That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
BENGHAZIYellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:28 pm A criminal case with actual convictions is a sideshow, but multi-year fruitless investigations into Hillary are solid uses of taxpayer money.
BENGEMAILShepcat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:55 pmBENGHAZIYellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:28 pm A criminal case with actual convictions is a sideshow, but multi-year fruitless investigations into Hillary are solid uses of taxpayer money.
You don't say?Rip wrote:Amazing the things people will try to turn into constitutional abuses.
Only if you care about things like the truth I guess.
Would you say it’s almost as much of a side show as the Hillary emails?Rip wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:24 am Security clearances are revoked all the time for the most petty of reasons. Amazing the things people will try to turn into constitutional abuses.
Sideshow is still a sideshow and win or lose it will have zilch of an effect on Trump and what he does or doesn't do. Nothing Manafort is charged with has anything at all to do with the Donald.
Exactly. If he illegally dodged taxes on $60M of income, he stole money out of every American taxpayers' pocket.
Show me another case where a president revoked security clearance of someone for the sole reason of critizing the president. I’m curious how often this happens since you are implying it’s normal.Rip wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:24 am Security clearances are revoked all the time for the most petty of reasons. Amazing the things people will try to turn into constitutional abuses.
Sideshow is still a sideshow and win or lose it will have zilch of an effect on Trump and what he does or doesn't do. Nothing Manafort is charged with has anything at all to do with the Donald.
John Brennan has been an outspoken critic of the president.
He called Donald Trump treasonous over his meeting with the Russian leader in Helsinki, he has also called him imbecilic and a danger to the US.
Now Donald Trump has had his revenge, revoking the former CIA chief's security clearance - and threatening a number of other national intelligence officials, all of whom have one thing in common: they've also been critical of the president.
But in justifying this move there's been no suggestion that Mr Brennan either leaked classified material or sought to make money from it.
The timing is also noteworthy. The White House has been buffeted for days by claims from a disaffected former adviser to the president.
Closing arguments in the trial of Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, are also being heard.
The White House briefing where this was announced hadn't been scheduled. It looks like a concerted effort to change the subject.
It's absolutely not normal, and the whole list of people threatened with losing their clearance (from Brennan to Yates) consists entirely of people who've criticized Trump. There's not even an attempt to claim that any of them have misused their clearance. It's simple petty despotism.Fitzy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:00 amShow me another case where a president revoked security clearance of someone for the sole reason of critizing the president. I’m curious how often this happens since you are implying it’s normal.Rip wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:24 am Security clearances are revoked all the time for the most petty of reasons. Amazing the things people will try to turn into constitutional abuses.
Sideshow is still a sideshow and win or lose it will have zilch of an effect on Trump and what he does or doesn't do. Nothing Manafort is charged with has anything at all to do with the Donald.
Also of note: the press release announcing this went out dated July 26, 2018. After people noticed that, it was taken down off the WH website and replaced with an undated version.Max Peck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:58 am Timing is everything (or at least something).John Brennan has been an outspoken critic of the president.
He called Donald Trump treasonous over his meeting with the Russian leader in Helsinki, he has also called him imbecilic and a danger to the US.
Now Donald Trump has had his revenge, revoking the former CIA chief's security clearance - and threatening a number of other national intelligence officials, all of whom have one thing in common: they've also been critical of the president.
But in justifying this move there's been no suggestion that Mr Brennan either leaked classified material or sought to make money from it.
The timing is also noteworthy. The White House has been buffeted for days by claims from a disaffected former adviser to the president.
Closing arguments in the trial of Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, are also being heard.
The White House briefing where this was announced hadn't been scheduled. It looks like a concerted effort to change the subject.
It happens plenty. Just doesn't make the news or get disclosed publicly. You don't even need a reason to revoke them, sometimes it is just because you no longer require it to do your job. The abnormal thing is for it to be a matter of public discussion.Fitzy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:00 amShow me another case where a president revoked security clearance of someone for the sole reason of critizing the president. I’m curious how often this happens since you are implying it’s normal.Rip wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:24 am Security clearances are revoked all the time for the most petty of reasons. Amazing the things people will try to turn into constitutional abuses.
Sideshow is still a sideshow and win or lose it will have zilch of an effect on Trump and what he does or doesn't do. Nothing Manafort is charged with has anything at all to do with the Donald.
Yes, and one President that I know of actually had his access level quietly downgraded by DIRNSA.
That was after Bert Lance was bragging to his buddies about stuff he was hearing about from his friend the President. One paper actually printed high level codeword material he never should have had access too.
After careful consideration, that particular President was not briefed on future matters where he didn’t have the absolute need to know.
It seems that more recently (especially after 9/11) former government officials have retained their security clearances in order to advise those persons who replaced them. It is also often continued as an “honorarium” for previous high-level government officials.
The practice of letting former government workers retain their access to sensitive information indefinitely should cease immediately unless they are actively involved in security matters that require it.
A top secret clearance based on a special background investigation SBI is generally good for 5 years, after which time a fresh SBI is required to maintain that clearance (at least it was when I did investigations for G2/PSI at Ft. Campbell). Your particular job determines the ACCESS level granted after you pass the SBI. Once you leave that job, your access ends until you start another job that requires a particular level of access. The most common TS access granted in the government is TS/SCI (sensitive compartmented information) SI or “Special Intelligence”. Another is TK or “Talent-Keyhole”. There are other compartmentalized monikers out there depending on what is required for your job.
I can think of two specific cases where compartmentalization failed miserably, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden.
Anyway, it’s usually not the President who revokes a security clearance of former government officials (although he has the power to do so), it’s the responsibility of whoever issues the approval for access to sensitive information within that particular department.
Ironically, the same President referred to at the top of my answer ordered much of the compartmentalization procedures after he found out in his initial briefing that too many people had access to some of the highest top secret information they didn’t need to perform their jobs. Probably the best thing he did during his presidency.
It is routine when a Government person, military, Civil Service or contractor, retires, resigns, or is terminated.
A major exception is that if it is highly likely the person will be used immediately or very soon as a consultant or contractor.
The Government official who needs the person, or does not need the person, decides whether the security clearance will be downgraded, upgraded, retained or terminated.
In the case of high officials like Mr. Brennan, it has been traditional to let them keep their clearance, mostly as an honor reward and as a badge of status. But in fact, this is not a sound practice if the high official will not be used soon for classified work and thus no longer has a need to know.
*snip*Rip wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:21 amIt happens plenty. Just doesn't make the news or get disclosed publicly. You don't even need a reason to revoke them, sometimes it is just because you no longer require it to do your job. The abnormal thing is for it to be a matter of public discussion.Fitzy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:00 amShow me another case where a president revoked security clearance of someone for the sole reason of critizing the president. I’m curious how often this happens since you are implying it’s normal.Rip wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:24 am Security clearances are revoked all the time for the most petty of reasons. Amazing the things people will try to turn into constitutional abuses.
Sideshow is still a sideshow and win or lose it will have zilch of an effect on Trump and what he does or doesn't do. Nothing Manafort is charged with has anything at all to do with the Donald.
My assumption is that removing security clearances and firings are meant to serve a warning for failing a test of loyalty. A symbolic decimation, if you will. (Did I use the word right?) The critic that is being silenced is not those fired or removed. It's those thinking about speaking up and seeing the consequences for doing so.
It wasn't done silence him, but rather to shame and discredit him. It will work as intended with Trump's base, but very few others.
It also limits who he can speak to, or rather, who can speak to him. That in turn lessens his relevance and makes it less likely he will be sought for comment on the administration.
Not so much, so far as I can see. He lost his "need to know" when he left government. Anyone who was willing to discuss classified information with him from that point on isn't going to care much about Brennan's clearance being revoked, because they shouldn't have been having those discussions in the first place. So far as I know, Brennan himself hasn't been disclosing any classified information that anyone might (hypothetically) have been feeding to him, so his heightened lack of access shouldn't be a deterrent to anyone seeking commentary from him unless they're falling for Trump's circular "he lost his clearance so he must be a bad man" rationale. Which brings us back to this being an attempt to discredit him, rather than silence him per se. It doesn't stop him from speaking his mind, but the regime can hope that it stops some people from listening to what he says.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:00 pmIt also limits who he can speak to, or rather, who can speak to him. That in turn lessens his relevance and makes it less likely he will be sought for comment on the administration.
I don't know about the first part. My understanding is that national security people will sometimes talk with predecessors to get input from them (since they've been there), and Brennan's security clearance being revoked would presumably matter to them.Max Peck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:17 pmNot so much, so far as I can see. He lost his "need to know" when he left government. Anyone who was willing to discuss classified information with him from that point on isn't going to care much about Brennan's clearance being revoked, because they shouldn't have been having those discussions in the first place. So far as I know, Brennan himself hasn't been disclosing any classified information that anyone might (hypothetically) have been feeding to him, so his heightened lack of access shouldn't be a deterrent to anyone seeking commentary from him unless they're falling for Trump's circular "he lost his clearance so he must be a bad man" rationale. Which brings us back to this being an attempt to discredit him, rather than silence him per se. It doesn't stop him from speaking his mind, but the regime can hope that it stops some people from listening to what he says.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:00 pmIt also limits who he can speak to, or rather, who can speak to him. That in turn lessens his relevance and makes it less likely he will be sought for comment on the administration.
In any sane timeline, that would be true and would be covered by the need-to-know requirement (i.e. consulting with him creates an explicit need-to-know for the purpose of that interchange). In our timeline, I would be shocked to find out that any of Trump's national security team have been overtly consulting with Brennan at any point in the last year or so, let alone up until his clearance was pulled. He has been persona non grata for quite a while now.
Ret. Adm. William H. McRaven wrote: Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.
Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.
He's no slouch. I'm sure Trump is composing a suitable tweet right now in response. If his handlers are on the ball it will never go out.Sepiche wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:01 pm Daaaaaaaaaamn
Ret. Adm. William H. McRaven wrote: Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.
Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.
I fully support him having exacly NO security clearance the moment he is no longer president. I wouldn't even let him read Confidential stuff.