Brennan Gets a Kick in the Ass
- Thread starter Mosinitis
- Start date
Now the Obalaite-ass-licking shitweasel is saying it impinges on his free speech......WTF??? ASSHOLE!!!!
John Brennan: Revoking Security Clearance an Attack on 'Free Speech' | Breitbart
Here's something that will "chill" his free speech...actually, ALL of that traitor's speech, forever..............................
John Brennan: Revoking Security Clearance an Attack on 'Free Speech' | Breitbart
Here's something that will "chill" his free speech...actually, ALL of that traitor's speech, forever..............................
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
What job?
Everything he does now doesn't require a clearence, Clarence.
Petty reality show shit.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
I'm sure his phone was ringing off the hook with calls from the Trump administration.
I'm sure his phone was ringing off the hook with calls from the Trump administration.
Future administrations and deep staters who still work in the agencies.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
- Reply
-
Justah says:
August 15, 2018 at 5:28 pm
Start by reading this article that explains the difference between “access” & “eligibility”. – the difference is crucial. Mr Justah is retired, he no longer has “access” to Top Secret information – BUT retains Eligibility. Justah Son has both and is still working. John Brennan is no longer working for the Government but retained both “access” (as a standard courtesy, including daily briefings) and Eligibility.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/taming_swamp_critters_with_security_clearances.html. — there are 2 Executive Orders LINKED in that article and both are important . The 1953 E.O lists “cause” to obtain a clearance OR lose a clearance in Sec 8.
Sure sounds like Brennan’s clearance was Revoked for Cause and that essentially means he loses both “access” and “eligibility” …… a big RED “Revoked for Cause” across his file. That means any future application for “clearance” immediately is trashed.
Here’s what he can’t do:
1). He can’t work with a Security Think Tank ….. except maybe to answer the telephone.
2). He can’t be a Lobbyist for a company that is involved in National Security (or probably a board member either)
3). He won’t be able to enter the CIA building any further than the Lobby in all probability – he may not be able to get through the gate.
4). Every professional colleague Brennan had is on notice – he has NO clearance at all. Talk at your own risk.
5). It’s a bit stunning to consider all the positions that people like Brennan end up doing after Government Service that he won’t be allowed to do because that big Red Revoke will keep him from getting even a low level clearance.
About that difference in “dates” on the White House Statement – A determination to “revoke” a clearance is a major event (for reasons above to start) and the Rules (Fed Bureaucracy ) say you must be notified and have a chance to appeal. I’m guessing that WH Statement is part of the notification sent to Brennan along with the relevant #’s for cause. John Brennan was NOT surprised today … which is why he went NUTS on TV last nigh.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Meh.
At least Nixon had the good sense to keep his enemies list close to the vest.
I still say it is petty, theatrical crap.
At least Nixon had the good sense to keep his enemies list close to the vest.
I still say it is petty, theatrical crap.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Can the President Revoke Former Officials’ Security Clearances
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s announcement that President Trump is reviewing potential mechanisms by which to revoke the security clearances of several former senior government officials has—not surprisingly—set off a cascade of questions over if and how the president can accomplish this. The prospect became even more complicated when Sanders clarified that the president’s specific gripes with these particular former officials—former director of national intelligence James Clapper, former CIA director John Brennan, former FBI director James Comey, former CIA director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe—was not tied to instances of security violations or unauthorized dissemination of classified information by those individuals.
Instead, Sanders clarified, Trump is considering steps by which their clearances can be revoked because “they’ve politicized and, in some cases, monetized their public service and security clearances,” as well as “ma[de] baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the President.” In 11 years of representing civilian employees, military personnel, political appointees and government contractors in security clearance proceedings, I can say with certainty that these types of “allegations” are nothing like anything I have ever seen in a memorandum outlining bases for denying or revoking a security clearance.
But might those nevertheless be valid bases upon which to revoke someone’s clearance? Can the president pull this off? As a colleague of mine who still works for the government would say, “it depends.”
Can the President Revoke Former Officials’ Security Clearances?
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s announcement that President Trump is reviewing potential mechanisms by which to revoke the security clearances of several former senior government officials has—not surprisingly—set off a cascade of questions over if and how the president can accomplish this. The prospect became even more complicated when Sanders clarified that the president’s specific gripes with these particular former officials—former director of national intelligence James Clapper, former CIA director John Brennan, former FBI director James Comey, former CIA director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe—was not tied to instances of security violations or unauthorized dissemination of classified information by those individuals.
Instead, Sanders clarified, Trump is considering steps by which their clearances can be revoked because “they’ve politicized and, in some cases, monetized their public service and security clearances,” as well as “ma[de] baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the President.” In 11 years of representing civilian employees, military personnel, political appointees and government contractors in security clearance proceedings, I can say with certainty that these types of “allegations” are nothing like anything I have ever seen in a memorandum outlining bases for denying or revoking a security clearance.
But might those nevertheless be valid bases upon which to revoke someone’s clearance? Can the president pull this off? As a colleague of mine who still works for the government would say, “it depends.”
Can the President Revoke Former Officials’ Security Clearances?
White House Revokes Security Clearance of Former, Highly Political, CIA Director John Brennan…
- Reply
August 15, 2018 at 5:28 pm
Start by reading this article that explains the difference between “access” & “eligibility”. – the difference is crucial. Mr Justah is retired, he no longer has “access” to Top Secret information – BUT retains Eligibility. Justah Son has both and is still working. John Brennan is no longer working for the Government but retained both “access” (as a standard courtesy, including daily briefings) and Eligibility.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/taming_swamp_critters_with_security_clearances.html. — there are 2 Executive Orders LINKED in that article and both are important . The 1953 E.O lists “cause” to obtain a clearance OR lose a clearance in Sec 8.
Sure sounds like Brennan’s clearance was Revoked for Cause and that essentially means he loses both “access” and “eligibility” …… a big RED “Revoked for Cause” across his file. That means any future application for “clearance” immediately is trashed.
Here’s what he can’t do:
1). He can’t work with a Security Think Tank ….. except maybe to answer the telephone.
2). He can’t be a Lobbyist for a company that is involved in National Security (or probably a board member either)
3). He won’t be able to enter the CIA building any further than the Lobby in all probability – he may not be able to get through the gate.
4). Every professional colleague Brennan had is on notice – he has NO clearance at all. Talk at your own risk.
5). It’s a bit stunning to consider all the positions that people like Brennan end up doing after Government Service that he won’t be allowed to do because that big Red Revoke will keep him from getting even a low level clearance.
About that difference in “dates” on the White House Statement – A determination to “revoke” a clearance is a major event (for reasons above to start) and the Rules (Fed Bureaucracy ) say you must be notified and have a chance to appeal. I’m guessing that WH Statement is part of the notification sent to Brennan along with the relevant #’s for cause. John Brennan was NOT surprised today … which is why he went NUTS on TV last nigh.
ETA: Not criticizing any NYGF members, just the stupid rationale in the articles cited.
Anyone who actually believes there is a valid reason for anyone to retain a security clearance after leaving office, unless employed by .Gov in a position requiring it, is not paying attention. If you don't need it, like....ummmm......say.....becoming a CNN talking fuckstick muppet meathead, you fucking loose it, period. You shouldn't have it.
Besides the fact that Brennan is an obvious Commie who voted for Gus Hall. He never should have gotten a security clearance to begin with.
Rules???????........Rules????????........We doon need no stinkin' rules!!!!!!!!!
Stop already with the Marques de Queensbury stuff.....this is a fucking street fight.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
i think the gallows are to quick for these scum bags .. burn them at the stake like they did during the witch hunts ..
Media brought down Nixon presidency. Trump presidency brought down the media.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
Seems to me that if Brennan wanted to ride the consultancy gravy train to a really rich retirement based on his insider knowledge he should have kept his fucking mouth shut, but in typical leftist fashion he couldn't resist trying to piss on the shoes of the one guy who could take it away...
Ehh I think they all need to lose their clearances when they leave government service. I will when I leave my job. Think about it a clearance only says you have been vetted to see a level of information. You also have to have a need to know to see or hear it. Being retired or fired these people have no need to know anything that has to do with their former job.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
Yes they did, and if this were a game of poker, namely Texas-Holdem, you could say they are 'all in'.
Robin