Petty? Pathetic? Pitiful? What say you?

[Marvin the Martian]

I’d hate to see Trump yank the clearance of anybody who criticizes him. But Brennen is a frickin’ clown. So are clapper and Comey. Others on the list or former NSA chief Hayden not so much.

Does anyone know if Ollie North still has clearance? Google was totally unhelpful.

We should recall Rob Porter, allowed to keep working on temporary clearance while everyone appears to have known he would never be given clearance.

If you guys are cool with "criticize the president and lose your clearance", then stay cool when it happens to Republicans.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I’d hate to see Trump yank the clearance of anybody who criticizes him. But Brennen is a frickin’ clown. So are clapper and Comey. Others on the list or former NSA chief Hayden not so much.

Well again, ok, but you’re back to using subjective criteria, fueled by #NewGOP talking points, to support unprecedented, authoritarian, and wasteful actions against political foes (including those who’ve dedicated their lives to serving the country). It’s BS and I’m seriously questioning your commitment to American ideals if you support this move.

 

[Lucy01]

The cats out of the bag! The American news media, not the Russians is the one that tries to influence the elections, Trump can’t get 20 billion for the Wall, So how did Obama come up with 150 billion to give to Iran?

 

[Lucy01]

The only reason the left is upset about Brennan is because it will make it harder for them to undermine the.POTUS!

 

[IUCrazy2]

What if the person with the Security Clearance is on TV blowing up intelligence operations?

At about 5:45 p.m. EDT on Monday, May 7, just before the evening newscasts, John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s top White House adviser on counter-terrorism, held a small, private teleconference to brief former counter-terrorism advisers who have become frequent commentators on TV news shows.

According to five people familiar with the call, Brennan stressed that the plot was never a threat to the U.S. public or air safety because Washington had “inside control” over it.

Brennan’s comment appears unintentionally to have helped lead to disclosure of the secret at the heart of a joint U.S.-British-Saudi undercover counter-terrorism operation.

A few minutes after Brennan’s teleconference, on ABC’s World News Tonight, Richard Clarke, former chief of counter-terrorism in the Clinton White House and a participant on the Brennan call, said the underwear bomb plot “never came close because they had insider information, insider control.”

A few hours later, Clarke, who is a regular consultant to the network, concluded on ABC’s Nightline that there was a Western spy or double-agent in on the plot: “The U.S. government is saying it never came close because they had insider information, insider control, which implies that they had somebody on the inside who wasn’t going to let it happen.”

The next day’s headlines were filled with news of a U.S. spy planted inside Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), who had acquired the latest, non-metallic model of the underwear bomb and handed it over to U.S. authorities.

At stake was an operation that could not have been more sensitive — the successful penetration by Western spies of AQAP, al Qaeda’s most creative and lethal affiliate. As a result of leaks, the undercover operation had to be shut down.

The initial story of the foiling of an underwear-bomb plot was broken by the Associated Press.

According to National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, due to its sensitivity, the AP initially agreed to a White House request to delay publication of the story for several days.

......

As a result of the news leaks, however, U.S. and allied officials told Reuters that they were forced to end an operation which they hoped could have continued for weeks or longer.

Several days after the first leaks, counter-terrorism sources confirmed to Reuters that a central role in the operation had been played by MI-5 and MI-6, Britain’s ultra-secretive domestic and foreign intelligence services, whose relationship with their American counterparts has been periodically strained by concern about leaks.

These sources acknowledged that British authorities were deeply distressed that anything at all had leaked out about the operation.
​

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...se-spin-tip-a-covert-op-idUSBRE84H0OZ20120518

Now Brennan was the disseminator of the information at that point but he is now playing the roll of Richard Clarke. If keeping the security clearance is to be available to advise new admins, then I am cool with people keeping it. If having that info is simply being monetized to make people like Brennan valuable to CNN, then why keep it.

This perfectly illustrates that pulling these clearances and most other clearances of former officials is vital. Clarke was monetizing his clearance by essentially selling US secrets as part of his “contributor” agreement with a television network. Without that clearance, Clarke is a nobody.

This policy of allowing people to trade on secret information continues to today. I understand the feeling that destroying an agency’s institutional knowledge is bad, but if a clearance is going to be retained by a former official so they can give advice or background on issues they worked on, they have to be forbidden to write or speak on intelligence matters. Oddly enough, that is essentially the federal ethics rule for federal employees. You can’t speak or write in regards to your job without prior clearance.
​

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/20...on-blew-us-operation-help-friends-make-money/

I am fine with doing this to GOP doing the same thing as listed here.

 

[twenty02]

No, I followed along pretty well. Brennen monetized his title as former director for big bucks. He surrendered his professionalism for a cheap-assed political gig. Instead of inhibiting his free speech, he holds it out for sale and will get more air time and probably a bonus because of this. As far as I am concerned, Brennan has tarnished the stature of his public service. If you think calling him out on that is zealously defending Trump, that’s your problem and I don’t care.

None of that has anything to do with the adjudication process for revoking a clearance.

How about if the Gov of Colorado decided he thought COH was doing "cheap-ass political gigs" and revoked COH's license to practice law in the state? It's not an exact corollary....but it's fairly close.

 

[twenty02]

What if the person with the Security Clearance is on TV blowing up intelligence operations?

At about 5:45 p.m. EDT on Monday, May 7, just before the evening newscasts, John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s top White House adviser on counter-terrorism, held a small, private teleconference to brief former counter-terrorism advisers who have become frequent commentators on TV news shows.

According to five people familiar with the call, Brennan stressed that the plot was never a threat to the U.S. public or air safety because Washington had “inside control” over it.

Brennan’s comment appears unintentionally to have helped lead to disclosure of the secret at the heart of a joint U.S.-British-Saudi undercover counter-terrorism operation.

A few minutes after Brennan’s teleconference, on ABC’s World News Tonight, Richard Clarke, former chief of counter-terrorism in the Clinton White House and a participant on the Brennan call, said the underwear bomb plot “never came close because they had insider information, insider control.”

A few hours later, Clarke, who is a regular consultant to the network, concluded on ABC’s Nightline that there was a Western spy or double-agent in on the plot: “The U.S. government is saying it never came close because they had insider information, insider control, which implies that they had somebody on the inside who wasn’t going to let it happen.”

The next day’s headlines were filled with news of a U.S. spy planted inside Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), who had acquired the latest, non-metallic model of the underwear bomb and handed it over to U.S. authorities.

At stake was an operation that could not have been more sensitive — the successful penetration by Western spies of AQAP, al Qaeda’s most creative and lethal affiliate. As a result of leaks, the undercover operation had to be shut down.

The initial story of the foiling of an underwear-bomb plot was broken by the Associated Press.

According to National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, due to its sensitivity, the AP initially agreed to a White House request to delay publication of the story for several days.

......

As a result of the news leaks, however, U.S. and allied officials told Reuters that they were forced to end an operation which they hoped could have continued for weeks or longer.

Several days after the first leaks, counter-terrorism sources confirmed to Reuters that a central role in the operation had been played by MI-5 and MI-6, Britain’s ultra-secretive domestic and foreign intelligence services, whose relationship with their American counterparts has been periodically strained by concern about leaks.

These sources acknowledged that British authorities were deeply distressed that anything at all had leaked out about the operation.
​

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...se-spin-tip-a-covert-op-idUSBRE84H0OZ20120518

Now Brennan was the disseminator of the information at that point but he is now playing the roll of Richard Clarke. If keeping the security clearance is to be available to advise new admins, then I am cool with people keeping it. If having that info is simply being monetized to make people like Brennan valuable to CNN, then why keep it.

This perfectly illustrates that pulling these clearances and most other clearances of former officials is vital. Clarke was monetizing his clearance by essentially selling US secrets as part of his “contributor” agreement with a television network. Without that clearance, Clarke is a nobody.

This policy of allowing people to trade on secret information continues to today. I understand the feeling that destroying an agency’s institutional knowledge is bad, but if a clearance is going to be retained by a former official so they can give advice or background on issues they worked on, they have to be forbidden to write or speak on intelligence matters. Oddly enough, that is essentially the federal ethics rule for federal employees. You can’t speak or write in regards to your job without prior clearance.
​

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/20...on-blew-us-operation-help-friends-make-money/

I am fine with doing this to GOP doing the same thing as listed here.

What classified info was Brennan getting that he was then monetizing? What evidence is there of that? Rand Paul bloviating isn't evidence.

 

[MonroeCity]

Historically, former intelligence officials, indeed, former officials across agencies, have been allowed to retain security clearances after leaving office. If they are writing a memoir, they need clearance to see the memos they, themselves, wrote and documents concerning their tenure in office. If they are called upon for advice, they need clearance. What has become sort of obscene in Brennan's case is the way he has monetized his on-going access to classified information as a CNN contributor. Without access to information he's now seeing as a courtesy to a former DCI, he's really an out-of-the-loop nobody like the rest of us. What makes the monetization of his access worse is that he's using that access to attack the administration that is letting him see secret information.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

None of that has anything to do with the adjudication process for revoking a clearance.

How about if the Gov of Colorado decided he thought COH was doing "cheap-ass political gigs" and revoked COH's license to practice law in the state? It's not an exact corollary....but it's fairly close.

Not close. A clearance is not an official occupational license. You act as though though one has a vested property right to a clearance. They don’t.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I’m seriously questioning your commitment to American ideals if you support this move.

Ranger, save your drama for a better cause. All the left-wing hand wringing in this thread about Brennan and clearance is total political BS. None of it means a damn thing. You all showed us what you thought of the use and abuse of clearances and secrets during the prior administration and how you freely apply the double standards over security issues.

Maybe not you individually but you collectively.

 

[twenty02]

Not close. A clearance is not an official occupational license. You act as though though one has a vested property right to a clearance. They don’t.

It is correlated....I didn't say it was the exact thing. But for those in govt related industries....that clearance is as vital to operate in any function whatsoever as a occupational license is in other industries.

Here are the adjudication guidelines.....I'm not seeing anything about airing mean personal opinions of the President on TV.....

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title32-vol1/xml/CFR-2012-title32-vol1-part147.xml

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Because that not how the system works. And never has for a reason.....the former folks have a lot of knowledge and history (Brennan was at CIA his entire career). In addition, the govt works side by side with private industry, NGOs, etc.....being able to reach out and include people that aren't solely active govt employees is important.,

In other words, former bureaucrats are using their clearances to find cushy consultant gigs. What a system. I think they also use their clearances to become an “anonymous source” for the media.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

In other words, former bureaucrats are using their clearances to find cushy consultant gigs. What a system. I think they also use their clearances to become an “anonymous source” for the media.

If Obama had taken this away from any Republican you know this would have been the greatest assault on liberty in this country since the attempt to restrict sweets in school cafeterias. The president clearly and without any possible doubt has an enemies list, how did that work out for the last president with one?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It is correlated....I didn't say it was the exact thing. But for those in govt related industries....that clearance is as vital to operate in any function whatsoever as a occupational license is in other industries.

Here are the adjudication guidelines.....I'm not seeing anything about airing mean personal opinions of the President on TV.....

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title32-vol1/xml/CFR-2012-title32-vol1-part147.xml

Last I checked, being a media clown is not doing work in a government related industry.

We aren’t talking about those doing serious work for serious businesses. But I do think the whole notion of former bureaucrats using their clearances to land cushy consultant positions is overdone.

 

[MonroeCity]

Brennan has friend and fellow travelers in the CIA and other agencies. Him having clearance gets him access to facilities. It allows his sources to tell him things, under the guise of consultation, that he can use for personal profit or to further his vendetta and if they are caught, the source is home free because they have plausible cover. Now if someone tells Brennan something that is classified and they get caught, then someone is going to lose their job if not go to jail for leaking secret information.

 

[twenty02]

In other words, former bureaucrats are using their clearances to find cushy consultant gigs. What a system. I think they also use their clearances to become an “anonymous source” for the media.

You mean like @Aloha Hoosier ?

The system works like that because it's not in the govts interest to hire a subject matter expert as a full time employee....particularly for short term engagements/projects.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If Obama had taken this away from any Republican you know this would have been the greatest assault on liberty in this country since the attempt to restrict sweets in school cafeterias. The president clearly and without any possible doubt has an enemies list, how did that work out for the last president with one?

If you are going to bring up Obama then maybe you’ll explain why he didn’t yank HRC’s clearance and that of her personal staff for playing fast and loose with classified material. That mess lies at the root of our all our post 2016 history and all the left can say is the Russians did it.

 

[twenty02]

Brennan has friend and fellow travelers in the CIA and other agencies. Him having clearance gets him access to facilities. It allows his sources to tell him things, under the guise of consultation, that he can use for personal profit or to further his vendetta and if they are caught, the source is home free because they have plausible cover. Now if someone tells Brennan something that is classified and they get caught, then someone is going to lose their job if not go to jail for leaking secret information.

More baseless accusations that exist only in your head. If there is evidence that Brennan misused classified info....or was obtaining classified info and disseminating it....then pull the clearance....absolutely.

There is at least a decent administrative case to be made for people like McCabe, maybe even Comey.

But saying mean things on tv about the President is NOT the basis on how these things are adjudicated....and neither is wild speculation like you've done here.

 

[mainway_toys]

Trump pulls security clearance of ex-CIA Director John Brennan

https://www.politico.com/story/2018...y-clearance-of-ex-cia-director-brennan-778791

President Donald Trump on Wednesday revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, who has become a harsh critic of the president, and appeared to be targeting others who have disagreed with the administration.
[...]
In addition, Sanders said, the administration is evaluating clearances for former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser Susan Rice, former FBI attorney Lisa Page, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose security clearance was deactivated after he was fired earlier this year, and Bruce Ohr, who is still in the Justice Department although he was demoted from associate deputy attorney general.​

I'm thinking "despotic". I'm also thinking about a two-state solution.

 

[Noodle]

Brennan has friend and fellow travelers in the CIA and other agencies. Him having clearance gets him access to facilities. It allows his sources to tell him things, under the guise of consultation, that he can use for personal profit or to further his vendetta and if they are caught, the source is home free because they have plausible cover.

Nonsense.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

If you are going to bring up Obama then maybe you’ll explain why he didn’t yank HRC’s clearance and that of her personal staff for playing fast and loose with classified material. That mess lies at the root of our all our post 2016 history and all the left can say is the Russians did it.

You don't recall thousands of posts here criticizing EVERYTHING Obama did. Heck, I'm not sure you didn't complain about the way he walked onto Marine 1. Now suddenly even Trump's most idiotic moves are just minor things compounded by exploding heads.

 

[twenty02]

Last I checked, being a media clown is not doing work in a government related industry.

We aren’t talking about those doing serious work for serious businesses. But I do think the whole notion of former bureaucrats using their clearances to land cushy consultant positions is overdone.

And as I noted....being a "media clown" (quite a legal term, BTW) isn't an aggravating circumstance for a clearance adjudication.

And who gets to determine what is a valid medium for clearance holders to opine before they are "clowns"? If he was writing for something more high brow....like say, Foreign Policy Magazine...or a scholarly journal...would that be acceptable?

 

[IUCrazy2]

If Obama had taken this away from any Republican you know this would have been the greatest assault on liberty in this country since the attempt to restrict sweets in school cafeterias. The president clearly and without any possible doubt has an enemies list, how did that work out for the last president with one?

Whataboutism, no?

And the last President with an enemies list was the one who directly preceded the current occupant of the White House, I think he was less than good at his job but he has managed to land on his feet...

 

[twenty02]

Leave it to Trump to immediately screw up the "official" reasoning for yesterday's action:

Trump cites Russia probe as a reason for revoking former CIA chief John Brennan's security clearance

Donald Trump cited the ongoing probe into Russia's attack on U.S. elections in 2016 as a reason he revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, a frequent critic of the president.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump made a more direct connection between his action against Brennan and the investigation than he had in a statement released Wednesday. He told the newspaper he believes Brennan is one of the people responsible for special counsel Robert Mueller's probe.

"I think that whole – I call it the rigged witch hunt – is a sham," Trump told the Journal on Wednesday. "And these people led it!"

"So I think it's something that had to be done," he added, referring to his revocation of Brennan's clearance.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/16/tru...ason-for-revoking-john-brennan-clearance.html




​

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You don't recall thousands of posts here criticizing EVERYTHING Obama did. Heck, I'm not sure you didn't complain about the way he walked onto Marine 1. Now suddenly even Trump's most idiotic moves are just minor things compounded by exploding heads.

I don’t think I mentioned Trump in thread except maybe in passing. I criticized Brennan. But exploding heads is pretty accurate. Wish I thought of that.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And as I noted....being a "media clown" (quite a legal term, BTW) isn't an aggravating circumstance for a clearance adjudication.

And who gets to determine what is a valid medium for clearance holders to opine before they are "clowns"? If he was writing for something more high brow....like say, Foreign Policy Magazine...or a scholarly journal...would that be acceptable?

Gotta go with the Brennan we have, not the one we wish we had.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don’t think I mentioned Trump in thread except maybe in passing. I criticized Brennan. But exploding heads is pretty accurate. Wish I thought of that.

You are rationalizing why it was OK for Trump to do what has never happened before. Let me ask this, you call Brennan a "media clown". I find no pictures of him in a red wig with a white painted face and red nose. So define media clown. What has Brennan done that NO conservative analyst on Fox has ever done before that is utterly beyond the pale.

 

[wiede]

No, I followed along pretty well. Brennen monetized his title as former director for big bucks. He surrendered his professionalism for a cheap-assed political gig. Instead of inhibiting his free speech, he holds it out for sale and will get more air time and probably a bonus because of this. As far as I am concerned, Brennan has tarnished the stature of his public service. If you think calling him out on that is zealously defending Trump, that’s your problem and I don’t care.

Or, there’s another very real possible reason that Brennan is speaking out.

He knows a helluva lot more about national security than everyone combined on this board. And he’s very concerned about what’s going on with this administration.

The folks that are ringing the alarm the loudest are former intelligence community members. That speaks volumes.

A reminder for those that somehow can justify anything Trump does- this is NOT normal. None of this is normal. And continuing to treat it as normal does all of us a disservice.

I don’t see how folks cannot see that this action is unprecedented- and we’re better than this type of crap. We’re talkig about a career intelligence service member who knows a chit ton more than just about everybody else. If nothing else, his experience should be valued- there will be times where his .02 would be helpful. Whether you ultimately heed it or not.

Oh, and he just threatened many others with the same act. The linkage between all of them? They were directly or indirectly involved with the previous administration and/or the start of the Mueller probe.

It’s like we have Nixon redux in office.

A few facts Relevant to this discussion:

1) there are clearly defined guidelines for removal of a security clearance. None of them have been cited. And during a press briefing, Sanders couldn’t name one of them (I believe there’s around 14 reasons)

2) the initial press release was dated 3 WEEKS AGO. Why is that important? At that time, the “investigation” into Brennan’s activities was merely a week or so old. Not near enough time to yank his clearance. It’s pretty clear that this was timed to deflect/distract attention away from Omarosa’s accusations and the Manafort trial. Trump is a master at doing this- he knows how to shift a narrative.

3) none of the intelligence agency heads knew that this action was about to take place. Including Dan Coats, and several other current official’s offices that confirmed to several reporters that they weren’t advised this was happening. For national security reasons, it’s a very good idea to include these folks in the discussions- remember, Brennan served under pub and dem administrations, and was the point person on the Bin Laden mission that ultimately brought him to justice.

In short, this was Done in a way that was way outside the “normal” process. It was handled similar to the first “Muslim ban”, that threw our airports into chaos. And similar to the removing children from their parents. Trump seems to think that if he wants something, he can just do it without going through regular channels. He can- but it has really bad consequences.

4) this has never been done before. The benefit of these clearances are for the country- not for Mr. Brennan.

5) several other “enemies of the administration” were cited as being subject to this same action- including a current member of the FBI. There’s no way to NOT see that as an attempt at the chilling of Free speech.

Most importantly, perhaps...

6) Trump have an interview to the Washington post. Similar to when he fired Comey, he outright claimed that Brennan’s clearance was revoked because of the “Russia witch hunt”. He is remarkably transparent at times, and he just gave away the real reason this happened. Again, just like the Lester Holt interview.

You may be able to try to explain away a few of these points. But they are all facts, and taken together, paint a very clear reason why this happened. It was simply retaliation for the ongoing Russian investigation (performed by Mueller and his team right now).

Again, this is NOT normal. And attempting to explain it as such isn’t based on FACTS. it’s based on a desire to defend anything the president does.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Gotta go with the Brennan we have, not the one we wish we had.

I guess none of this matters, Trump has said specifically the revocation of security is specifically over the Mueller investigation. It has NOTHING to do with Brennan being "a media clown". It is revenge for Mueller. I wonder if all agents who had a hand in declaring the Russians interfered in 2016 will lose their clearance. I will let you speak if you would be OK with that, but early Vegas betting is Yes.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You are rationalizing why it was OK for Trump to do what has never happened before. Let me ask this, you call Brennan a "media clown". I find no pictures of him in a red wig with a white painted face and red nose. So define media clown. What has Brennan done that NO conservative analyst on Fox has ever done before that is utterly beyond the pale.

Brennan in today’s NYT:

The already challenging work of the American intelligence and law enforcement communities was made more difficult in late July 2016…when Mr. Trump, then a presidential candidate, publicly called upon Russia to find the missing emails of Mrs. Clinton. By issuing such a statement, Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent.
​

He’s not just a clown but a dishonest dumbass. Here’s the guy who had mega-access to the worlds best intelligence and he says that a Trump joke in a public setting is his clincher? This is not only old news but discredited news. Brennan trades on his former gig as Director if the CIA like no one ever before. Shameful.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I guess none of this matters, Trump has said specifically the revocation of security is specifically over the Mueller investigation. It has NOTHING to do with Brennan being "a media clown". It is revenge for Mueller. I wonder if all agents who had a hand in declaring the Russians interfered in 2016 will lose their clearance. I will let you speak if you would be OK with that, but early Vegas betting is Yes.

I think there is more to know about Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Brennan and Rice using their official authority to influence the election, undermine the transition and stifle the early days of the Trump administration. Strzok alludes to that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think there is more to know about Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Brennan and Rice using their official authority to influence the election, undermine the transition and stifle the early days of the Trump administration. Strzok alludes to that.

It shouldn't be hard for a Republican DOJ with a Republican Senate and a Republican House to look into that?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Historically, former intelligence officials, indeed, former officials across agencies, have been allowed to retain security clearances after leaving office. If they are writing a memoir, they need clearance to see the memos they, themselves, wrote and documents concerning their tenure in office. If they are called upon for advice, they need clearance. What has become sort of obscene in Brennan's case is the way he has monetized his on-going access to classified information as a CNN contributor. Without access to information he's now seeing as a courtesy to a former DCI, he's really an out-of-the-loop nobody like the rest of us. What makes the monetization of his access worse is that he's using that access to attack the administration that is letting him see secret information.

What information is he seeing and where is your proof of that? Here are nonsensical talking points.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Not close. A clearance is not an official occupational license. You act as though though one has a vested property right to a clearance. They don’t.

It’s actually very close. The OPM clearance process is rigorous and expensive. They don’t just give clearances to anybody. Once cleared for X number of years, the subject is able to use that clearance to fulfill whatever duties his/her organization requires to do. Pulling that asset for political reasons is terrible and unforgiving.

 

[Bill4411]

I guess none of this matters, Trump has said specifically the revocation of security is specifically over the Mueller investigation. It has NOTHING to do with Brennan being "a media clown". It is revenge for Mueller. I wonder if all agents who had a hand in declaring the Russians interfered in 2016 will lose their clearance. I will let you speak if you would be OK with that, but early Vegas betting is Yes.

The Mueller investigation results will never be released. Trump will end it someway, somehow before that happens. I’m guessing that many people will be fine with that because it’s a “witch hunt”. MAGA!

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Nonsense.

Complete nonsense. Otherwise intelligent people like @MonroeCity and @CO. Hoosier wrap themselves so tightly in a Trump flag that it’s become a faith-based support structure. Mostly these ludicrous talking points are skewed by people that have no idea what a clearance actually is and what it means to have one.

I stopped working in defense in 2014 but still had a clearance for several years after that. I wasn’t using it. Had no NTK, but if I joined a firm or OGA that required it, I could’ve started to contribute right away. I’d have been livid if a despot took it away from me because I voted for Hillary.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Last I checked, being a media clown is not doing work in a government related industry.

We aren’t talking about those doing serious work for serious businesses. But I do think the whole notion of former bureaucrats using their clearances to land cushy consultant positions is overdone.

This post’s second paragraph makes zero sense and demonstrates you still don’t get it.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I think they also use their clearances to become an “anonymous source” for the media.

No, they dont, because they can’t. There isn’t some secret squirrel network that retired guys with clearances access to get the latest and greatest cool guy news. You do not understand this topic.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Complete nonsense. Otherwise intelligent people like @MonroeCity and @CO. Hoosier wrap themselves so tightly in a Trump flag that it’s become a faith-based support structure. Mostly these ludicrous talking points are skewed by people that have no idea what a clearance actually is and what it means to have one.

I stopped working in defense in 2014 but still had a clearance for several years after that. I wasn’t using it. Had no NTK, but if I joined a firm or OGA that required it, I could’ve started to contribute right away. I’d have been livid if a despot took it away from me because I voted for Hillary.

Really ranger? Tanking a clearance because of a vote? You are still being dramatic. I’ll stipulate that I don’t know as much as you about clearances. That said, the gist I’ve picked up from this thread it doesn’t matter if Brennan has one to do his media job. I think he has taken himself out of the game for future use, so who cares?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No, they dont, because they can’t. There isn’t some secret squirrel network that retired guys with clearances access to get the latest and greatest cool guy news. You do not understand this topic.

Secret squirrel network is a good way to describe the “anonymous source,” “person with knowledge,” and “informed source” network of leaks. Comey brags about his manipulation of the media to have a special counsel appointed.