trpmb6 wrote:

Also, I should note, for the same reasons Flynn should have his clearance revoked, if it hasn't been already. My guess is it has been, but it wasn't politically convenient to publicly announce it either

Flynn still has access. I assume because he is friendly to Trump.

C'mon. This is clearly politically motivated and it comes at the expense of Brennan's years of knowledge and experience that are now no longer a tool for current security forces to use should they want to.

Just own it. The right wanted a strongman leader who doesn't take any s**t. They got one. Abuse of power be damned, right?

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

2122M wrote:

That is a quote in an NPR article from a conservative think tank. The actual article lands somewhere in the middle.

That's a flat out lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council

"The Atlantic Council has, since its inception, stated it is a nonpartisan institution, with members "from the moderate internationalist wings of both parties" in the United States."

FOX News has, since its inception, stated that it is 'Fair and Balanced' news.

So what? Do you have evidence to back up your claim since I have produced evidence to the contrary? Obama, after all, hired people from The Atlantic Council. Was he a fool?

Something tells me that you made a baseless claim and now you are deflecting as part of damage control mode.

VTKillarney wrote:

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

That's a flat out lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council

"The Atlantic Council has, since its inception, stated it is a nonpartisan institution, with members "from the moderate internationalist wings of both parties" in the United States."

FOX News has, since its inception, stated that it is 'Fair and Balanced' news.

So what? Do you have evidence to back up your claim since I have produced evidence to the contrary? Obama, after all, hired people from The Atlantic Council. Was he a fool?

Something tells me that you made a baseless claim and now you are deflecting as part of damage control mode.

Obama was quite bi partisan. The Atlantic Council is headed by a former GOP presidential candidate. The specific person you quoted worked on the campaigns of both Ted Cruz and Scott Walker. He also lobbied in Washington a great deal for Ukrainian and Russian oil companies.

Furthermore you presented the one little quote as if it were the main point of the NPR article, when in fact NPR does a great job of reporting all sides and that was their conservative voice on the matter. You completely misrepresented the article and completely misrepresented David Vajdich as a moderate voice.

Edited to add more info on Vajdich.

2122M wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Also, I should note, for the same reasons Flynn should have his clearance revoked, if it hasn't been already. My guess is it has been, but it wasn't politically convenient to publicly announce it either

Flynn still has access. I assume because he is friendly to Trump.

C'mon. This is clearly politically motivated and it comes at the expense of Brennan's years of knowledge and experience that are now no longer a tool for current security forces to use should they want to.

Just own it. The right wanted a strongman leader who doesn't take any s**t. They got one. Abuse of power be damned, right?

It obviously has political motives behind it. I'm not an idiot. I'm just providing context that people seem to willfully ignore.

There's no reason for him to have a clearance because this administration has made it pretty clear they aren't interested in what he has to offer. So he no longer has a need to know.

His lying under oath to congress is a very serious offense and grounds for clearance removal.

Trump's team is doing this to change the news cycle. Notice Omarossa isn't in the news anymore. Something I predicted in the Omarossa thread yesterday I might add.

Is this an abuse of power? I don't think I'd go that far to characterize it as such. Rand Paul - one of the leading figures when it comes to restraining government - is quite pleased that Brennan no longer has his clearance. In fact, as I stated earlier, with evidence, Rand Paul is the one that kicked off all this talk about removing Brennan's clearance. It didn't even start with Trump.

Of significant note. This doesn't restrict Brennan's First ammendment right at all. In fact, it probably gives him a bigger platform now to be honest. He's now thrust right into the spotlight. Probably where he wants to be honestly. I guarantee he's loving this, he's going to make a ton of money off whatever book deal he ends up with.

trpmb6 wrote:

2122M wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Also, I should note, for the same reasons Flynn should have his clearance revoked, if it hasn't been already. My guess is it has been, but it wasn't politically convenient to publicly announce it either

Flynn still has access. I assume because he is friendly to Trump.

C'mon. This is clearly politically motivated and it comes at the expense of Brennan's years of knowledge and experience that are now no longer a tool for current security forces to use should they want to.

Just own it. The right wanted a strongman leader who doesn't take any s**t. They got one. Abuse of power be damned, right?

It obviously has political motives behind it. I'm not an idiot. I'm just providing context that people seem to willfully ignore.

There's no reason for him to have a clearance because this administration has made it pretty clear they aren't interested in what he has to offer. So he no longer has a need to know.

His lying under oath to congress is a very serious offense and grounds for clearance removal.

Trump's team is doing this to change the news cycle. Notice Omarossa isn't in the news anymore. Something I predicted in the Omarossa thread yesterday I might add.

Is this an abuse of power? I don't think I'd go that far to characterize it as such. Rand Paul - one of the leading figures when it comes to restraining government - is quite pleased that Brennan no longer has his clearance. In fact, as I stated earlier, with evidence, Rand Paul is the one that kicked off all this talk about removing Brennan's clearance. It didn't even start with Trump.

Of significant note. This doesn't restrict Brennan's First ammendment right at all. In fact, it probably gives him a bigger platform now to be honest. He's now thrust right into the spotlight. Probably where he wants to be honestly. I guarantee he's loving this, he's going to make a ton of money off whatever book deal he ends up with.

Once again. It is about Trump's abuse of power to take polical revenge. You can go wonky on policy all you want, but at the end of the day there is an existing established procedure for removal of security credentials. Trump bypassed it for a PERSONAL VENDETTA. That is an OBSCENE ABUSE of POWER.

trpmb6 wrote:

Of significant note. This doesn't restrict Brennan's First ammendment right at all. In fact, it probably gives him a bigger platform now to be honest. He's now thrust right into the spotlight. Probably where he wants to be honestly. I guarantee he's loving this, he's going to make a ton of money off whatever book deal he ends up with.

First of all, looking at Brennan's face, I'm not convinced he's ever loved anything. but that's beside the point.

This move does not further restrict his 1st Amendment rights in the future. But he was punished by the president for speaking his mind. Is that not already an infringement of his right to free speech?

casinterest wrote:

Once again. It is about Trump's abuse of power to take polical revenge. You can go wonky on policy all you want, but at the end of the day there is an existing established procedure for removal of security credentials. Trump bypassed it for a PERSONAL VENDETTA. That is an OBSCENE ABUSE of POWER.

We get it. You think it's an abuse of power. You don't have to keep screaming it.

You are choosing to ignore the fact that others first called for the removal of the clearance. That kind of downplays the narrative that this was solely political in nature a bit.

trpmb6 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Once again. It is about Trump's abuse of power to take polical revenge. You can go wonky on policy all you want, but at the end of the day there is an existing established procedure for removal of security credentials. Trump bypassed it for a PERSONAL VENDETTA. That is an OBSCENE ABUSE of POWER.

We get it. You think it's an abuse of power. You don't have to keep screaming it.

You are choosing to ignore the fact that others first called for the removal of the clearance. That kind of downplays the narrative that this was solely political in nature a bit.

You are choosing to ignore Trump's own interview to the NYT where he admits to wanting to take down those associated with the Russia probe and the tweets. So you can call it what you want. But don't come crying to me when you are without support and Trump and his cronies come for you.

2122M wrote:

This move does not further restrict his 1st Amendment rights in the future. But he was punished by the president for speaking his mind. Is that not already an infringement of his right to free speech?

People with clearances serve at the pleasure of the president. Different rules apply when you have a clearance, not just being careful about disclosure of classified information. Calling your president a traitor probably isn't a smart thing to do when you have a clearance. But since he wasn't actively engaged in using his clearance for anything I doubt that really matters much. But that also gives credence to the argument of, he doesn't need it, so why should he keep it?

The left is going to continue to argue that this was an abuse of power. The right is going to continue to argue that this was a result of him lying before congress and his 'erratic' behavior. I'm personally with Rand Paul on this one. I also tend to agree with the notion that this wasn't solely politically motivated because the white house has stated they are still reviewing the remaining clearance holders on that "enemies list" (to use senator warner's words). So there is obviously some more thought to this than just "we don't like them so remove their clearances."

MikeDrop wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

I have met unlikable, obnoxious people, egotistical people, petty people, greedy people, corrupt people, unfaithful, disrespectful, racist, and sexist......

Wow! You just described Bill and Hillary Clinton! Thank god they aren't in the White House!

Mike Drop

By your own metric, Mike, they are exactly the same as the clown show in the White House now. The only difference is the Clintons have experience in government and diplomacy. According to you.

seahawk wrote:

seb146 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Those people are nothing but security risks and ripe targets for enemy agencies as they are willing to hurt the country for their party. Good move by Trump. America first.

What exactly does Eric, Donnie Jr., and Ivanka do to deserve their ultra high security clearance? They met with Russians. They were willing to hurt the country for their profit. But how is that okay?

The president is free to pick advisers of his choosing.

And we have the right to ask questions about them. We have the right to say "why do these people get no Congressional hearings, no vetting, no background checks and still receive the highest clearance possible?" So, why? That was a whole thing under Obama that people were not (allegedly) properly vetted and no one knew of their back grounds and so forth. Recall how crazy and over-the-top the right was when Obama did anything? Saying how secretive that administration was? THIS IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE AND NOW and righties do not care. Righties support it WHEN IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. I don't get it.

Actually, I do. Party before country. Both sides do it. Righties said Obama did things (no proof at all) so they can scream "BOTH SIDES DO IT!!" when dear orange leader actually does it.

seb146 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

seb146 wrote:

What exactly does Eric, Donnie Jr., and Ivanka do to deserve their ultra high security clearance? They met with Russians. They were willing to hurt the country for their profit. But how is that okay?

The president is free to pick advisers of his choosing.

And we have the right to ask questions about them. We have the right to say "why do these people get no Congressional hearings, no vetting, no background checks and still receive the highest clearance possible?" So, why? That was a whole thing under Obama that people were not (allegedly) properly vetted and no one knew of their back grounds and so forth. Recall how crazy and over-the-top the right was when Obama did anything? Saying how secretive that administration was? THIS IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE AND NOW and righties do not care. Righties support it WHEN IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. I don't get it.

Actually, I do. Party before country. Both sides do it. Righties said Obama did things (no proof at all) so they can scream "BOTH SIDES DO IT!!" when dear orange leader actually does it.

Valerie Jarrett.

I don't really take issue with his kids having clearances. They're adult children who advise him on things. Ivanka has flown under the radar quite a bit. Kushner (you didn't list) is actually doing quite a bit of foreign policy type stuff.

How much understanding of security clearances do you have? They are very restrictive based on need to know. It can actually cause some rifts inside administrations when one adviser is kept out of the loop because they have no need to know a detail until it comes time for them to know for some reason. For instance, I know it's a movie, but remember back in Independence Day:

MOISHE
What was it, Roswell? You had the
space ship, the bodies, everything
locked up in a bunker, the what is
it, Area fifty one. That's it!
Area fifty one. You knew and you
didn't do nothing!

For the first time in along time, President Whitmore smiles.

PRESIDENT
Regardless of what the tabloids
have said, there were never any
space crafts recovered by the
government. Take my word for it,
there is no Area 51 and no
recovered space ship.

Chief of Staff Nimziki suddenly clears his throat.

NIMZIKI
Uh, excuse me, Mr. President, but
that's not entirely accurate.

The President and General Grey turn to Nimziki, shocked.

He had no need to know. And plausible deniability too.

Ivanka, Eric, Don Jr. are only briefed on the scope of their work. No more no less.

trpmb6 wrote:

2122M wrote:

This move does not further restrict his 1st Amendment rights in the future. But he was punished by the president for speaking his mind. Is that not already an infringement of his right to free speech?

People with clearances serve at the pleasure of the president. Different rules apply when you have a clearance, not just being careful about disclosure of classified information. Calling your president a traitor probably isn't a smart thing to do when you have a clearance. But since he wasn't actively engaged in using his clearance for anything I doubt that really matters much. But that also gives credence to the argument of, he doesn't need it, so why should he keep it?

The left is going to continue to argue that this was an abuse of power. The right is going to continue to argue that this was a result of him lying before congress and his 'erratic' behavior. I'm personally with Rand Paul on this one. I also tend to agree with the notion that this wasn't solely politically motivated because the white house has stated they are still reviewing the remaining clearance holders on that "enemies list" (to use senator warner's words). So there is obviously some more thought to this than just "we don't like them so remove their clearances."

I understand the difference between illegal and immoral and I understand the Trump is well within his rights to do what he did. I'm concerned that people can concede that this probably was at least in part politically motivated and be OK with that. Time after time Trump has shown his desire to be a supreme ruler and not a president. His disdain for the free press tells us that. His lack of respect for our political norms tells us that. His praise for Putin, Erdogan and Duterte tells us that. His demands for loyalty tells us that. So when he starts wielding his political power to cast retribution on his domestic enemies, I think it's 100% fair for everyone to take notice at yet another sign that Trump has more interest in protecting his own power and reputation than doing what is best for the country.

First of all, Trump has not been praising Erdogan, or you aren't paying attention.. I mean go look at the Turkey thread just below this one.

What will be telling is how he handles the other people on his "enemies list"

If he revokes their clearances without just cause, I will call him out on it. You can quote me from here if you would like. I see justification for Brennan. The rest are different. Clapper for instance perjured himself. That's up there with Brennan. So I could see him losing his clearance. Rice and powers abused the unmasking powers but I don't find that to be grounds for removing a clearance. If anything it just shows the vulnerability to current guidelines/regulations/law regarding unmasking - I'd rather them spend the time working on this than to bother with rice and powers' clearances.

trpmb6 wrote:

First of all, Trump has not been praising Erdogan, or you aren't paying attention.. I mean go look at the Turkey thread just below this one.

What will be telling is how he handles the other people on his "enemies list"

If he revokes their clearances without just cause, I will call him out on it. You can quote me from here if you would like. I see justification for Brennan. The rest are different. Clapper for instance perjured himself. That's up there with Brennan. So I could see him losing his clearance. Rice and powers abused the unmasking powers but I don't find that to be grounds for removing a clearance. If anything it just shows the vulnerability to current guidelines/regulations/law regarding unmasking - I'd rather them spend the time working on this than to bother with rice and powers' clearances.

Well, its no secret that Trump will turn on you in a heartbeat, but he has praised Erdogan in the past. He seemed impressed that Erdogan could immediate increase his defense spending without having to deal with those pesky parliaments the other EU nations deal with:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-fist ... right-way/

Secondly, why has Michael Flynn not had his security clearance revoked. If the president is driven by reasonable motives, Flynn's would be long gone. But I think he's using reasonable motives to mask his vindictive political streak.

It's about time. Should be another 10 or 15 that will lose their clearance in the near future as well. They no longer have a need to know.

VTKillarney wrote:

How is taking a consistent position hypocritical? That’s a new one!

I apologize, the word I should have used is dishonest.

trpmb6 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The president is free to pick advisers of his choosing.

And we have the right to ask questions about them. We have the right to say "why do these people get no Congressional hearings, no vetting, no background checks and still receive the highest clearance possible?" So, why? That was a whole thing under Obama that people were not (allegedly) properly vetted and no one knew of their back grounds and so forth. Recall how crazy and over-the-top the right was when Obama did anything? Saying how secretive that administration was? THIS IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE AND NOW and righties do not care. Righties support it WHEN IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. I don't get it.

Actually, I do. Party before country. Both sides do it. Righties said Obama did things (no proof at all) so they can scream "BOTH SIDES DO IT!!" when dear orange leader actually does it.

Valerie Jarrett.

I don't really take issue with his kids having clearances. They're adult children who advise him on things. Ivanka has flown under the radar quite a bit. Kushner (you didn't list) is actually doing quite a bit of foreign policy type stuff.

How much understanding of security clearances do you have? They are very restrictive based on need to know. It can actually cause some rifts inside administrations when one adviser is kept out of the loop because they have no need to know a detail until it comes time for them to know for some reason. For instance, I know it's a movie, but remember back in Independence Day:

MOISHE
What was it, Roswell? You had the
space ship, the bodies, everything
locked up in a bunker, the what is
it, Area fifty one. That's it!
Area fifty one. You knew and you
didn't do nothing!

For the first time in along time, President Whitmore smiles.

PRESIDENT
Regardless of what the tabloids
have said, there were never any
space crafts recovered by the
government. Take my word for it,
there is no Area 51 and no
recovered space ship.

Chief of Staff Nimziki suddenly clears his throat.

NIMZIKI
Uh, excuse me, Mr. President, but
that's not entirely accurate.

The President and General Grey turn to Nimziki, shocked.

He had no need to know. And plausible deniability too.

Ivanka, Eric, Don Jr. are only briefed on the scope of their work. No more no less.

You are quoting a fictional president.

Jarrett was an adviser to Obama and did not receive patents from China.

Ivanka has top and permanent security clearance why?

Again, I think she should have some level of clearance. I have not ever had a problem with her or the other or any of his kids having clearance. Why do they need top security clearance, though? Doesn't that set off any bells or raise any red flags? Ivanka gets Chinese patents and has top clearance? Because her husband has top security clearance is not a good enough reason.

A quick Google search tells me that Eric and Junior both have "need to know" security clearance.

John Brennan is the head of the Russia collusion scam. He is the archetypical deep state operative. When nobody cared about the fake dossier that Fusion GPS constructed with the help of rogue DoJ employees like Bruce Ohr, John Brennan pressured Harry Reid into pushing the FBI to launch the phony Russia investigation. Without that pressure from Brennan, there would never have been a Russia investigation because the FBI thought the dossier was phony. Of course when Brennan and Reid got in, that dossier suddenly landed on a much higher up table with Peter Strzok, who of course jumped on the opportunity to "stop it" (it being Trump becoming President).

We are lucky as a country that Trump won the election. Had Hillary won, all these bad actors and sinister plots would never have been uncovered. Now it's pay day for Brennan and all the other bad cops in town.

seb146 wrote:

You are quoting a fictional president.

Yes... as I noted in my post. It was just a convenient 'example' that I recalled. I've seen it used as an example of what "need to know" means for people who recently acquired a clearance.

Jarrett was an adviser to Obama and did not receive patents from China.

Ivanka has top and permanent security clearance why?

Again, I think she should have some level of clearance. I have not ever had a problem with her or the other or any of his kids having clearance. Why do they need top security clearance, though? Doesn't that set off any bells or raise any red flags? Ivanka gets Chinese patents and has top clearance? Because her husband has top security clearance is not a good enough reason.

A quick Google search tells me that Eric and Junior both have "need to know" security clearance.

First of all "permanent" isn't a real way to describe security clearances. There's not such thing as a permanent clearance. That's just something Axios tagged onto their article about Ivanka and other sites picked up on. Top Secret is what all senior level white house staff get. They are still subject to strict need to knows (again one staffer will be privy to stuff others will not be). They get reinvestigated every 5 years. They may have been polygraphed but not likely. Polygraphs are usually reserved for Top Secret SCI (Sensitive compartmented information).

Ivanka's chinese patents don't mean squat. It was surely reported on her SF-86 and isn't something anybody should be trying to use as a reason for disqualification. Might as well squawk about Clinton speaking in Russia with generous speaking fees.

on your google search. Every clearance has need to know attached to it. Likely that Eric and Don Jr only have secret clearances, and not top secret because they aren't senior level staff (I don't believe they are at least). More than likely the reason they were granted secret has nothing to do with advising the president. It has more to do with the fact you need a secret clearance to ride on the VC-25.

aviationaware wrote:

John Brennan is the head of the Russia collusion scam. He is the archetypical deep state operative. When nobody cared about the fake dossier that Fusion GPS constructed with the help of rogue DoJ employees like Bruce Ohr, John Brennan pressured Harry Reid into pushing the FBI to launch the phony Russia investigation. Without that pressure from Brennan, there would never have been a Russia investigation because the FBI thought the dossier was phony. Of course when Brennan and Reid got in, that dossier suddenly landed on a much higher up table with Peter Strzok, who of course jumped on the opportunity to "stop it" (it being Trump becoming President).

We are lucky as a country that Trump won the election. Had Hillary won, all these bad actors and sinister plots would never have been uncovered. Now it's pay day for Brennan and all the other bad cops in town.

You uber-conservitive types sure do love a good conspiracy theory. Maybe you've been exposed to too many chemtrails or gay government frogs. Either way, I'm sure you're feet are firmly on this flat earth thanks to your diligent study of Breitbart and Infowars' top level investigative reporting.

2122M wrote:

Either way, I'm sure you're feet are firmly on this flat earth thanks to your diligent study of Breitbart and Infowars' top level investigative reporting.

Wall Street Journal this time, but thank you.

aviationaware wrote:

2122M wrote:

Either way, I'm sure you're feet are firmly on this flat earth thanks to your diligent study of Breitbart and Infowars' top level investigative reporting.

Wall Street Journal this time, but thank you.

Oh, this'll be fun. Send the link to the WSJ that backs up all the claims you made in that post with actual facts. And I don't mean some op-ed piece, I mean some real investigative reporting supporting your claims that:

1) There is a deep state
2) The dossier is fake/Fusion GPS wrote it
3) The Russia investigation in phony
4) Brennan forced Reid to elevate the dossier to Strzok.
5) (and this was implied) The dossier is the ONLY reason the Russia investigation began

VTKillarney wrote:

I most definitely wouldn’t. I’ve already gone on record saying that I think it’s absurd that by default these clearances linger in the first place.

Which just shows you have no idea what you are talking about and all that you are doing is repeating whatever talking head you are listening to this week. It's obvious you did not bother to ask yourself why they keep their clearances. Maybe you should have done so.

If you had maybe you would have discovered that people like Brennan are at level where their expertise might be called upon over sensitive matters. Ones that require a security clearance. Case in point former acting director of the CIA John McLaughlin under George Bush. In 2009 he was brought back as chairman of a panel investigating an intelligence failure. Hard to do that without a security clearance wouldn't you say? And why was he brought back, because he had the expertise that most people do not have.

trpmb6 wrote:

I don't really take issue with his kids having clearances. They're adult children who advise him on things. Ivanka has flown under the radar quite a bit. Kushner (you didn't list) is actually doing quite a bit of foreign policy type stuff.

.

So you don't have a problem with someone who had their security clearance pulled because they failed to list numerous foreign contacts. Or with someone who more than likely sat in a room with an individual who could quite possibly been an agent of the Russian government. And not knowing what actually went on in said meeting.

As for his foreign policy stuff it's rather laughable. His most notable accomplishment so far is to piss off the Palestinians.

So now comes the GINORMOUS brass balls take down of Trump's ABUSE OF POWER.


https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politic ... -clearance

"AUSTIN — Admiral William H. McRaven literally wrote the book on black ops. He led the team that brought down Osama bin Laden and questioned outmoded concepts of sexual assault in the military and at his alma mater in Austin.

Now, he's challenging the leader of the free world. On Thursday, just hours after the news that ex-CIA director and frequent Donald Trump critic John Brennan's security clearance had been revoked, McRaven had a message for the president:

"Revoke my security clearance, too."

LMP737 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

I most definitely wouldn’t. I’ve already gone on record saying that I think it’s absurd that by default these clearances linger in the first place.

Which just shows you have no idea what you are talking about and all that you are doing is repeating whatever talking head you are listening to this week. It's obvious you did not bother to ask yourself why they keep their clearances. Maybe you should have done so.

If you had maybe you would have discovered that people like Brennan are at level where their expertise might be called upon over sensitive matters. Ones that require a security clearance. Case in point former acting director of the CIA John McLaughlin under George Bush. In 2009 he was brought back as chairman of a panel investigating an intelligence failure. Hard to do that without a security clearance wouldn't you say? And why was he brought back, because he had the expertise that most people do not have.

Someone needs to look up the word, “linger.”

VTKillarney wrote:

Someone needs to look up the word, “linger.”

Is that all you got?

casinterest wrote:

So now comes the GINORMOUS brass balls take down of Trump's ABUSE OF POWER.


https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politic ... -clearance

"AUSTIN — Admiral William H. McRaven literally wrote the book on black ops. He led the team that brought down Osama bin Laden and questioned outmoded concepts of sexual assault in the military and at his alma mater in Austin.

Now, he's challenging the leader of the free world. On Thursday, just hours after the news that ex-CIA director and frequent Donald Trump critic John Brennan's security clearance had been revoked, McRaven had a message for the president:

"Revoke my security clearance, too."

Its better than just that:

"Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation," McRaven said of Trump.
"If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be," he added.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics ... index.html

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

casinterest wrote:

So now comes the GINORMOUS brass balls take down of Trump's ABUSE OF POWER.


https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politic ... -clearance

"AUSTIN — Admiral William H. McRaven literally wrote the book on black ops. He led the team that brought down Osama bin Laden and questioned outmoded concepts of sexual assault in the military and at his alma mater in Austin.

Now, he's challenging the leader of the free world. On Thursday, just hours after the news that ex-CIA director and frequent Donald Trump critic John Brennan's security clearance had been revoked, McRaven had a message for the president:

"Revoke my security clearance, too."

Its better than just that:

"Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation," McRaven said of Trump.
"If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be," he added.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics ... index.html

Tugg

Can't wait to see Trump or that pansy Rand Paul take on this guy.

Mcraven likely doesn't have a clearance anymore. Outside the 2 year window.

LMP737 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I don't really take issue with his kids having clearances. They're adult children who advise him on things. Ivanka has flown under the radar quite a bit. Kushner (you didn't list) is actually doing quite a bit of foreign policy type stuff.

.

So you don't have a problem with someone who had their security clearance pulled because they failed to list numerous foreign contacts. Or with someone who more than likely sat in a room with an individual who could quite possibly been an agent of the Russian government. And not knowing what actually went on in said meeting.

As for his foreign policy stuff it's rather laughable. His most notable accomplishment so far is to piss off the Palestinians.

Both went through the process and received favorable adjudication. Or do you not trust our government processes???? Sounds like someone who wears a tin foil hat and spouts things about the deep state to me.

trpmb6 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

You are quoting a fictional president.

Yes... as I noted in my post. It was just a convenient 'example' that I recalled. I've seen it used as an example of what "need to know" means for people who recently acquired a clearance.

Brennan did not have recently acquired clearance. He has had clearance for some time so the CIA could go to him and say "what do we do about this?" and not "I need to hang out at the White House and see the clown show up close."

trpmb6 wrote:

Jarrett was an adviser to Obama and did not receive patents from China.

Ivanka has top and permanent security clearance why?

Again, I think she should have some level of clearance. I have not ever had a problem with her or the other or any of his kids having clearance. Why do they need top security clearance, though? Doesn't that set off any bells or raise any red flags? Ivanka gets Chinese patents and has top clearance? Because her husband has top security clearance is not a good enough reason.

A quick Google search tells me that Eric and Junior both have "need to know" security clearance.

First of all "permanent" isn't a real way to describe security clearances. There's not such thing as a permanent clearance. That's just something Axios tagged onto their article about Ivanka and other sites picked up on. Top Secret is what all senior level white house staff get. They are still subject to strict need to knows (again one staffer will be privy to stuff others will not be). They get reinvestigated every 5 years. They may have been polygraphed but not likely. Polygraphs are usually reserved for Top Secret SCI (Sensitive compartmented information).

Ivanka's chinese patents don't mean squat. It was surely reported on her SF-86 and isn't something anybody should be trying to use as a reason for disqualification. Might as well squawk about Clinton speaking in Russia with generous speaking fees.

on your google search. Every clearance has need to know attached to it. Likely that Eric and Don Jr only have secret clearances, and not top secret because they aren't senior level staff (I don't believe they are at least). More than likely the reason they were granted secret has nothing to do with advising the president. It has more to do with the fact you need a secret clearance to ride on the VC-25.

I understand that, even though daddy has not fully divested himself from his companies, he has his two boys running things. They need some level of security clearance. I am not questioning that. I am not even questioning Ivanka having a clearance. What I find questionable is saving ZTE (a Chinese company) and Ivanka, with her high level security clearance given to her by daddy, gets all those Chinese patents right after. Coincidence? How do you apologize for that? Where is your "both sides do it" excuse for this?

trpmb6 wrote:

Both went through the process and received favorable adjudication. Or do you not trust our government processes???? Sounds like someone who wears a tin foil hat and spouts things about the deep state to me.

I've been in the military and I've worked for a large aerospace firm. What do you think would have happened if I had done the same thing?

Didn’t someone just say that the Republicans are the only party prone to conspiracy theories?

trpmb6 wrote:

Mcraven likely doesn't have a clearance anymore. Outside the 2 year window.

So in other words you are guessing and calling him a liar.

trpmb6 wrote:

Mcraven likely doesn't have a clearance anymore. Outside the 2 year window.

Keep spinning in your own mud. A man of that stature that clearly asks for his clearance to be removed ...still has it.

seb146 wrote:

Brennan did not have recently acquired clearance. He has had clearance for some time so the CIA could go to him and say "what do we do about this?" and not "I need to hang out at the White House and see the clown show up close."

Erm. I think you are misinterpreting what I'm saying....

At the rest...

I have a clearance I know full well. Thank you.

trpmb6 wrote:

I have a clearance I know full well. Thank you.

Great, then why would you say/assume that his has lapsed after 2 years? As long as someone wants to confer with you about things you may have insight on (say decisions you made, projects you were involved with, other connections that you know, etc.), it can be and is extended by the sponsoring party. Doesn't require a job in the government, just that you will be involved in tasks or conversations involving similar level clearance.

Been there, done that.

Tugg

trpmb6 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Brennan did not have recently acquired clearance. He has had clearance for some time so the CIA could go to him and say "what do we do about this?" and not "I need to hang out at the White House and see the clown show up close."

Erm. I think you are misinterpreting what I'm saying....

At the rest...

I have a clearance I know full well. Thank you.

I get that clearances change over the course of an administration. I am not even disputing that Brennan would have his movement restricted; that he would not have unfettered access to all parts of all government. I am fine with that. I am fine that the kids have a certain clearance. I just question why someone with no real reason to be there has a high clearance and looks to be personally benefiting from it and why Brennan would have his taken away when he is still useful to the CIA.

casinterest wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Love how drone-strike Brennan is suddenly the liberals best friend.

casinterest wrote:

the Russians own Donald Trump.

Is that why the Trump administration has just slapped the toughest sanctions in living memory on Russia?

Didn't say he was my Best Friend, and Porn humper Trump will not enforce anything on the Russians. He is too much of a puppet of Putin.

Well, he is a good friend. But he also has no clue about US law and how the US government works, hence when he agreed that Russia used Weapons on Mass Destruction, he didn´t know that he was required by law to put sanctions on Russia.

best regards
Thomas

Tugger wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

I have a clearance I know full well. Thank you.

Great, then why would you say/assume that his has lapsed after 2 years? As long as someone wants to confer with you about things you may have insight on (say decisions you made, projects you were involved with, other connections that you know, etc.), it can be and is extended by the sponsoring party. Doesn't require a job in the government, just that you will be involved in tasks or conversations involving similar level clearance.

Been there, done that.

Tugg

I am unsure how the military works in this regard so I will defer, hence my "likely" comment. My line of thinking is that once debriefed and in a retired/laid off/no-longer-employed status you no longer have a need and so are no longer sponsored. When that happens you have 2 years to attain a new sponsor or you are automatically released.

Being an admiral he may very well be kept on for various reasons.

trpmb6 wrote:

I am unsure how the military works in this regard so I will defer, hence my "likely" comment. My line of thinking is that once debriefed and in a retired/laid off/no-longer-employed status you no longer have a need and so are no longer sponsored. When that happens you have 2 years to attain a new sponsor or you are automatically released.

Being an admiral he may very well be kept on for various reasons.

Basically if you are highly involved in a number of clearance requirement critical programs or groups for a number of years you will be wanted by various parties for input or insight on things and that requires clearance to be maintained.

And anyone who has one (or had one) knows they are actually really annoying. The reporting requirements, the restrictions, and its not like you get to find out about a bunch of stuff or any look into all the secret stuff going on. It is always "need to know" but you still have to live with and follow all the rules all the time you have it (and forever for somethings).

Trump really did just do this to punish him, just a big "FU" by Trump directed at Brennan. It takes away opportunities for consulting and contract work etc and limits some of the conversations others can have with him. And for the level of involvement he's had and the "friend circles" he runs in that will be an annoyance. And Brennan will still be required to follow all the reporting and travel requirements because of all the previous projects he has knowledge of and has been involved in.

This is Trump being Trump and being petty and vindictive because he DOES NOT like anyone saying bad things about him. (In my opinion.)

Tugg

Don’t fall for trmpd6’s classic deflection to McCravens clearance. Its his words that matter. Thats what trmpd6 is tying desperately to avoid. I have no doubt the majority of McCraven and his peers vote Republican starught down the ticket. Thats been true of the officer corps for decades. But boy do they know a stinking pile of shit whne they see and smell one. Lets talk about that. From the man that organized the mission on Bin Laden and gave easily one of the greatest commencement speeches of all time at UT (I enourage anyone to watch it on YT for a lesson in leadership, writing and public speaking), his op ed in the WaPo os a searing indictment on this execuse of a President. 35M republicans are beyond all hope, but the rest of thm will carry the shame of supporting Trump through his every act and tweet for a kong long time.

Hallelujah Admiral McCraven, no matter your politics you sir are worthy of my complete respect, and you were already just for the UT address. I went to an elitist East Coast university but goddamn if I dont feel good yelling out “Hook ‘em Horns!”.

wingman wrote:

Don’t fall for trmpd6’s classic deflection to McCravens clearance.

Care to elaborate? I didn't deflect to McCraven, someone else brought him up. I even followed up with, what I consider to be a fairly reasonable response to Tugg's points. No need to attack me over it.

I think I've been pretty fair on this topic.

I saw someone up the thread talk about how this is normal and serving at the pleasure of the president. That is all well and good, but I wonder how long Condoleeza Rice held her security clearance after Obama took office? What level security clearance, if any, do Carter and GHWB enjoy? I wonder why this was never a heated topic under GWB or Obama?

seb146 wrote:

...... I just question why ............. why Brennan would have his taken away when he is still useful to the CIA.

Brennan is not useful to the CIA in any way. The fact that you think he could be useful an any way to the Trump administration is laughable and just signals your partisanship and/or naivete.

At this point, Brennan has broken all norms of behavior for former CIA directors by openly criticizing the sitting president, and branding him a traitor. Which by the way is punishable by death.

There is absolutely no way that he can be trusted by the current administration in any capacity. There is no advice he can give that is not suspect, and there is no analysis he can provide that would be seen as anything other than self serving. Any person who consulted with him would be ending his or her utility to the current administration as well. For good reason.

President Trump would be a fool to allow any political appointee from the Obama administration access to any information about his administration. The only real question is why it took so long and why he has not done this to more of the traitors from the last regime.

Mike Drop

seb146 wrote:

I saw someone up the thread talk about how this is normal and serving at the pleasure of the president. That is all well and good, but I wonder how long Condoleeza Rice held her security clearance after Obama took office? What level security clearance, if any, do Carter and GHWB enjoy? I wonder why this was never a heated topic under GWB or Obama?

Condi Rice didn't lie to congress. I also don't know how long or if she does still hold a clearance.

Presidents aren't issued clearances. Neither are Supreme court justices or members of congress. Because they are agents of the constitution.

Calling the President a traitor is punishable by death? OK chief, you just joined Trump in the vegetable club wiping the drool out of your underwear with the constitution. Assinine coment of the year in Anet.

And yes trmpd6, someone else brought up McCraven and yet you isolated the most insignificant part of his overall commentary to suggest a hugely likely untruth, that a retired admiral and navy seal no longer has a security clearance. Come on, if you cant be serious or even moderately intelligent then you dserve the same type of searing criticism that McCraven levelled at Trump. Drop boy barely merits attention but you have some potential so you say. Please comment on McCravens message. I see Fox finally rallied some Spec Ops forces to say Brennan is a liar so they disagree with McCraven. But Trump himslef says he fired Brennan because of the Russia investigation. Its impossible to exagerrate just how fucked up Trump really is and qhow much damage hes causing to this country. McCraven sees it, do you?

wingman wrote:

Calling the President a traitor is punishable by death? OK chief, you just joined Trump in the vegetable club wiping the drool out of your underwear with the constitution. Assinine coment of the year in Anet.

Quite clear from Mike's post that he was saying the punishment for being a traitor is death. He was not suggesting that Brennan should be killed.

And yes trmpd6, someone else brought up McCraven and yet you isolated the most insignificant part of his overall commentary to suggest a hugely likely untruth, that a retired admiral and navy seal no longer has a security clearance. Come on, if you cant be serious or even moderately intelligent then you dserve the same type of searing criticism that McCraven levelled at Trump. Drop boy barely merits attention but you have some potential so you say. Please comment on McCravens message. I see Fox finally rallied some Spec Ops forces to say Brennan is a liar so they disagree with McCraven. But Trump himslef says he fired Brennan because of the Russia investigation. Its impossible to exagerrate just how fucked up Trump really is and qhow much damage hes causing to this country. McCraven sees it, do you?

I only suggested that McCraven may not have a clearance anymore in the context of what I know happens with clearances. After 2 years, if you don't have a sponsor anymore it goes away. I assume the Navy stops sponsoring someone when they retire. They may make special circumstances for an admiral. And I have allowed for that in my previous posts. It wasn't something I thought of initially and Tugg makes a good point. I've conceded as much and I think the matter is settled.