Posted on 08/18/2018 7:22:40 AM PDT by EdnaMode
Friday on CNN’s “The Lead,” network political analyst Kirsten Powers said President Donald Trump’s threat to revoke more security clearances after doing so to former CIA Director John Brennan was the action of an “authoritarian wannabe.”
Powers said, “Donald Trump doesn’t care, obviously doesn’t care about that. What he cares about is he has been insulted. This is all part of a sort of profile of the authoritarian wannabe and what you expect from despotic countries led more by despots and not led by democratically elected presidents.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“...especially after I heard she used to date Anthony Weiner in the pre-Huma days.”
EWWWWW, Anthony? Now that’s something for her near & dears to forever think about when kissing. Professionally she postured well enough but with mediocre substance. Never noticed her ride off into the sunset at Fox and never watch the Wasteland at CNN.
Oh, shut up, stupid girl.
Shifting the original topic slightly, so would I.
FURTHER, I want to know whether these high level perpetual clearances include access, or are effectively suspended unless there's a need to know. Could Brennan (until last week) or Hillary call up people in the government or CIA and ask for info on current topics now that they are not employed by the government?
For a normal security-cleared person, access depends both on clearance and need to know. But remember, Sandy Burglar (sp) was able to get into the National Archives after he was no longer in a government position, where he attempted to smuggle out some original documents that were embarrassing to the Clintons. Why was he admitted?
This question of continued access is what bothers me. Otherwise, the current noise over whether the clearance is actually revoked, or merely in effect suspended is all hot air.
What happened to Marie Harf?
Librarian Barbie has gone with the wind........poof
Hey Kristin… I didn’t know conservatives owned Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. If there’s any side that is censoring speech, it’s the left. How can you be so utterly clueless? Oh yeah, you’re a leftist.
(Dana Carvey. See: "Wayne's World")
What is not understood is that with the possible exception of Truman there has not been a POTUS in the era of mass communication that hits back when attacked. Pres. Trump has made a reputation on Imus and Stern of being crude and boorish. He is also thin skinned and hits back at his detractors. But these are words not actions and Pres. Trump’s actions as POTUS have rarely been outside the envelope of a POTUS acting in American interest. But his words allow him to be attacked. I am sure he or any POTUS would have strangled the press if they belived they could get away with it. Obama actually tried by using the Espionage Act. Trump’s obstacle is his own mouth and the real fact that the media is his enemy. But as another thread opined his use of Twitter is a modern equivalent of the Fireside chat. And that and his base are his strengths.
Oh, yeah. Guess she’s not around any more saying “adminishtration”, “shtrength”, etc., when trying to talk like Michelle Obama. Harf was so annoying.
Especially that Brennan accused the President of treason and then tried to deny it. Serious offense, and it threatens the nation. He is unresponsible.
I don’t understand why they would need security clearance once they’ve left their jobs willingly or unwillingly. If I resign from my job to take another one I don’t get to keep access to my former employer’s files or email service. The day I leave all access is eliminated.
This state of affairs makes me wonder if Hillary kept her security clearance or Holder or Lynch or Jarrett. When is access denied in DC?
a leftist simply ‘projecting’
“...a reason why any former administration employees should retain a security clearance. “
Because they go to work for private contractors that do business with the intelligence agencies.
And they write books, with permission.
I have been trying to think of an appropriate analogy. I’ll try this one:
You own a major company. One of the privileges you provide a retired worker is the unlimited use of the company cafeteria and employee discount store where employees can buy the company products at a steep discount. One of your retired employees takes advantage of these privileges frequently. He eats lunch in the cafeteria daily, however, he is always denigrating the owner and senior management. He frequently states that they are crooks, thief’s and morally unfit to lead the company.
You, the company owner decides that you have had enough of this BS and revoke the cafeteria and store privileges along with banning him from company property. Do you have a right to do that?, (yes). Are you restricting his “free speech”?. (no).
This applies to President Trump just as it does to the company owner. Brennan can speak all he wishes but President Trump doesn’t have to provide him with the “privilege” of a security clearance.
I used to work for DIS, Defense Investigative Service, performing security background investigations. If someone I was investigating was known to make disparaging accusations concerning US government officials, (especially a statement of treason), that person’s loyalty would be in question.
The questions we asked neighbors, employers, teachers and acquaintances of the Subject were: is this person honest, trustworthy, of good character, is there any known financial issues, criminal issues, drug or alcohol issues, any extra-marital issues, could this person be blackmailed etc.
Brennan’s treason statements and animus towards President Trump would be a red flag requiring further investigation and an in-person interview.
Well said. A security clearance is a privilege that can be taken away at the discretion of the government. It is not an entitlement.
Also people at his level lead by example and so yes what he says and does is under extra scrutiny. He should know this fact and if he doesn’t then this is a concern and certainly raises questions.
If I remember correctly...Kirsten is the woman who was an atheist, and then suddenly found God and religion.
And now she has found out that she is Nasty.
She is a loon.
Who peed in her Cheerios?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.