. It’s completely routine and expected that they keep their clearances forever, just in case their advice is ever needed, on the presumption that they’re worthy people who can be trusted.

          In this case, of course, neither of those considerations applies. Brennan is not an honorable person, he could never be trusted, he was given his clearance by a president who did not have the US interest in mind, and there is no way on earth that this administration will ever ask his advice. So revoking his clearance should have been a no-brainer, and should have been done on Day One.

          txvet2 in reply to txvet2. | August 15, 2018 at 10:00 pm

          That might be the custom, but that doesn’t make it the law.

          Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | August 15, 2018 at 10:36 pm

          Nobody suggested it’s the law. You denied that it’s the custom; you were not correct on that. It is the custom, but in this case the reasons for that custom don’t apply, so he should have lost his clearance long ago.

      This is slightly OT, but why do private citizens, like Brennan, have a security clearance? If one is no longer in a position to discuss or direct policy, why do they need a security clearance?

      If I left my job, would I still be on the company e-mail list?

    Milhouse in reply to Anchovy. | August 15, 2018 at 7:50 pm

    Oh, Brennan did a lot more than just that. But nice point. And 6 downvotes just goes to show what idiots we have here.

      Edward in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 8:05 pm

      I’m somewhat surprised that you haven’t garnered any downvotes for stating that people are idiots for disagreeing with anchovy’s assertion that we are living under a dictatorship. His afterthought “Or not.” doesn’t substantially change the allegation.

        Milhouse in reply to Edward. | August 15, 2018 at 8:52 pm

        No, the “afterthought” doesn’t change the “allegation”, because the point was sufficiently clear without it. That it goes right past some people is a comment on them, not it.

        Anchovy in reply to Edward. | August 16, 2018 at 12:18 pm

        He is not saying people are idiots for disagreeing with what I said, he said they are idiots for not catching the OBVIOUS sarcasm in the post.

      Daiwa in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 8:08 pm

      Not sure I follow.

      Failing to keep secrets secret would seem to me to be at the top of the list of all possible reasons to revoke a security clearance.

      I doubt the document one signs on being granted clearance says you must guard the secrets you learn against disclosure but it’s OK to leak classified natsec stuff to the press if it feels like the right thing to do.

        Milhouse in reply to Daiwa. | August 15, 2018 at 8:50 pm

        Failing to keep secrets secret would seem to me to be at the top of the list of all possible reasons to revoke a security clearance.

        Of course it is. Which is precisely anchovy’s point, of course.

      Ratbert in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2018 at 12:07 am

      When I bother to log in I always downvote all of your comments because you are a pompous jackass.

        G. de La Hoya in reply to Ratbert. | August 16, 2018 at 11:17 am

        I had to login to upvote your comment 🙂
        One of the all time best of LI and appropriate for the whiney, little bitch 😉

    snopercod in reply to Anchovy. | August 15, 2018 at 8:35 pm

    Is it must me, or does Brennan just look like a criminal?

    txvet2 in reply to Anchovy. | August 15, 2018 at 8:37 pm

    Not only does leaking classified information to the press warrant pulling his clearance, it warrants throwing his butt in prison. That’s what would have happened to me if I’d done anything similar.

    Anchovy in reply to Anchovy. | August 15, 2018 at 9:48 pm

    Some people have their satire meters set to FULL KNEE JERK. 10 down votes? Think and read people.

    Aarradin in reply to Anchovy. | August 15, 2018 at 10:10 pm

    “When an administration gets to the point where they are taking away security clearances for nothing more than leaking information to the press, we know for sure we are living under a dictatorship.”

    LOL!!!

    Now that’s laying on the sarcasm with a trowel, hehhehehehe

    MarkS in reply to Anchovy. | August 16, 2018 at 7:14 am

    Did I miss the /sarc somewhere in your comment?

    Toad-O in reply to Anchovy. | August 16, 2018 at 2:21 pm

    Apparently a lot of people didn’t understand this was sarcasm.

Well deserved move against this POS man, Brennan. Given the manner in which some of these people handle classified information, it should be a no-brainer move. Why is Trump only considering the others?

I’m glad the useless idiots are funding Strzok, that is less that will go to Democrat scam artists for their campaigns, and I doubt it will help do anything for Strzok other than help pay his legal fees on a losing proposition.

Yanking clearances from people who are suspected of leaking or other wrong doing (like the fake Trump dossier) is perfectly appropriate. Saying that’s what it was for would be nice but probably the completely accurate reference to Brennan’s erratic behavior was considered legally sufficient.

Meanwhile the claim that pulling a clearance is a suppression of free speech is itself an example of erratic (actually irrational) behavior.

If they’re not currently employed by the government and engaged in official work with confidential or classified material, there is no conceivable reason for them to have access to it.

Really, this is as stupid as, say, allowing ex-Congressmen to debate and vote as if they were still in office. Or allowing a police officer who’s just been fired to cruise around in a police car, write citations, and make arrests.

Rule #1 of secret stuff—keep it secret from people who have no business accessing it.

So the statement was announced today, but the decision was made three weeks ago. I take it Brennan was thoroughly informed as he was posting sour grapes on Twitter during the intervening time. Perhaps half the media was similarly informed and thus played Brennan’s words up in advance.

Why is the only mention of his lying to Congress about CIA personnel engaged in “unauthorized access” of Senate computers in 2014 (when Russians do it, we call it “hacking”) in today’s White House statement? So that’s OK now? No one cares, except that horrible President?

I think Trump is exacting the only retribution on these scofflaws that we’ve seen. People like Paul Ryan certainly aren’t helping.

At the very least if you re fired you should lose your clearances IMMEDIATELY. That Comey still has his is astonishing.

DieJustAsHappy | August 15, 2018 at 7:20 pm

As I understand, Brennan is claiming that this action of Trump’s is an attempt, in part, to restrict his freedom of speech. So, he’s saying he needs a clearance in order to have this?

I don’t have one, a clearance that is. And, yet, I don’t sense any restrictions on my freedom of speech. What am I missing?

As an additional thought, I do wonder whether allowing some of these former officials to keep their clearance was an effort by the Trump administration not to shine too much light on the rats at one time. Once they did sufficiently expose themselves and ample information had been gained, then the time to act would come. Maybe, what we’re witnessing is the beginning of more to come.

    Milhouse in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 15, 2018 at 8:03 pm

    As I understand, Brennan is claiming that this action of Trump’s is an attempt, in part, to restrict his freedom of speech. So, he’s saying he needs a clearance in order to have this?

    No, he’s saying that taking it away in retaliation for his constitutionally-protected speech violates the constitution. Basically the freedom to criticize the president means the freedom to do so without official consequence. For instance if he were getting government funding for something or other, it would be illegal to pull that funding to punish him for his speech. So he’s saying pulling his clearance is the same thing.

    It’s not a completely invalid argument, but I don’t buy it and I don’t think most people will. Security clearance is inherently at the president’s discretion, and you shouldn’t expect to criticize him and still have it.

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 8:17 pm

      Sorry, no prize. Having read President Trump’s statement on revoking Brennan’s clearance, I’ll say that if this isn’t reason enough then I don’t know what is. Moreover, Brennan is just as free to say whatever he will, as you and I, he just doesn’t any longer have access because the President decided he doesn’t need access. So, if he wants to call it retaliatory, so be it. I call it fully reasonable and justified.

        Milhouse in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | August 15, 2018 at 9:05 pm

        Of course it’s reasonable and more than justified. But he’s got a point about doing something reasonable and justified to punish him for his speech.

        Put it this way: There is no question that Nakoula Nakoula violated his supervised release, and deserved to go back to prison for his crime when it was discovered. And yet many people criticized the decision because the only reason his violation was discovered in the first place was that the 0bama administration went looking for who made that stupid film, and promised in advance that whoever did it would be punished.

          DieJustAsHappy in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 9:47 pm

          Frankly, Brennan is free to call it whatever he may. I simply don’t care. President Trump, any President, is the final authority of this matter.

          As I understand, it must be determined whether a person is eligible for a clearance. Once the determination is made, then the decision is made of what access is to be granted. This is based upon mission, government position, and need to know.

          If the rules had been followed, then when Brennan ought to have been debriefed when he left his government position, meaning that he no longer had access although still eligible. The eligibility part would be valid for two years. So, if his access had been shut off yet he violated the rules then he ought not only be cut off of access but lose his eligibility.

          To say that his behavior through the news media and internet resulted this action be retaliatory is to buy into the corruption and abuse of power that exists in the highest circles of our federal government. Brennan shot-off his big mouth and like a good Commander-in-Chief Trump disciplined. And, with this, I’m done with this topic. You’re welcome to reply, but I won’t get into any sort of circular argument about this matter.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 10:33 pm

          Of course the president is the final authority on clearances. Nobody disputes that. But there’s an argument to be made that he may not exercise that authority for the purpose of punishing speech he doesn’t like.

      Daiwa in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 8:23 pm

      It most certainly is a completely invalid argument. There is no right to a security clearance. It can be revoked for any reason or no reason at all. I think they should be revoked automatically on leaving a post; if someone’s expertise is needed or desired on a natsec matter later, they can be granted a temporary clearance.

      Allowing individuals no longer employed by the federal government to retain them, especially when transitioning from an administration of the other political party, is idiotic. A specified time of retention after departing a post, to allow for transition issues, is certainly reasonable, but that should be it and in no event more than 90 days, since most of the transition occurs between November and January 20 anyway. I would not extend clearances beyond 90 days to ex-presidents, either. When you’re gone, you’re gone.

        DieJustAsHappy in reply to Daiwa. | August 15, 2018 at 8:35 pm

        The name of the game in D.C. is power. President Trump has, by revoking the clearance, diminished Brennan’s. Moreover, this probably has created an uncomfortable situation for those who would have liked to see him retain it. Dare they leak anything to him? I’m hope this is just the beginning.

        Milhouse in reply to Daiwa. | August 15, 2018 at 9:01 pm

        There is no right to government funding either, but it is a violation of the first amendment to cancel someone’s funding because of what they said. Brennan argues that the same applies here. Whether or not he should have had clearance, the fact is that he had it, and had he not criticized the President he’d still have it. Therefore, he says, pulling it violates his right to free speech. It’s not completely invalid, but there are some important distinctions between funding and security clearances, and I doubt many people are buying it.

          Daiwa in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 9:53 pm

          Absolutely sure about that? Seems the reverse of ‘bake that cake’. Furthermore, what individual persons are ‘funded’ in this context? Programs and departments are funded, sure, but individuals? Has an individual ever been ‘defunded’, challenged the defunding and successfully had it reversed on constitutional grounds?

          Regardless, the ‘deprivation of free speech by revocation of a security clearance’ argument is a very dead letter.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 10:22 pm

          First of all, yes, individuals are funded by government grants, and those grants may not be pulled as punishment for exercising their constitutional rights. But even if that were not so, what difference do you see between individuals and programs or departments? They too have the right to freedom of expression, and their funding may not be pulled because of what they say. This is clear and undisputed law, but if you want an example, look at the Brooklyn Museum case, when Giuliani tried to defund it to punish it for hanging a picture he (and many others) found offensive. The same applies to pretty much any government privilege; regardless of why someone had it in the first place, depriving them of it to punish them for their speech violates their first amendment rights. But security clearances are different by nature, which is why I think this line of reasoning fails.

          Daiwa in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 11:00 pm

          I understand and accept your clarification. Seems consistent with Citizens United. Glad we agree on the dead letter. Revoking his clearance deprives him of nothing but authorization to receive classified information. He’s still free to spew all he wants. All his clearance does is permit him to receive such information from primary, still-on-the-job leakers without the latter having violated the law. It’s how leaks work – there is value in being a conduit (and less risk) but only if you are willing to be one. ; -)

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2018 at 2:25 pm

          Here is where I see the difference. I think we are dealing with two seperate things. One is the accusation that the clearance was revoked in retaliation for “protected speech”, the second is that it was revoked for misuse (i.e. leaking classified information).

          What the left wants to do is concentrate on the first and not the second. The reality is that Brennan deserved to have his clearance revoked for misuse, period. The fact that it could be seen as retaliation is irrelevant.

          To use your government funding example, let’s say a company that is vocally opposed to the current administration, but it is also discovered that the company is using those funds to support campaigns/candidates who are opposed to the administration. The company loses its funding not for their opposition but because they misused the funds.

          So even if it was “retaliation” it really doesn’t matter since there is more than ample reason to revoke for cause anyway. The rest is basically just optics.

          Which is why I think many people are of the opinion that these clearances should be revoked once the people leave the jobs that required clearance (personally I like the 3 month after idea above). It’s also not like it can’t be done efficiently even for those who might be recalled for expertise at a later date, we do it for the military all the time.

          When I mustered out of the Army at Hunter in Georgia. the day before I left, I went to an area that I visited frequently as part of my duties (wanted to say some goodbyes). However, when I headed in that direction I was informed by a nice Sgt. at the front that; “I’m sorry Warrant Officer, but I can’t let you through.” I no longer had clearance to enter that area. The day before I had clearance high enough that I could walk into not only that area, but into multiple arms and explosives areas/vaults, command centers, and in certain cases, the Pentagon with a sidearm and not be more than stopped for verification. So it can be done.

          Not only can it be done it should be done.

regulus arcturus | August 15, 2018 at 8:14 pm

Now prosecute him for seditious conspiracy.

    Seditious conspiracy consists in two or more people in the US conspiring to: (a) overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, (b) or to levy war against them, (c) or to oppose by force the authority thereof, (d) or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, (e) or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof. Which of these do you allege Brennan conspired to do, and with whom?

    Brennan is an enemy of the United States, and I wish there were something he could be charged with. I hope there is, and if so that he is charged. But I don’t see how this is it.

      regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 9:15 pm

      Brennan is the ringleader of the conspiracy to illegally surveil and later investigate and frame Trump.

      Other members of the conspiracy are Comey, McCabe, Yates, Strzok, Page, Clapper (who has already begun to point the finger at Obama), DNC, Fusion GPS (and Glenn Simpson directly), and several others, possibly including FISC judges. Ultimate cnspirators are Obama and Killary.

      This is well documented.

        Surveilling, investigating, and framing Trump is not sedition. Which of the five items I cited are you claiming they violated?

          regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 9:48 pm

          Wrong. Illegally surveilling and conspiring to surveil, via fraud on the courts, absolutely is seditious.

          Elements c and d in your comment above are certainly present, and a case for e can also be made.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 9:49 pm

          ” (a) overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States,”

          That one. While “Surveilling, investigating,” violates other laws, it is not sedition until “and framing Trump” which is an attempt to put down or destroy by force the Government of the United States.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 10:02 pm

          “and framing Trump” which is an attempt to put down or destroy by force the Government of the United States.

          No, it is not. You are simply making things up, and you can’t do that. Seeking to have the president removed according to law is not seeking to put down or destroy the government at all, let alone seeking to do so by force.

          Wrong. Illegally surveilling and conspiring to surveil, via fraud on the courts, absolutely is seditious.

          Again, I gave the elements of seditious conspiracy above. Anything that doesn’t fit the elements is not seditious conspiracy.

          Elements c and d in your comment above are certainly present, and a case for e can also be made.

          You’r simply lying. The elements are not there, and claiming they are won’t make it so. When did Brennan conspire to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States? When did he conspire “by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States”. And which property of the US did he conspire “to seize, take, or possess [..] contrary to the authority thereof”, let alone by force?

          regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 10:09 pm

          No, dimwit, you’re simply ignorant.

          Not only are c and d present, e is likely present as well. A is clearly evident, but force is missing.

          Stay ignorant, asshat.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 10:31 pm

          Liar, tell me when Brennan conspired to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States. Tell me which law the execution of he conspired by force to prevent, hinder, or delay. Tell me which property of the US he conspired “to seize, take, or possess [..] contrary to the authority thereof”, let alone by force. You can’t, because he never did any of these things. Nor did he ever conspire to “overthrow, put down, or to destroy [..] the Government of the United States”, even not by force; the president is not the government, and seeking to have him removed from office according to law is not seeking to overthrow the government.

          regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 10:38 pm

          Dumbass, using fraudulent documents to commit fraud on the FISC is itself a crime. Utilizing paid foreign sources to both fabricate and disseminate that false info is another crime, possibly several.

          Using a foreign source (GCHQ) to spy on domestic US political candidates (without any predicate or probable cause) is another crime.

          These and multiple other crimes were committed with the objective of creating the “insurance policy” and preventing the orderly transition of power, and preventing the Trump Admin from exercising Article II powers.

          Brennan is at the center of the fraudulent intel, and other abuses. This is just for starters – I have better things to do than compensate for your lack of information on this critical topic.

          You really are exceptionally dumb. You should probably stop commenting lest you dig a deeper hole for yourself, moron.

          regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 10:49 pm

          Here, read up, dimwit – fully sourced

          https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/04/06/john-brennans-contributions-to-fraud-upon-fisa-court/

          There’s much, much more info out there.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 11:51 pm

          Liar, what has any of that got to do with seditious conspiracy? Using fraudulent documents to commit fraud on the FISC is of course a crime, but it is not seditious conspiracy. The other things you mention are not even crimes. I hate Brennan and would like to see him in prison, but you can’t just make up crimes.

          And citing Conservative Nut House discredits your position automatically; it is not a reliable source and there is never any reason to cite it. If a story is true it will appear elsewhere; if it doesn’t appear anywhere else, that’s strong evidence that it’s not true.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2018 at 12:54 am

          “No, it is not. You are simply making things up, and you can’t do that. Seeking to have the president removed according to law is not seeking to put down or destroy the government at all, let alone seeking to do so by force. ”

          No, as per your usual, you make it personal. So F off. I’m not making anything up. These seditious conspirators are not seeking to “have the president removed according to law”, they are seeking to remove him through fraudulent means. That would require force. That the force has yet to happen doesn’t mean it would not were the conspiracy to be successful.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2018 at 12:59 am

          “And citing Conservative Nut House…”

          While I don’t read that particular site on a regular basis, I find nothing that the blog owner writes to be nutty. This is about the 10th time you’ve made that particular statement. Perhaps you would care to tell us what you find that is nuts?

          regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2018 at 9:34 am

          Fantastic non-response, fatuous twit Milhouse.

          And congratulations on demonstrating you have zero understanding of this topic.

          As Barry asks, what precisely do you find “nutty” about my citation, which contains original source links?

          Excellent job of not refuting those.

          Milhouse, you need to do some serious introspection prior to commenting further – you’re making an even larger fool out of yourself than usual.

One thing for sure is clear: The practice of allowing former officials to retain their security clearances needs to be reconsidered, and abolished.

They’ve proven that they are thoroughly partisan political actors, and they’ve proven that they have no qualms about using their security clearances to illegally leak classified information to the press.

Standard practice ought to be to terminate their clearances as soon as they leave their position.

    Milhouse in reply to Aarradin. | August 15, 2018 at 10:25 pm

    Who is “they” who have proven these things? Just because these things are true of 0bama’s officials doesn’t make them true of former officials as a class.

      Aarradin in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2018 at 3:40 am

      You really are a World Class Imbecile, Milhouse.

      Yet another idiotic, stilted, wooden response from the little wooden boy who so desperately dreams of one day becoming real.

      So sad.

      Daiwa covered the substance, which any child could have pointed out for you. Provided they weren’t made of wood.

      You should take up naval gazing, its more your speed.

    Daiwa in reply to Aarradin. | August 15, 2018 at 11:16 pm

    Proof of prior bad acts is unnecessary and irrelevant to the policy question.

    I absolutely agree the practice is, as a policy matter, unwise at best. It merely enables the leak pipeline by providing a class of people outside of government willing and able to receive and pass leaks to the press while minimizing the risk to the actual government source.

    Once you’re gone, you’re gone. I can’t think of any justifiable reason for clearances to be retained indefinitely. And I think this policy/practice should definitely be examined for utility and risk then, hopefully, abandoned.

      C. Lashown in reply to Daiwa. | August 16, 2018 at 7:17 am

      Politics…sloppy politics at that! Reaching across the aisle, the Dems working with the GOP, etc. Unspoken agreements used to shortcut the way the government was intended to work, without leaving any trace of doing wrong…one of the reasons people claim America politics is not a 2 party system, but just a one party system.

Simple. If they did indeed leak classified information … they should be denied access to it. If they broke the law … they should be prosecuted as well.

    DaveGinOly in reply to PODKen. | August 16, 2018 at 12:30 am

    What’s freaking him out is that his value to a future Democrat administration has just been reduced to about zero. If he had kept his security clearance, he’d be a shoo-in for another plum job. But because he’s lost his clearance, and probably can’t get cleared again (due to his history of leaking), his earning potential has plummeted and the likelihood that he’ll hold another position of power and authority (such as that he once held) has also left the building.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 16, 2018 at 2:03 am

      Actually I think what is freaking him out is that he just got cut off from one of his main sources of income. That is pure speculation, but it fits.

      Aarradin in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 16, 2018 at 4:17 am

      His earning potential plummeted because his value to the liberal media just disappeared.

      He no longer has access to the information needed to confirm/refute any storylines they are developing – which doesn’t necessitate actually giving them confidential information.

      So long as he had his clearance, his buddies still working for the govt could leak anything they wanted to him without fear of prosecution. That just ended.

      If a D wins the WH again and decides they want him, there’ll be no problem getting his clearance back. Never stopped them with anyone else. LOL, if Huma Abedin can get a security clearance, then absolutely anyone on the planet can.

      forksdad in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 16, 2018 at 6:45 pm

      What security clearance do you think Bill Ayers held? He qualifies for none. What are the odds that should democrats come back Brennan will be just as welcome as a known unrepentant terrorist?

Brennan has declared that revocation of his security clearance is an “attempt to suppress freedom of speech.”

I had no idea we needed security clearances to exercise any of our rights. I hope I’m not in trouble!

It has always seemed to me that the habit/custom of not revoking security clearances is moronic.

Security Clearances are issued at the pleasure of the government and supposedly based on need. If you have “former” in front of your title that would preclude need.

Unknown3rdParty | August 16, 2018 at 8:36 am

Freedom of speech is a protected civil right, a security clearance is a special privilege. Many have retained a security clearance, even after leaving a position requiring one, in the event their “expertise” is required. Contrast that to jobs in the private sector: after one leaves a job, all access to anything relating to the job is revoked, and NDAs are common to prevent the transfer of intellectual and/or copyrighted property.

The solution is simple: provided one is honorably released and not fired for cause, one will retain a clearance for 3 months following a release in order to assist in the appropriate and orderly transfer of information and knowledge, after which one’s need to know is revoked. There are no extensions; if one can’t do the job without the previous tenant, one shouldn’t have appointed to the job in the first place.

Furthermore, on one’s release, one will also be required to sign an NDA preventing one from discussing any and all secure matters with any other third party, excepting one’s immediate successor, whether that third party has a clearance or not, as long as those matters have not been released for public knowledge. Violation of said NDA will carry appropriately stiff penalties relating to traitorous and treasonous actions regarding national security.

Make sure Clapper is on the list to lose his clearance.

God works in mysterious ways. We only have to sit and shut up.

I “lost” my clearance when I quit in 2008. I turned in my badge. It hasn’t f***ing followed me around.

“In God We Trust. All Others We Monitor.”

we in Naval intel meant it as joke.

Im gonna have to see if the Galaxie has left the lot.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend