Trump pulls security clearance of ex-CIA Director John Brennan

[LongTermGuy]

"You do not have a right to security clearance once you leave government and you are not entitled to it." Judge Jeanine ...


`White House Sends The Deep State A CLEAR WARNING: Brennan Is ONLY THE BEGINNING!`

https://en-volve.com/2018/08/16/whit...the-beginning/

[pete311]

Retired Adm. William McRaven, the man who oversaw the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden, issued a stunning rebuke of President Donald Trump's decision to revoke the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan on Thursday, defending the former spy chief as "one of the finest public servants I have ever known."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/mcraven-trump-brennan-security-clearance-revoke/index.html

[aboutime]

Retired Adm. William McRaven, the man who oversaw the 2011 Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden, issued a stunning rebuke of President Donald Trump's decision to revoke the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan on Thursday, defending the former spy chief as "one of the finest public servants I have ever known."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/mcraven-trump-brennan-security-clearance-revoke/index.html

Doesn't matter if GOD himself said Brennan was a nice guy. He violated the OATH of the CIA, and Relinquished his access to a security clearance when he lied to Congress, and broke the law.
As for that Admiral. Imagine that. He has publicly made statements that sounded just like Brennan. And, since he is retired from the Navy. He stands to lose his Clearance as well.
NOBODY...not even you petey....are ABOVE THE LAW.

Betrayal of your Sworn Oath to the United States of America...has Consequences.

[LongTermGuy]

Brennan should've never been hired by the DOJ much less had any security clearance. He's calling Trump treasonous...I don't remember him calling Barack Obama that when he forced the Iran deal on taxpayers and flew pallets of cash to them in the dead of night.....

[darin]

This is a non-issue. having a clearance doesn't mean one has access. It's just goofy to make an issue out of something that is generally part of the process upon leaving federal service - after two years (if i recall) the clearance goes inactive anyway and an investigation would probably have to be re-done upon returning to service.

Again. Relax folks.

[pete311]

Brennan should've never been hired by the DOJ much less had any security clearance. He's calling Trump treasonous...I don't remember him calling Barack Obama that when he forced the Iran deal on taxpayers and flew pallets of cash to them in the dead of night.....

We either have free speech or we don't.

[darin]

We either have free speech or we don't.

That's a false dilemma. We have BOTH free and regulated speech. If anyone is using Confidential or higher info for political or business purposes, we can't claim 'free speech' issues.

[darin]

Silly Graphics department...



Uh - it can't be confidential AND Top Secret....(sigh)

[Elessar]

Silly Graphics department...



Uh - it can't be confidential AND Top Secret....(sigh)

Good Catch!

[pete311]

That's a false dilemma. We have BOTH free and regulated speech. If anyone is using Confidential or higher info for political or business purposes, we can't claim 'free speech' issues.

Criticism does not equal political. You now have dozens of past high level intel officers coming out to condemn Trump's action on Brennen.

[FakeNewsSux]

We either have free speech or we don't.

Pete, there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom from consequence. The First Amendment protects us against government sanction for simply saying something. I am not aware of Mr. Brennan being jailed or shunted off to a gulag for the vile, unsubstantiated commentary he is vomiting nightly on national television. However, he is now suffering the consequences of his actions. I am not aware of a constitutional right to a to high level security clearance, much less a right to use state secrets to personally profit from. I don't give a damn about a security clearance, I've always coveted diplomatic immunity. I believe there is a little known codicil in the constitution that grants extraordinary powers in times of national emergency to give deserving members of Debate Policy diplomatic immunity...

[pete311]

Pete, there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of consequence. The First Amendment protects us against government sanction for simply saying something. I am not aware of Mr. Brennan being jailed or shunted off to a gulag for the vile, unsubstantiated commentary he is vomiting nightly on national television. However, he is now suffering the consequences of his actions. I am not aware of a constitutional right to a to high level security clearance, much less a right to use state secrets to personally profit from. I don't give a damn about a security clearance, I've always coveted diplomatic immunity. I believe there is a little known codicil in the constitution that grants extraordinary powers in times of national emergency to give deserving members of Debate Policy diplomatic immunity...

I never said it was illegal or unconstitutional. All I said is it is vindictive. The message is clear. Criticize the president and get spanked. Do we really want to set this precedent? This is what 3rd world countries do.

[jimnyc]

I never said it was illegal or unconstitutional. All I said is it is vindictive. The message is clear. Criticize the president and get spanked. Do we really want to set this precedent? This is what 3rd world countries do.

And meanwhile, every other flunkie from the Obama admin and prior still has their clearance. Brennan had his revoked when more and more is coming out about his involvement with the lame dossier and attempts against a running president. His repetitive and inane comments against the president on the daily basis doesn't help his cause. And WHY should anyone retain their clearance after leaving office, left or right? Keeping the clearance & vomiting on the news left and right about all things government - those folks SHOULD have their clearance revoked.

Of course you call it 3rd world actions because you refuse to see ANY wrongdoing by the left. It's hardly vindictive when it's the right thing to do. If he was a righty and he did the same, he should have his clearance revoked. It comes with responsibilities - and if you don't want to adhere to them anymore, then perhaps ask to have it removed like the other fellow you posted. Now you don't need to adhere to the clearances and responsibilities.

And depending on how much he was involved in with the dossier, and involvement by the CIA and FISA warrants and spying - he very well may end up being charged. Like Comey who should be up on charges, alongside Hillary. And quite a few more that were actively involved in using the government and it's intelligence agencies to try and secure an election, while whining about Russia doing the same at the same time.... and much of that is a bunch of crap too, if not almost all. Starting with the fake hacking by Russia of their servers.

[jimnyc]

Mark Levin: 'There Is No Constitutional Issue'; What the Hell Did Brennan Do With His Clearance Anyway?

(CNSNews.com) - Conservative talk show host and constitutional lawyer Mark Levin said President Trump was right to revoke the security clearance of former CIA director and perpetual Trump critic John Brennan.

Brennan, who has called Trump "treasonous" among other harsh criticism, said Trump is just "trying to get back at me. I've seen this type of behavior and actions on the part of foreign tyrants and despots and autocrats for many, many years during my CIA and national security career. I never, ever thought I would see it here in the United States," Brennan said on Wednesday.

Levin told Fox News's Sean Hannity on Wednesday that having a security clearance is a "privilege."

The fact of the matter is, nobody's stopping Brennan from speaking. In fact, nobody could stop him. He has a big mouth, he will never shut up, he'll go on TV and be the kook that he is. The idea that he has a right to access to information because he served in the Obama administration at the CIA is a preposterous argument, but of course the ACLU will take up the case because they take up a lot of stupid cases. That's number one.

Number two, who else is the president looking at? Comey -- and people who are keeping score -- Comey is a Republican. How many times have the media told us, Mueller's a Republican, Comey's a Republican, and even they question the president! OK, you got a Republican. And by the way -- for the media -- most of these people the president is looking at are white. I know that's very important to you.

Now Comey was fired at the recommendation of Rosenstein. Comey was a leaker and he absconded with government documents when he left. His security clearance should be pulled. (Andrew) McCabe is under criminal investigation. The number two from the FBI. Never before in history, media -- his security clearance should be pulled!

Peter Strzok was just fired, the guy in charge of counterintelligence investigations, for misconduct. His security should be pulled! James Clapper committed perjury. He lied to the American people and Senator Wyden and that committee a long time ago, his security clearance should have been pulled.

Bruce Ohr, another one. Pulled! (Sally) Yates -- another one, not because the president has a problem with Democrats or liberals, he has a problem with these people. And we haven't even gotten to the unmasking issue yet. So this is not a First Amendment issue.

Meanwhile -- meanwhile! When these people had security clearances, what the hell did they do with them? Well, let's take a look. The Russians interfered in our election, right? Well, who was president, who was head of the CIA, who was national security adviser, who was the head of the FBI?

All these people with their security clearances in positions of power did nothing effective to stop the Russians from interfering in our election. They did nothing to stop China from stealing our technology. They did nothing to stop North Korea's nuclear program. And even worse, they awarded the Islamo -- hold it, Mark! -- the terrorist regime in Tehran with $150 billion, right? With $150 billion and provided them with a pathway to nuclear.

Good job, boys and girl in the Obama administration, with your security clearances. The fact that Obama appointed these people and gave them security clearances, it's not the obligation of this president to let them retain their security clearances. There is no constitutional issue. That's just nonsense. And again, one of them's a Republican. So that makes this all okay.

Levin also mocked the liberal media's outrage over the revocation of Brennan's clearance:

“All these blabbermouths who know nothing, you are going to see Clapper on TV until you throw up on your loafers. You're going to see Comey, he had his book thing; you are going to see Brennan all over the place, all these phony victims and so forth and so on.

“Meanwhile when they were in office, when they had their security clearances, when they had power, they didn't stop the Russians, they didn't stop the Red Chinese, they didn't stop the North Koreans, they funded the Iranians, and, in fact, they are responsible for the greatest scandal in American history by interfering with our election and trying to undermine the Trump campaign.”

Rest - https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...brennan-do-his

[jimnyc]

Ex-CIA Chief Brennan's Security Clearance Should Have Been Revoked Long Ago

Democrats and spy agency bureaucrats squealed with rage after President Trump pulled former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance. Why are they upset? Brennan clearly abused his privileged security clearance by using it for political purposes and profit.

"Mr. Brennan's lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation's most closely held secrets and facilities, the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos," said White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, reading a statement.

There's no question that Brennan lied, both to Congress and the American people, more than once and under oath.

And for someone with continued privileged access to the nation's secrets to call the president "treasonous" merely for speaking to Vladimir Putin isn't an exercise of freedom of speech — it verges on a threat.

Brennan tweeted his response: "My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent."

Among his many left-leaning defenders, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal had by far the most absurd response, calling it an "illegal" violation of the First Amendment.

Huh? A security clearance is not a right, otherwise all of us would have it. It's a privilege and, as with all privileges conferred by the government, it is subject to revocation if the person who has it abuses it.

Sadly, Brennan didn't just abuse it as a private citizen by leveraging his access for lucrative TV gigs in which he did little other than trash the president and mislead the public.

There's also ample evidence he abused his security clearance by violating the law while acting as the CIA's chief, a far more serious charge, in our opinion.

In 2014, he flat-out denied hacking into computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was at the time investigating the CIA's use of harsh interrogation measures against terrorists.

After the computer break-ins were proven beyond a doubt, Brennan apologized but refused to acknowledge wrong-doing by the CIA. Despite calls for his dismissal even by Democrats, President Obama stood by his man. Brennan stayed.

But this wasn't the last time Brennan's CIA spied on U.S. citizens. Far worse than spying on Congress was the CIA's involvement in the 2016 election, which increasingly appears to be not just out of bounds, but outright illegal.

Brennan's CIA ran an operation with the FBI that targeted the Trump presidential campaign, using foreign-based assets like CIA and MI6-linked Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to lure Trump campaign aides into potentially politically-compromising meetings.

Rest - https://www.investors.com/politics/e...rance-removed/