PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: nddons on August 15, 2018, 01:42:48 PM
-
My first question: What took so long?
My second question: In what world do former employees get to retain their security clearance for a single day after they leave government employment?
I have to turn in my building pass if I leave my employer. I’m pretty sure I don’t continue to get access to its servers.
I’d appreciate a good explanation as to why this can possibly happen. I’ve got nothing.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/15/trump-revokes-security-clearance-for-former-cia-director-john-brennan.html
-
My first question: What took so long?
My second question: In what world do former employees get to retain their security clearance for a single day after they leave government employment?
I have to turn in my building pass if I leave my employer. I’m pretty sure I don’t continue to get access to its servers.
I’d appreciate a good explanation as to why this can possibly happen. I’ve got nothing.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/15/trump-revokes-security-clearance-for-former-cia-director-john-brennan.html
My thoughts exactly. I have never heard of that before Strzok. I'm sure it has been sop for years, but I never knew about it, and I don't understand it. It sounds like swamp mud.
-
The memo from the President:
https://www.scribd.com/document/386288873/Statement-from-the-President-2#from_embed
-
I'm sure it has been sop for years, but I never knew about it, and I don't understand it.
The next guy may want to consult with the old guy about things. The outgoing people have kept their clearances to be available in the role of advisor.
Apparently the president was advised that certain people have become security risks because their emotional hatred is in danger of overriding their good sense of the law. In plain English, they think these people might access and make unauthorized disclosures of secrets in order to get "back" at the president.
-
The next guy may want to consult with the old guy about things. The outgoing people have kept their clearances to be available in the role of advisor.
Apparently the president was advised that certain people have become security risks because their emotional hatred is in danger of overriding their good sense of the law. In plain English, they think these people might access and make unauthorized disclosures of secrets in order to get "back" at the president.
So I would say have your consultation, inform subordinates, and then give me your keys. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
When the old guy enters into employment with a media outlet, consulting firm, lobbying firm, or anything but sitting on the porch waiting for the government to call, your clearance gets pulled permanently. At least in my administration.
-
In some cases, the security clearance is retained but put in suspension so that the person may return to active federal service, and they don't have to go through as great a investigation as from the start.
However, at the higher ranks of the govt, I have to agree that all outgoing policy folk should have their clearance stripped once leaving office. I had a DOE clearance for many years, through three employers, and it was still on my record a year after I left the nuclear field and went in another career direction. Much different than DOD, the L clearance restricted much of what I could see or do. They also have a special name for the clearance when dealing with the pres, and VP, and joint chiefs, but I don't know the name of it anymore.
-
So I would say have your consultation, inform subordinates, and then give me your keys. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
When the old guy enters into employment with a media outlet, consulting firm, lobbying firm, or anything but sitting on the porch waiting for the government to call, your clearance gets pulled permanently. At least in my administration.
”Stan is our man 2024”
-
So I would say have your consultation, inform subordinates, and then give me your keys. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
When the old guy enters into employment with a media outlet, consulting firm, lobbying firm, or anything but sitting on the porch waiting for the government to call, your clearance gets pulled permanently. At least in my administration.
Not arguing, just explaining why it's done. There have been some cases where the consultation happened more than a year after leaving office.
-
How did he get a clearance in the first place? Didn't he vote communist at one point?
-
How did he get a clearance in the first place? Didn't he vote communist at one point?
For the Lefties, that was probably a pre-qualification.
-
Serious question - has anyone on the left explained what they think the president gained by doing this? He really didn’t benefit in any way, did he?
I have found many times that when the left makes these stupid accusations, they are unconsciously telegraphing their own thinking and intentions.
-
The one big benefit of this is it could potentially prevent someone like Brennan from accessing classified information and using it for political gain.
-
I have found many times that when the left makes these stupid accusations, they are unconsciously telegraphing their own thinking and intentions.
Not correct. It is EVERY TIME for the left, and it's not by accident.
-
”Stan is our man 2024”
Haha! No.
I don’t suffer fools well. Plus I hate asking for money.
-
The entire Federal Intelligence, and Law Enforcement apparatus needs to be overhauled. FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, BATF, etc. These are career STATISTS. They only believe elite government employees should have rights. Their only purpose it to grow their own agencies, budgets, salaries, and influence. Yes, there are some good ones, but the leadership is lacking.
-
The entire Federal Intelligence, and Law Enforcement apparatus needs to be overhauled. FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, BATF, etc. These are career STATISTS. They only believe elite government employees should have rights. Their only purpose it to grow their own agencies, budgets, salaries, and influence. Yes, there are some good ones, but the leadership is lacking.
The problem has been festering for years. When you hear people speak about the "Deep State" what that is in essence are the SES (Senior Executive Service) government employees. For the most part these are non elected types that do not have to be vetted or approved by the senate and their executive appointments rarely make it up to the WH level, more of just an administrative type appointment.
They are in positions for years and have a broad impact on the agencies they serve and the laws those agencies work under. And unfortunately a lot of abuse of power that rarely makes it into the spotlight.
Congress is suppose to have oversight, but we've seen recently how that works with SES types sticking their collective middle fingers in the air when congress wants something. Of course congress could act and promptly remove these people, but that takes backbone.
-
The problem has been festering for years. When you hear people speak about the "Deep State" what that is in essence are the SES (Senior Executive Service) government employees. For the most part these are non elected types that do not have to be vetted or approved by the senate and their executive appointments rarely make it up to the WH level, more of just an administrative type appointment.
They are in positions for years and have a broad impact on the agencies they serve and the laws those agencies work under. And unfortunately a lot of abuse of power that rarely makes it into the spotlight.
Congress is suppose to have oversight, but we've seen recently how that works with SES types sticking their collective middle fingers in the air when congress wants something. Of course congress could act and promptly remove these people, but that takes backbone.
Brennan is the epitome of the center of the Deep State. Where the left has erred is on being shameless enough to not only allow the deep state to crawl out from under their rock, but become so public they can be contributing guests on MSNBCCNN etc.
I read something today that opined that a security clearance is a “need to know” privilege, not a “want to know” privilege. If the recipient has no need to know, it is illegal to feed them that information even if they retained their security clearance.
This whole area needs a massive clean up, and anyone with any security clearance that is not getting a US Government (or subcontractor) paycheck should have their clearances revoked post haste.
-
The problem has been festering for years. When you hear people speak about the "Deep State" what that is in essence are the SES (Senior Executive Service) government employees. For the most part these are non elected types that do not have to be vetted or approved by the senate and their executive appointments rarely make it up to the WH level, more of just an administrative type appointment.
They are in positions for years and have a broad impact on the agencies they serve and the laws those agencies work under. And unfortunately a lot of abuse of power that rarely makes it into the spotlight.
Congress is suppose to have oversight, but we've seen recently how that works with SES types sticking their collective middle fingers in the air when congress wants something. Of course congress could act and promptly remove these people, but that takes backbone.
Spot on, and it's not just the Feds. There are little versions of each on the State level. Maybe not intel so much, but Law Enforcement, and Regulatory versions of the Feds. I even see it on the County level where I live.
-
I read something today that opined that a security clearance is a “need to know” privilege, not a “want to know” privilege. If the recipient has no need to know, it is illegal to feed them that information even if they retained their security clearance.
This is not an opinion, it is a basic tenet of US security. Compartmentalization. Even if one has a DOD top secret clearance, there are things that I would do that will always preclude me from sharing with them, unless directed. Hillary broke this basic tenet constantly in her quest to become prez.
-
I am finding it ironic that Brennan’s “freedom of speech” is being dragged into this by the press. Doesn’t he now have complete freedom to talk about anything? Under the security clearance, he was restricted from speaking about certain things, right?
-
I am finding it ironic that Brennan’s “freedom of speech” is being dragged into this by the press. Doesn’t he now have complete freedom to talk about anything? Under the security clearance, he was restricted from speaking about certain things, right?
The whole Brennan "has lost his freedom of speech" is ludicrous and being spouted by propagandist in the MSM.
The facts: Brennan has no need to maintain a security clearance as he has left government and the current administration does not want or need his services. Brennan's present employer does not require him to hold a security clearance (although I'm sure they would like for him to have access). Brennan has defied the CIA's policy on former employees holding a security clearance.
And a bigger fact being ignored by the MSM: Brennan is up to his eyeballs in the DoJ/FBI scandal and has a lot to lose as he gets further exposed for his part.
Swamp draining is a painful but necessary task.
-
This is beautiful. Simply beautiful!
Checkmate!
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/19/john-brennan-security-clearance/
-
I am finding it ironic that Brennan’s “freedom of speech” is being dragged into this by the press. Doesn’t he now have complete freedom to talk about anything? Under the security clearance, he was restricted from speaking about certain things, right?
No. At the expiration or revocation of one's clearance, the subjects, and details of the clearance material remain secret(or confidential). For example, if a CIA guy retires, and he has Humint of people and places, and times he cannot then expose that Humint just bcause his clearance has lapsed. Some subjects have time limits on them - usually 10 or more years. Some things last forever unless later unclassified, which recently happened with some of the Watergate material.
-
I am finding it ironic that Brennan’s “freedom of speech” is being dragged into this by the press. Doesn’t he now have complete freedom to talk about anything? Under the security clearance, he was restricted from speaking about certain things, right?
I’m a big fan of David French at National Review, but last week he wrote an article that I completely disagree with. He mentions the constitutional implications of removing Brennan’s security clearance, including the First Amendment argument used by the democrats, but never supports that with a legal argument.
In my mind, Trump’s motive to remove a security clearance is irrelevant. It seems he has Article II of the Constitution to support his actions.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/john-brennan-security-clearance-raises-constitutional-concerns/
-
I’m a big fan of David French at National Review, but last week he wrote an article that I completely disagree with. He mentions the constitutional implications of removing Brennan’s security clearance, including the First Amendment argument used by the democrats, but never supports that with a legal argument.
In my mind, Trump’s motive to remove a security clearance is irrelevant. It seems he has Article II of the Constitution to support his actions.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/john-brennan-security-clearance-raises-constitutional-concerns/
I found some of his arguments logical and if not compelling, at least worth review. I think its spot on that one cannot have their security clearance revoked on political grounds. Having said, that the use of the clearance to advance a political agenda is the means test. Brennan clearly failed at this test, and like the guy said, Brennan is not the case one wants to hang their constitutional hat upon. His 1st A arguments fall flat from the moment he dipped into the politics of the agenda, and began a motivated bias. Once he speaks out like that, one can clearly say with evidentiary support that no, the govt in no way restricted his right to free speech. His bashing of the current exec is prima facia testimony, and the SCOTUS would laugh his atty out of the docket if he tried that.
Where I have trouble with any 'journalist' is when they start with the "but - what if?" BS. It's the oldest struggle in our republic, the equality of the powers granted, and how they are checked. I surely wouldn't want Obama to be pulling the clearances of conservatives for political purposes, and the converse is true as well. We have what we have, and if there is another case of revocation for unjust cause, let it be known. We know that Comey both lied, and leaked, and given those two examples, this would be the reason to revoke his clearance as well. As for the others, it would appear that Trump has not done himself any favors with his twitter tirades, showing his own animus and giving ammo to those would would shout 'payback'. et-al
BTW, not in my case, but there are cases where the holder of a security clearance will be required to lie convincingly, rather than simply remain mute. These situations are rare, and complex, but it does happen.
-
Interesting! Brennan himself revoked security clearances of Benghazi survivors who didn’t agree with the story Brennan wanted told. Down pretty far in the article.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-19/furious-john-brennan-may-sue-trump-after-security-clearance-revoked
-
Interesting! Brennan himself revoked security clearances of Benghazi survivors who didn’t agree with the story Brennan wanted told. Down pretty far in the article.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-19/furious-john-brennan-may-sue-trump-after-security-clearance-revoked (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-19/furious-john-brennan-may-sue-trump-after-security-clearance-revoked)
Brennan is such a major douche bag.
-
Brennan is such a major douche bag.
Only a bigger douche bag BHO would have ever considered this loony toon to be the CIA director.
Oh, and does anyone remember this: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/08/20/flashback-when-democrats-demanded-john-brennan-resign-n2511455