RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Trump Revokes John Brennan's Security Clearance

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 4895



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/15/18 2:16 pm    ::: Trump Revokes John Brennan's Security Clearance Reply Reply with quote

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/15/donald-trump-revokes-john-brennans-security-clearance/999340002/



_________________
neverthless she persisted
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 363
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/15/18 2:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

All former government (and private) employees should have their security clearances revoked at their former place of business.


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14389
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/15/18 3:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
All former government (and private) employees should have their security clearances revoked at their former place of business.


Do you have any understanding of why that doesn't happen in national security?

Do you have any understanding of how the security clearances work?


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10669
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/15/18 8:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
All former government (and private) employees should have their security clearances revoked at their former place of business.


Do you have any understanding of why that doesn't happen in national security?

Do you have any understanding of how the security clearances work?


Malcolm Nance refers to the blind followers as the "crazy 23%". It's the lowest number at which any POTUS can bottom out at, in terms of popularity. IOW, even Nixon maintained the "crazy 23%". IOW, if Chump DID shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave, he would maintain a 23% approval rating.

So, for some folks, nothing matters, even reality.

Btw, Chump can fire and revoke all he wants- it doesn't make these people's testimony disappear. Laughing

He's such a big baby chickenshit bully pussy.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3038
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/15/18 11:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It all comes down to the midterms. If the Democrats can take control of the House there will be a real, public investigation. If not the rule of law will be completely subverted. Mueller will be fired because Trump will have no check on him. As I have said before, I believe there are enough grownups in the Senate on the Republican side that if presented with a well documented impeachment, they will vote to convict. But without a Democrat-led House that will not happen.

I still have faith that the American people will vote to put a check on Trump, but I am getting scared.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10669
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/16/18 9:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
It all comes down to the midterms. If the Democrats can take control of the House there will be a real, public investigation. If not the rule of law will be completely subverted. Mueller will be fired because Trump will have no check on him. As I have said before, I believe there are enough grownups in the Senate on the Republican side that if presented with a well documented impeachment, they will vote to convict. But without a Democrat-led House that will not happen.

I still have faith that the American people will vote to put a check on Trump, but I am getting scared.



You should be. Florida is primed for more of their typical voting shenanigans. There are LESS registered voters there now than for the 2016 election. There has been hacking into registration rolls in addition to tens of thousands of names being improperly removed. Expect both Trump and Rick Scott to win extremely close races there.

The architect of Crosscheck, (the program responsible for illegally removing millions of voter registrations across the country), Kris Kobach, won his primary for gov of Kansas by 345, out of 300,000+ cast votes. Btw, until public outcry scared him off, KK was going to oversee the recount of his own race. (Apparently his opponent has conceded).

And of course, Republicans defunded election security legislation.

IOW, nothing has changed since 2016.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14389
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/16/18 10:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
It all comes down to the midterms. If the Democrats can take control of the House there will be a real, public investigation. If not the rule of law will be completely subverted. Mueller will be fired because Trump will have no check on him. As I have said before, I believe there are enough grownups in the Senate on the Republican side that if presented with a well documented impeachment, they will vote to convict. But without a Democrat-led House that will not happen.

I still have faith that the American people will vote to put a check on Trump, but I am getting scared.



You should be. Florida is primed for more of their typical voting shenanigans. There are LESS registered voters there now than for the 2016 election. There has been hacking into registration rolls in addition to tens of thousands of names being improperly removed. Expect both Trump and Rick Scott to win extremely close races there.

The architect of Crosscheck, (the program responsible for illegally removing millions of voter registrations across the country), Kris Kobach, won his primary for gov of Kansas by 345, out of 300,000+ cast votes. Btw, until public outcry scared him off, KK was going to oversee the recount of his own race. (Apparently his opponent has conceded).

And of course, Republicans defunded election security legislation.

IOW, nothing has changed since 2016.


Including Trump's numbers. He is a historically unpopular president, but he is no less popular now than he was when he was elected.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6728



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/16/18 12:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
All former government (and private) employees should have their security clearances revoked at their former place of business.


Do you have any understanding of why that doesn't happen in national security?


The alleged reason is so that Brennan can give advice. But with the track record of the CIA, that advice could have negative value or be unethical or illegal.

Quote:
Do you have any understanding of how the security clearances work?


What pertinent information is he potentially lacking? I have had a security clearance before and my understanding was that if you exit the company you lose your clearance unless you immediately go to work for a company who requires it.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6728



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/16/18 1:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:

Including Trump's numbers. He is a historically unpopular president, but he is no less popular now than he was when he was elected.


It occurred to me that Trump appeared to underpoll with a lot less negative press than he has had post election. He could be underpolling even more now. But he also ran against a candidate who was also historically unpopular. He probably won't have that advantage in 2020.

Scott Adams said he asked his African immigrant cab driver in DC what he thought of Trump. He said something mild like "A lot of people around here don't like him, but I actually think he's OK." He said that in a taxi cab with the windows closed, but he lowered his voice when he said it. Which seems to reflect the problem polsters may have.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7031
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/16/18 4:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:


Scott Adams

Yeah, that is a source I would trust with anything, and isn't someone who seems to have fallen in love with his own self-perceived brilliance.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10669
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/16/18 6:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The GOP is the Party of Pussies, cowed by the pussy grabber.

Not one stands for democracy, or the constitution.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11106
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/16/18 7:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Scott Adams said he asked his African immigrant cab driver in DC what he thought of Trump. He said something mild like "A lot of people around here don't like him, but I actually think he's OK." He said that in a taxi cab with the windows closed, but he lowered his voice when he said it. Which seems to reflect the problem polsters may have.

Given Africa's history with Real Dictators (as opposed to Dictator wannabes) like Idi Amin, Habre, Omar Al-bashir, Siad Barre, Macias Nguema, Sekou Toure, Sani Abacha, Mugabe and many others....this fella probably thinks Trump resembles Ward Cleaver. He just might not represent a voice of reasoned critical thinking. Hardly impresses me as representative of the *Underpolled*.

Now us--usn's here at Rebs: How many of US have been polled and given an opportunity to share our opinions in any official poll? I was called exactly once, asked to reply on a variety of questions. After the first question, when asked if I was voting for Trump, I was promptly hung up on when I said "No". Whaddya know? Cherry-picking our survey field??



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6728



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/16/18 7:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
Scott Adams said he asked his African immigrant cab driver in DC what he thought of Trump. He said something mild like "A lot of people around here don't like him, but I actually think he's OK." He said that in a taxi cab with the windows closed, but he lowered his voice when he said it. Which seems to reflect the problem polsters may have.

Given Africa's history with Real Dictators (as opposed to Dictator wannabes) like Idi Amin, Habre, Omar Al-bashir, Siad Barre, Macias Nguema, Sekou Toure, Sani Abacha, Mugabe and many others....this fella probably thinks Trump resembles Ward Cleaver. He just might not represent a voice of reasoned critical thinking. Hardly impresses me as representative of the *Underpolled*.

Now us--usn's here at Rebs: How many of US have been polled and given an opportunity to share our opinions in any official poll? I was called exactly once, asked to reply on a variety of questions. After the first question, when asked if I was voting for Trump, I was promptly hung up on when I said "No". Whaddya know? Cherry-picking our survey field??


The political parties, campaigns and special interests will poll, in addition to the general pollsters.

I am having trouble finding an article analyzing why Trump was behind in the polls ( I assume some were done on a state basis to predict electoral outcome) virtually the entire race and yet won. I was looking at a New York Times prediction of the outcome throughout Election Day and I believe it started out with Clinton at 99% chance of victory.

But I don’t think it can be said that Trump is now where he was in the pre-election polls. “Do you approve of Trump’s job in office? “ is different than “Are you voting for Trump, Clinton, Stein or Johnson?




Last edited by tfan on 08/16/18 8:12 pm; edited 3 times in total
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7031
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/16/18 8:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
How many of US have been polled and given an opportunity to share our opinions in any official poll?

Just about every poll I have ever been contacted for has turned out to be a push-poll for one side or the other.

"Candidate 1 has gone on record saying she supports a policy that some believe will lead to the government to impose death panels potentially killing your elderly loved ones while costing the country over 100 trillion dollars by one estimate.

Candidate 2 enjoys spending time with his grandkids and loves kittens.

If the election were held today, which candidate would you vote for".

I mean, I fucking hate cats. Who do you think I'm gonna say I'm voting for after you push me like that!



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3038
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/16/18 8:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I am polled often, particularly this year because we have very competitive Senate and Governor races as well as a highly funded question on energy deregulation. I'd say perhaps a third are push polls. Generally speaking I will answer the questions after "additional information" is given in a way contrary to the way I'm being pushed. "So and so says Prop 3 will increase energy costs to 95% pf Nevadans. Does this make you more or less likely to vote for Prop 3" Answer - more likely.

If the pollsters want to screw with me then I will screw with them.


Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 363
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/17/18 12:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
All former government (and private) employees should have their security clearances revoked at their former place of business.


Do you have any understanding of why that doesn't happen in national security?

Do you have any understanding of how the security clearances work?

Actually yes I DO know how they work because I have security clearances in DC at the moment for a few highly restricted government / military locations. And I expect to lose them once I'm done there. You'd be amazed the personal information you have to give to people you don't trust just to get a pass in some places.

Now tell me... what don't I understand about that since you're the expert here?


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11106
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/18 12:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:

Now tell me... what don't I understand about that since you're the expert here?

You're either ignorant of or willfully disregarding the CRITERIA by which revocations are determined. And it's absurd to make the false equivalence between yourself and the level of clearance needed by Brennan.

Brennan did not run afoul in any of the established criteria for this action: it was a purely punitive move for voicing opposition to the President's policies and strategies. It's a strong-arm move by a weak-minded power-hungry dictator-wannabe.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10669
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/18 7:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:

Now tell me... what don't I understand about that since you're the expert here?

You're either ignorant of or willfully disregarding the CRITERIA by which revocations are determined. And it's absurd to make the false equivalence between yourself and the level of clearance needed by Brennan.

Brennan did not run afoul in any of the established criteria for this action: it was a purely punitive move for voicing opposition to the President's policies and strategies. It's a strong-arm move by a weak-minded power-hungry dictator-wannabe.


I think the main motivation for the scumbag is to weaken witness testimony. I think all but one of the punished win were involved in the Mueller investigation.

What we're watching is Chump's attempt at autocracy and the GOP's complicity therein. It's both pathetic and alarming.

Anyone w/ even a modicum of honesty, or rational thought, should agree.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3038
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/18 3:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:


I think the main motivation for the scumbag is to weaken witness testimony. I think all but one of the punished win were involved in the Mueller investigation.



I really don't believe that he is concerned about anything other than maintaining his base, and continuing to push his absurd narrative. He believes he is not accountable to the courts (where facts might actually matter.) His only concern is holding on to his support in Congress. The comments of Senators Graham, Kennedy and Hatch to go along with him stripping Brennan of his security clearance was sad, but it shows once more how far the spineless Republicans are willing to be pushed.

The worst part of Trump's gambit is that in the list of people he put out, several already had lost their clearance (Comey, McCabe and Strzok) and others, to the extent they have and use their clearances, would only be done in service of the various security agencies in trying to keep this country safe. It is not as if they receive daily briefings on the confidential info of the day. The only basis for putting this out was to intimidate and to switch the narrative. The sloppiness with which it was done as far as the date of the memo and the inclusion of people for which the action would be moot make this more troubling. Trump sees no value of confidential information from a national security standpoint; he sees it only through a lens of personal benefit.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11106
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/18 4:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
The only basis for putting this out was to intimidate and to switch the narrative.


It's called "Omarosa has him really torqued, and how fast can he change up THAT news cycle!" Laughing Laughing Laughing



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6728



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/18 5:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:

Now tell me... what don't I understand about that since you're the expert here?

You're either ignorant of or willfully disregarding the CRITERIA by which revocations are determined. And it's absurd to make the false equivalence between yourself and the level of clearance needed by Brennan.


Doesn’t seem false equivalence to me. A company could wish they could consult with some employee who was top notch in their knowledge and/or skills even more than the top guys at the CIA feel a need to get the opinion of another old blowhard manager. With the WMD fiasco, previous management experience at the CIA should be distained.

Quote:

Brennan did not run afoul in any of the established criteria for this action: it was a purely punitive move for voicing opposition to the President's policies and strategies. It's a strong-arm move by a weak-minded power-hungry dictator-wannabe.


Rand Paul should be getting a lot of the venom for the clearance revocations as he went to Trump and made the case and request to do it. Brennan has been heavily critical of Trump and even accused him of treason at one point. You want to keep a working relationship with the spook agencies, don’t trash their boss.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6728



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/18 6:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
Howee wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:

Now tell me... what don't I understand about that since you're the expert here?

You're either ignorant of or willfully disregarding the CRITERIA by which revocations are determined. And it's absurd to make the false equivalence between yourself and the level of clearance needed by Brennan.

Brennan did not run afoul in any of the established criteria for this action: it was a purely punitive move for voicing opposition to the President's policies and strategies. It's a strong-arm move by a weak-minded power-hungry dictator-wannabe.


I think the main motivation for the scumbag is to weaken witness testimony. I think all but one of the punished win were involved in the Mueller investigation.


I have heard Maddow is floating the theory that these people have incriminating classified evidence against the Trump campaign that they will no longer be able to access. If they had something they would have either brought charges against the Trump campaign at the time, or notified Meuller of the existence of this alleged evidence.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11106
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/18 6:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Howee wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:

Now tell me... what don't I understand about that since you're the expert here?

You're either ignorant of or willfully disregarding the CRITERIA by which revocations are determined. And it's absurd to make the false equivalence between yourself and the level of clearance needed by Brennan.


Doesn’t seem false equivalence to me.


Yep. It is. Whether you like Brennan or not, there's a HUGE difference between a contracted worker with limited need-to-know for a brief time, and the former CIA director.

Again, the actual 'problem' with Brennan no longer cleared is far outweighed by a dictator-wannabe using political animus as his criteria for such revocations. Keep looking for the Bigger Picture here.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4996
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/18 9:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:

Again, the actual 'problem' with Brennan no longer cleared is far outweighed by a dictator-wannabe using political animus as his criteria for such revocations.


I really think you've got this backwards.

The purported reason for people like Brennan keeping a security clearance after office is so that the new administration can consult with them about classified matters. It is Brennan who has exhibited historically unprecedented levels of political and personal animus, as a former spook chief, against the sitting president for over a year, using his security clearance as a resume credential to get himself profitable pundit gigs on anti-Trump cable channels.

After his behavior, there is NO CHANCE that anyone in the CIA or Trump administration would ever consult with Brennan or trust anything he would say. Hence, the entire rationale for his having a security clearance does not exist. Even worse, it is not irrational for the Trump administration to believe that Brennan is so partisanly unhinged that he would even use classified information against Trump. That's another reason to take away his clearance.

The same goes for all the other bitterly anti-Trump former/fired/demoted security officials such as Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Strzok, Paige, Yates, etc. No one in the administration will ever consult with them about classified matters or trust them with ongoing classified information. Therefore, some of them already have had their clearances pulled when they were let go -- about which absolutely no one complained or even noticed. Probably because none of them were popular, over-the-top Trump-trashing pundits on anti-Trump TV programs like Brennan (and Clapper).

In addition, taking away his security clearance (which is a privilege, not a right) does not affect Brennan's ability to keep on doing exactly what he's been doing, to keep on exercising his right to free speech. Brennan has said that, Trump has said that, and everyone should realize it.

For these same reasons, it would be absurd if Hillary Clinton still has a security clearance. There is no rationale for it.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7031
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/18/18 11:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

That is, in fact, not the only reason people keep their security clearances. Most members who leave the military maintain their active security clearances as it gives them a huge advantage over non-cleared individuals in getting private sector jobs (especially ones that deal with government contracts). Every single one of my friends who were former military and had a security clearance, two of which were at top secret clearance, still have theirs active and continually re-up them when required.

Don't make it seem like what Trump is doing is normal. It is far from that Security clearances are very seldom yanked from people who had them. When they expire it is almost always because the individual chooses to let them lapse. And when they are revoked, it is almost always because of a criminal conviction, criminal charge, or some other disqualifying offense committed by the individual that would cause them to fail a background check. It cannot be stressed enough how exceptionally rare having a security clearance revoked without cause is.

This is simply more autocratic behavior by a president who cannot abide people who say mean things about him, and thus wants to punish them.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 10669
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/18 8:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

We have always been at war with Eastasia.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11106
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/18 1:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Howee wrote:

Again, the actual 'problem' with Brennan no longer cleared is far outweighed by a dictator-wannabe using political animus as his criteria for such revocations.


I really think you've got this backwards.... It is Brennan who has exhibited historically unprecedented levels of political and personal animus, as a former spook chief, against the sitting president for over a year, using his security clearance as a resume credential to get himself profitable pundit gigs on anti-Trump cable channels.


Nope. My perspective tells me YOU are still in *reverse* here.

I seriously doubt CNN, MSNBC, etc., all think, "Oooh, Brennan has security clearances, let's book HIM!". THEY WANT HIM FOR HIS LONG HISTORY OF SERVICE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THE INSIGHTS THAT ALONE AFFORDS HIM.

I TRULY believe that--clearances be damned, he could have forfeited them 3 years ago--his voice is of paramount importance BECAUSE he has no party affiliation to cultivate. If you find distaste in his "unprecedented levels of political and personal animus", then you probably ALSO find no big problem WITH HOW CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS OFFER NO IDEOLOGICAL RESISTANCE TO THE MAN WHO WOULD BE DICTATOR. We know many do not agree with Trump, but remain complicit in his stupid ways. Who will speak out against him?

Congress won't exercise any real "Check and Balance" measures against Trump? Then let the voices of those not assuaging lobbyists and pandering to deplorable voter bases speak out--loud and long. We need FAR MORE like him, people who HAVE served the country and have immeasurably more insight and experience to stand up, and proclaim for all: "The Emperor ISN'T wearing any clothes at all." I liken him unto the Biblical prophets of old, who the people wanted to stone, cuz they were called out on their evilness.

Brennan isn't an Omarosa, or any of the others who spent 18 days with the president, and wanna do "tell-alls". He is a man with contextual and experiential depth who needs to be heard.

Your challenge: Tell me something Brennan said or claimed that is NOT true.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6728



Back to top
PostPosted: 08/19/18 11:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
Howee wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:

Now tell me... what don't I understand about that since you're the expert here?

You're either ignorant of or willfully disregarding the CRITERIA by which revocations are determined. And it's absurd to make the false equivalence between yourself and the level of clearance needed by Brennan.


Doesn’t seem false equivalence to me.


Yep. It is. Whether you like Brennan or not, there's a HUGE difference between a contracted worker with limited need-to-know for a brief time, and the former CIA director.


The higher up you go in any organization the less involved in the work you get. The head of the CIA is far removed from the torture, coup attempts and assasinations that the CIA is expert in. If you were to bring Brennan in and ask him “what was the most effective torture method?”, he could only say that “I only authorized torture, I didn’t carry it out. You’ll have to talk to the guys who do the torturing”. And some of his high level knowledge could be obsolete. For instance, if you ask him how to handle innocent people being killed in drone assasinations, he would give the tried and true answer: “You deny anyone else was killed unless there is video or photos or western eyewitnesses, in which case you swear that your 100% heretofore accurate informants told you that only “bad guys” would be there at that place where weddings are held on a Saturday afternoon”. But the world could have wised up to that garbage and he would not be aware as he is hanging out at the country club all day.

Quote:
Again, the actual 'problem' with Brennan no longer cleared is far outweighed by a dictator-wannabe using political animus as his criteria for such revocations. Keep looking for the Bigger Picture here.


If Trump pulling his clearance is a massive threat to democracy then all those outraged need to call on Congress to make it illegal, not howl about Trump doing something he has been given authority to do.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4996
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/20/18 11:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Politico: W.H. looks to scrub clearance list

Quote:
The . . . administration has ordered a government-wide reassessment of how almost 5 million Americans have been granted classified information security clearances and whether each person currently approved to see sensitive national security secrets truly has a need for such access.


Quote:
the intelligence community is coming to the conclusion that the sheer number of personnel with clearances is making the government and the country as a whole vulnerable to a slew of dangers.


Quote:
In a directive obtained by POLITICO, Director of National Intelligence . . . questioned the booming rolls of security-clearance holders. At last count, more than 4.9 million people held clearances, of whom over 1.4 million were cleared for access at the “Top Secret” level.


Quote:
the . . . administration has not only begun to view the huge number of clearances as a security risk, but a serious budgetary stress. The federal government spends about $1 billion a year on background checks, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin