quote:

So who did you work for? Nuclear plant? You would agree that most intelligence/security clearances is gov related, and most intelligence/security clearance folks are gov employees, no?

I held a TSC clearance for years while a civilian! It was REQUIRED because I was working on the civilian side of defense department programs. One of which involved US Navy contracts for Nuke attack submarines!

Perhaps a better understanding of such things would help you understand the situation a little better.

Brennan should have had his clearance taken away when he left the job for which he required it!

I do not remember all the BS related to my clearance I had to go through when I retired but it involved a number of meetings in which I was "instructed" on my future conduct related to security topics, etc. And I am not the only one! It was common practice, and if one were to check the rules/regulations I am pretty sure those same rules are still there.

But then, I have to remember that the LAWS AND RULES do not apply to such as Brennan and his fellow deep swamp assholes.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Fine, let them keep their security clearance for 365 days after leaving government. That gives plenty of time for their bullshit consulting with a new administration, even though that probably almost never happens.

This is all about the perks of the job- personal enrichment after the fact, and that's ALL it's about, and it's fucking bullshit, and it needs to cease.

GMAFB

We are letting Comey, Brennen, Clapper and the rest of these ass’oles detract us from the security clearance issue. Fuck these political hacks for a moment.

True stories:
An FBI agent retires after 20+ years of good service leaving 50,000 hours of surveillance data untouched. The agency has an opening for a contractor to prepare/research the data for prosecution. Why would you not hire this guy back with his TS intact?

A guy with a TS spends a career diving with the Navy. Why would you not keep his clearance current as he gets hired for civil service position doing classified research?

Another guy works on a TS missle system. Why would you not keep his clearance current when he goes to work for the company who builds the system?

The system is not so the guys at the top can get jobs as talking heads but to have qualified personnel for the defense industry.

I had a T/S, SAR/CLI clearance in the 1960s for one of my USAF assignments, but when I was reassigned that was reduced to a SECRET clearance. In the 1970s the T/S was reauthorized for another assignment. In the military, clearances are changed all the time, as the job requirements do. I had a SECRET clearance at my last duty station and when I retired, that was taken away. I was debriefed and told not to discuss anything classified with anyone.


flashguy

I don't see why ANY of them NEED clearance unless they are involved in a project or whatever.
Just read them in as needed in a case by case basis.
ALL of them out of office.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
I don't see why ANY of them NEED clearance unless they are involved in a project or whatever.
Just read them in as needed in a case by case basis.
ALL of them out of office.

There is a big demand for senior ex govt officials to serve as consultants, directors, sales reps, elbow rubbers, etc. Having a clearance is de rigueur for these good deals because much of the development work is classified in one way or another. Even if not strictly required in one’s role, you don’t want to be the only one.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
There is a big demand for senior ex govt officials to serve as consultants, directors, sales reps, elbow rubbers, etc. Having a clearance is de rigueur for these good deals because much of the development work is classified in one way or another. Even if not strictly required in one’s role, you don’t want to be the only one.

Maybe if denying clearances meant there'd be fewer consultants, directors, sales reps, elbow rubbers things wouldn't cost so much....

flashguy

I wonder if Hillary Clinton still has her security clearance? I have not heard of it being revoked.

Never mind I found the answer:

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/d...-security-clearance/

It has been irrefutably proven she mishandled classified material, and she still has her clearance. The system is broken.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wcb6092,

Sen Mark Warner (obstructionist extraordinaire):

https://www.rollcall.com/news/...g-security-clearance

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Friday on Twitter that he is drafting an amendment that would “block the President from punishing and intimidating his critics by arbitrarily revoking security clearances.”

An aide to Warner confirmed that the intended vehicle is the appropriations bill.

If Senate leaders were to allow the amendment a vote, it would create a politically charged moment less than three months ahead of the midterm elections.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I strongly suspect President Trump could declassify a couple documents and make Mark Warner look like the corrupt political hack that Warner is

I am convinced that any government official that has the word 'former' in front of their name should not have a clearance after they leave the government payroll

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Sen Mark Warner (obstructionist extraordinaire):

https://www.rollcall.com/news/...g-security-clearance

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Friday on Twitter that he is drafting an amendment that would “block the President from punishing and intimidating his critics by arbitrarily revoking security clearances.”

An aide to Warner confirmed that the intended vehicle is the appropriations bill.

If Senate leaders were to allow the amendment a vote, it would create a politically charged moment less than three months ahead of the midterm elections.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I strongly suspect President Trump could declassify a couple documents and make Mark Warner look like the corrupt political hack that Warner is

Where is he going to get the votes to amend the bill?

This thread has gone full retard

To put things in my perspective...I retired early from Norfolk Southern Railway in July 2011...at the time I had a laminated card that said I was cleared to operate any locomotive that NS had (not mainline)...I had a switch key that I signed for that would lock/unlock any switch/derail on the system and an ID that would cover my access to all NS property until 2017...

Two months after my early retirement, I met with my Senior General Foreman (fantastic young man...he was "younger" than me ) in his office and turned them all in and signed a form that I had done so...then we went out to lunch (his dime) and had a great day bullshitting about railroad stuff ...

Point being...I knew that I would never need access to these "privileges" of employment again and I didn't need the burden or responsibility of them again...same with passwords and website access. I was happy to let them go...I was out of there ...I felt zero desire to keep any of it...access to railroad property could result in much mayhem ...I'm just happy to be out and free of the minutia of it all

Why are these cocksuckers any different?...maybe ego?

quote:

Originally posted by Bisleyblackhawk:
To put things in my perspective...I retired early from Norfolk Southern Railway in July 2011...at the time I had a laminated card that said I was cleared to operate any locomotive that NS had (not mainline)...I had a switch key that I signed for that would lock/unlock any switch/derail on the system and an ID that would cover my access to all NS property until 2017...

Two months after my early retirement, I met with my Senior General Foreman (fantastic young man...he was "younger" than me ) in his office and turned them all in and signed a form that I had done so...then we went out to lunch and had a great day bullshitting about railroad stuff ...

Point being...I knew that I would never need access to these "privileges" of employment again and I didn't need the burden or responsibility of them again...same with passwords and website access. I was happy to let them go...I was out of there ...I felt zero desire to keep any of it...

Why are these cocksuckers any different?...maybe ego?

Power. All these leaks of classified information that are trying to destroy the man that was legally elected.

Money. Hired to be a lucrative consultant for a media or corporate entity.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wcb6092,

The Reexamination of Security Clearances Was Long Overdue

National Review
Victor Davis Hanson

Much has been written about former CIA and FBI official Philip Mudd’s recent unhinged outburst on CNN against Paris Dennard for the latter’s credible suggestion that many ex-officials have monetized the fact that they have retained their security clearances.

Dennard was suggesting that those with security clearances, with a wink and nod, sometimes bolster their partisan expertise by alluding to shadowy knowledge not supposedly known to the rest of us.

Oddly, Mudd himself seemed to have already proven that point, a year earlier, when he sounded “in the know” in expressing his confidence that President Trump was in some sort of physical danger from the intelligence community.

In August 2017, Mudd warned a stunned Jake Tapper on CNN that “the government is going to kill this guy [President Trump].”

And the reason Mudd adduced? “Because [Trump] doesn’t support them.”

His full warning was: “Let me give you one bottom line as a former government official. The government is going to kill this guy. The government is going to kill this guy because he doesn’t support them.”

Mudd further preened about his assassination allusions as “a former government official”: “What I’m saying is government — people talk about the deep state — when you disrespect government officials who’ve done 30 years, they’re going to say, ‘Really?’”

Mudd seems to have been giving credence to the earlier warnings of Chuck Schumer (“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you”) and the later tweet of Samantha Power (“Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan”). Their tone is again psychodramatic, or perhaps even amusement, over the supposed idiot outsider Trump incurring extra-legal and inevitable retaliation from the intelligence community.

The entire issue of security clearances extended to former government officials, especially those who are paid partisan commentators and allude publicly to their connections to establish their fides, has long needed to be addressed.

Almost all retired professionals with clearances have not been previously fired for cause from government, or have not lied to Congress, or have not accused the sitting president of being a traitor to the country, or have not likened him to a Nazi, or have not suggested that the president’s days were numbered and that he might well be assassinated.

But for the small number of those who cannot abide by any of those quite low bars of behavior, there seems little reason to extend such privileges after the completion of their government tenures.

Link

National Review
Victor Davis Hanson

In a strange attack on my criticism of former CIA director John Brennan’s lack of veracity, Ron Radosh alleges that I have engaged in a sort of conspiracy theory about the deep state. He quotes me in an article largely devoted to Jerome Corsi’s new book, which I have not read and whom I have never met, under the Daily Beast scare title, “Pro-Trump Author Says CIA Has Plan to Kill the President.”

Radosh apparently puts me in conspiratorial company for believing the following:

The distinguished historian Victor Davis Hanson, writes that “If there is such a thing as a dangerous ‘deep state’ of elite but unelected federal officials who feel that they are untouchable and unaccountable, then John Brennan is the poster boy.” He adds that “Brennan is typical of the careerist deep state.” They operate [sic] “the psychological tactic known as ‘projection.’ To square their own circles of lying, our so-called best and brightest loudly accuse others of precisely the sins that they themselves commit as a matter of habit.”

In truth, what I wrote about John Brennan’s lying was not predicated on any Trump tweet or conspiracy theory, or the theories of Jerome Corsi, but simply based on the factual record, which Radosh is apparently completely unaware of, or uninterested in:

1) In 2011, Brennan, then the country’s chief counterterrorism adviser, had sworn to Congress that scores of drones strikes abroad had not killed a single noncombatant — at a time when both the president and the CIA were both receiving numerous reports of civilian collateral deaths.

2) In 2014, John Brennan, now as CIA director, lied emphatically that the CIA had not illegally accessed the computers of U.S. Senate staffers who were then exploring a CIA role in torturing detainees. Or as he told Andrea Mitchell: “As far as the allegations of the CIA hacking into Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. . . . We wouldn’t do that. I mean, that’s just beyond the, you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we do.” Brennan’s chronic deceptions drew the ire of a number of liberal senators, some of whom echoed the Washington Post’s call for his immediate resignation. After months of prevarications, but only upon release of the CIA inspector general’s report, Brennan apologized to the senators he had deceived.

3) Brennan, in May 2017, as an ex-CIA director, again almost certainly did not tell the truth to Congress when he testified in answer to Representative Trey Gowdy’s questions that he neither knew who had commissioned the Steele dossier nor had the CIA relied on its contents for any action. Yet both the retired National Security Agency director, Michael Rogers, and the former director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, have conceded that the Steele dossier — along with the knowledge that it was a Clinton-campaign-funded product — most certainly did help shape the Obama’s intelligence communality interagency assessments and actions, often under the urging of Brennan himself. There are also numerous reports that, despite his denials about knowledge of the dossier, Brennan served as a stealthy conduit to ensure that it was disseminated widely, at least in the sense of meeting in August 2016 with Senator Harry Reid to brief the senator about its unverified contents in hopes that he would pressure the FBI to further its investigations, which Reid did in a call two days later to James Comey.

The list of Brennan’s unprofessional and bizarre behavior could be expanded, such as his weird tweet in reaction to the Trump firing of compromised FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe (who would shortly be recommended for criminal referrals for misleading federal investigators by the nonpartisan inspector general): “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. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America . . . America will triumph over you.” Andy McCabe was not “scapegoated” but found to be likely mendacious enough by the inspector general to warrant a DOJ investigation.

Brennan in 2009 falsely claimed that intelligence agencies had not missed evidence suggesting that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a.k.a. the “underwear bomber,” might blow up a U.S. airliner. In 2010, he offered a surreal redefinition of jihad (e.g., “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”), this from a careerist whose transition from the Bush administration into the Obama administration drew the ire of liberals for his prior prominent defense of enhanced interrogations followed by convenient formidable criticism of them.*** In 2011, his official statements about the Osama bin Laden raid were contradictory.

I stand by my characterization that “If there is such a thing as a dangerous ‘deep state’ of elite but unelected federal officials who feel that they are untouchable and unaccountable, then John Brennan is the poster boy.” Contrary to Radosh and his sensational Daily Beast article, that characterization has nothing to do with the work of Jerome Corsi or Trump’s tweets, but everything to do with an unequal application of the law that otherwise can fall very heavily on officials who purportedly mislead federal investigators, as in the case of Gen. David Petraeus or Gen. Michael Flynn.

We are currently witnessing two parallel investigations: One is Robert Mueller’s, who is mandated to explore whether Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to warp the 2016 election leading to Hillary Clinton’s defeat, and another by federal agencies and congressional committees into whether members of the Obama administration’s intelligence and national-security teams improperly used their powers to surveille (and unmask and leak the names of) U.S. citizens, including misleading a U.S. FISA court on the basis of an opposition-researched and unverified dossier, to monitor improperly a political campaign by the insertion of an “informant” in it, and to leak damaging but unproven information to alter a presidential election and transition. That numerous FBI and DOJ officials have already been reassigned, resigned, fired, or retired has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. The facts will eventually come out about both lines of inquiry, but we already know well enough about the proven lack of veracity of one John Brennan and his various iterations.

Link

*** added by jallen. There is a persistent but unsubstantiated rumor that Brennan is himself Muslim. He spend years in Saudi Arabia for CIA. From wikipedia

quote:

He then attended the University of Texas at Austin, receiving a Master of Arts in government with a concentration in Middle East studies in 1980.[5] He speaks Arabic fluently.[9] His studies included a junior year abroad learning Arabic and taking courses at the American University in Cairo.[3][5]

I posted here recently that one article claimed that Brennan had been in Mecca, which is forbidden to non-Muslims.

Well, it is possible that agents of the Deep State were involved in the assassination of JFK, so I think President Trump and the SS need to be very observant and cautious.

flashguy

Oh, horse shit