Well there goes their highly paid consulting and defense contractor jobs. What a pity.

Alright, alright, alriigghhtt!

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:
I don't understand the problem: No more Need to Know, no more Clearance. Period.

Hell, I was debriefed when I moved PCS. Debriefed at my current duty station, 30 days or so enroute plus leave, re-indoc'd at my new duty station.

Yep. My T/S plus was downgraded to Secret when I changed assignments in USAF; some years later it was renewed when I was given a position requiring it. In between I could not access T/S material, nor could I discuss any that I still remembered.

flashguy

Kind of ironic that the former head of the CIA and supporter of a Communist Party Presidential candidate complains about suppression of freedom of speech after his Security Clearance is revoked.

Perhaps he was not aware that he was and is not suppose to freely talk about classified information.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Kind of ironic that the former head of the CIA and supporter of a Communist Party Presidential candidate complains about suppression of freedom of speech after his Security Clearance is revoked.

Perhaps he was not aware that he was and is not suppose to freely talk about classified information.

He gave up freedom of speech when he signed on with clandestine services.

He can still say anything he wants, though, as long as it isn’t classified. Now he doesn’t have to worry because if it is classified, he won’t know about it. If it was classified and he knew about it, he can’t talk about it anyway.

So where is the freedom of speech problem?

Beautiful. Now pull the rest of them.

Seems the press only had two questions and kept asking one of them in a myriad of ways. I wanted the Press Secretary to state "asked and answered" and leave it at that

Go fund me page for Brennan to buy tissues.

A little difficult to be 'unread' isn't?

Revoking your security clearance is a first amendment issue? What?

National Review The Corner
Victor Davis Hanson

Scarier than former CIA chief John Brennan losing his security clearance is the idea that he ever had one in the first place.

Perhaps to avoid the appearance of partisanship in pulling the security clearances of former intelligence chiefs, the Trump administration should now abide by some sort of universal nonpartisan standard. I suggest that the following sort of improper conduct, either during or after one’s tenure, might result in the loss of a security clearance:

1) Lying to Congress. Brennan lied to Congress on at least two occasions (cf. his denial of CIA surveillance of Senate staffer computers and the claim of an absence of collateral damage in drone attacks), and perhaps three (his absurd denial of knowledge of the seeding of the Steele dossier among government agencies). Democrats used to be outraged by Brennan’s deceit, and a few in the past had called for his resignation. Note that James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence, has also misled Congress, concerning NSA surveillance of American citizens. Clapper has admitted such (e.g., “the least untruthful” answer). Not lying to Congress is a pretty low bar to meet.

2) Accusations of Treason against a Sitting President. Brennan believes his denial of continued access to intelligence is an infringement on free speech. But it is really another low bar to ask a former CIA director to refrain from leveling unproven charges of treason against the current president of the United States (“nothing short of treasonous”; “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history”). Such invective in theory could have foreign-policy consequences by branding the slander of presidential disloyalty with an imprimatur of a CIA security clearance.

Note again that James Clapper similarly flat-out accused the president of the United States of treason, in being a spy for the Russians (“I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that’s what he’s doing with the president”). Clapper, of course, has no proof of that low charge. Nor has he produced any after his on-air accusation. If he is suggesting that his security clearance has allowed him access to incriminating evidence, then he should say so.

3) Hired Political Commentary. Former intelligence chiefs certainly have a perfect right to offer their expertise, even enhanced by their current security clearances, against or in support of a current administration, on both foreign-policy and intelligence challenges, and as guest experts on television, radio, social media, and in print.

That said, hiring oneself out as a political partisan to a network should be a different matter.

Had Brennan and Clapper now and then visited the networks to voice their concern about Trump’s cancellation of the Iran deal or moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, it would be one thing. But going on salary with MSNBC and CNN to profit from one’s emeritus status and security clearances to libel the president of the United States removes all appearances of disinterested commentary. As private citizens, they can do all that on their own time without any vestigial connections to the U.S. government.

An added note. When an intelligence official finds himself in a self-created mess, Washington agencies often have a tendency to rush to support of one of their own. But Brennan has long had a dubious record.

He dramatically reinvented himself after the 2008 election from Bush point man on terror alerts (cf. the “Orange Terror alert” of 2003), renditions, and enhanced interrogations — to Obama aficionado, now shocked, in Casablanca-style, by such supposedly clumsy and less nuanced methods that he once had endorsed.

When one collates Brennan’s politicized and often incoherent explanations on a number of key intelligence matters in various capacities between 2009 and 2016 (on the circumstances surrounding Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a.k.a. the “underwear bomber,” his confusing and changing narratives surrounding the bin Laden raid, and his bizarre and careerist-inspired description of jihad: “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community”), the portrait of a political contortionist rather than a professional and disinterested intelligence officer is confirmed.

All that can be said in condolence to John Brennan about losing his security clearance might be something along the lines of, “Try not to lie repeatedly to the U.S. Congress. Please do not allege that the current president of the United States is a traitor. And do not hire yourself out to partisans to issue near daily unproven invective, supposedly sanctified and monetized by your past tenure and present access to the highest level of covert U.S. intelligence.”

That was not too much to ask.

Link

I repeat: It is the essence of simplicity.

Job goes away, therefore Need to Know goes away, therefore clearance goes away. Every time, for everyone.

I retired from the Navy in 1990.

My clearance went away.

I got a job with a civilian contractor working for the Navy in 1991 that required a clearance. Paperwork was done, background investigation was done, appropriate clearance was granted.

I got laid off, clearance went away.

I got a job with another civilian contractor in 2010, needed a clearance. Paperwork was done, background investigation was done, appropriate clearance was granted.

I got laid off, clearance went away.

See how that works?

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:
I repeat: It is the essence of simplicity.

Job goes away, therefore Need to Know goes away, therefore clearance goes away. Every time, for everyone.

I retired from the Navy in 1990.

My clearance went away.

I got a job with a civilian contractor working for the Navy in 1991 that required a clearance. Paperwork was done, background investigation was done, appropriate clearance was granted.

I got laid off, clearance went away.

I got a job with another civilian contractor in 2010, needed a clearance. Paperwork was done, background investigation was done, appropriate clearance was granted.

I got laid off, clearance went away.

See how that works?

No, thats only the way it works for the "little" people.
You see the "little" people are also required to know that disclosing/not protecting classified information will lead to financial / criminal charges.

Didn't you get that special security briefing?

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:

Didn't you get that special security briefing?

Nope. Apparently, I didn't Need to Know.

SCREW John Brennan and the rest of these crying, whining PoS's democrats. If I was in charge, I would have revoked their clearances from day one, and as information became available, I would investigate, charge and prosecute. IMHO; they all got off to easy....

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:

quote:

Originally posted by PeteF:

Didn't you get that special security briefing?

Nope. Apparently, I didn't Need to Know.

The fact that you did not need to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, and therefore those that needed to advise and inform higher authority perhaps felt that the information that he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known, and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

The fact that you did not need to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, and therefore those that needed to advise and inform higher authority perhaps felt that the information that he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known, and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at that time, known or needed.

You write goobermint press releases on the side, don't you.

Army Leader Agrees With Trump on Brennan...Calls Him a 'Communist'

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...-on-brennan-n2510407

President Trump stripped former CIA Director John Brennan of his security clearance this week. He received his share of criticism for the decision, including from some Republican lawmakers. Others, like U.S. Army Brigadier Gen. Anthony Tata (Ret.), believes it was the right call. In the vein of Trump, he even gave Brennan a nickname: "Communist John Brennan," in reference to his once voting for a Communist Party candidate.

"I think that John Brennan is a clear and present danger and a threat to this nation," Tata said on "Fox & Friends" Thursday. "He supports the overthrow of this particular president, and he needed to have his access to information revoked."

Tata listed several apparent stains on Brennan's record, including his overseeing the Iran Deal, his "manipulating" ISIS intelligence for President Obama, and his "secret meetings" with Russia. Furthermore, Tata said, Brennan gave Harry Reid part of the infamous Trump dossier and he "spied on American citizens and lied to Congress about it."

Brennan's relationship with the Trump White House soured a long time ago. Trump has often questioned the intelligence community's integrity and for the last several months Brennan has used Twitter as a vehicle to hit back at the president. In his most recent messages, Brennan has accused the president of enforcing "short-sighted" policies, insisted he is no role model for children, and said that Trump has "failed to live up to minimum standards of decency."

t was shortly after that last tweet that the White House announced he was losing his security clearance. For Tata, he believes all anyone has to do is look at Brennan's tweets "to see he supports the removal of this president."

Brennan, however, thinks it's unfair to have been punished for speaking his political mind.

John O. Brennan
✔
@JohnBrennan

This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out. My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent.
NBC News
✔
@NBCNews

When Trump was first considering revoking the clearances of Brennan and other former intelligence officials like former FBI Director James Comey, critics said it was unwise to do so because those former officials are sometimes invaluable when it comes to offering advice.

Rep. Pete King (R-NY) believes this is a poor argument in terms of Brennan, because he probably had little good advice to give.

"No one," King said, "would consult John Brennan in a crisis."

quote:

Tata listed several apparent stains on Brennan's record, including his overseeing the Iran Deal, his "manipulating" ISIS intelligence for President Obama, and his "secret meetings" with Russia. Furthermore, Tata said, Brennan gave Harry Reid part of the infamous Trump dossier and he "spied on American citizens and lied to Congress about it."

We need more Tatas.

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:
Job goes away, therefore Need to Know goes away, therefore clearance goes away. Every time, for everyone.

That's been my experience, too.

One thing I can't quite understand, is what sensitive information these former federal employees might be getting access to.
And who might be giving it to them.

Without a legitimate "need to know", the clearance doesn't grant you access.

You need the proper level of clearance AND a "need to know".

Anyone that's been cleared knows that.
And knows that HRC should be charged.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

We need more Tatas.

YES !

. . . and i saw what you did there