Posted on 07/24/2018 5:00:44 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
Today’s Campaign Update (Because The Campaign Never Ends)
Yeah, “judgment free” this, buddy. – A man was arrested at a Planet Fitness on Monday when other customers complained that he was working out in the nude, seldom a good idea at a public facility. When the cops came to run him off to the local pokey, he told them that he thought he was in a “judgment free” zone. So, obviously a Democrat. I swear I don’t make this stuff up. Who could?
You’re really not very good at this whole Twitter thing, Jim. – Ex-FBI Director and current Teenage Drama Queen James Comey issued the following tweet on Monday:
James Comey ✔ @Comey Thought experiment: Make a list of all the public figures in this country and around the world the current president has criticized.
Ask yourself: “Why is Putin missing from the list?”
No responsible American should ever stop asking, “Why?”
5:08 PM - Jul 23, 2018
For the record, this goofy tweet comes less than two days after President Trump, in a nationally-televised interview, criticized Putin about all sorts of things and said if Putin continues meddling in U.S. elections he would become the Russian President’s “worst enemy.” That interview came just days after several other nationally televised interviews in which President Trump repeatedly criticized Putin. Those interviews come weeks and months after President Trump implemented a long series of the toughest sanctions the U.S. has targeted against Russia in decades, far tougher than anything Barack Obama ever dreamed of doing.
Mr. Comey should really take a different direction with his shameless attention-seeking exercises. This whole Twitter thing is obviously not among his core competencies.
Speaking of ex-Obama officials shamelessly seeking attention for profit, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders informed the collection of creeps and derelicts we call the White House press corps that President Trump is, at the urging of Senator Rand Paul, looking into the revocation of the security clearances for Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, Susan Rice and Andrew McCabe. Sanders cited concerns that these sleazeballs were monetizing their security access and improperly sharing classified information with the media, which is undeniably true of all of them.
One reporter told his Twitter followers that there was an audible gasp from the fake reporters in the briefing room when Sanders made her announcement. Yes, one can only imagine the level of panic that immediately began to set in among this group of lazy, shiftless gas bags who have spent the last two years just cutting and pasting whatever this collection of Obama loyalist seditionists have fed them into their rote articles. Now suddenly, they face the prospect of having to actually engage in real journalistic pursuits for their information, rather than just being sock puppets. Life is hard, folks.
Some of the reactions were truly priceless. James Clapper told an interviewer on CNN, where he monetizes his security clearance 7 days a week, that “I don’t know what to say,” he added. “I think this is just a very, very petty — a petty thing to do. And that’s about all I’ll say about it.” Yes, petty, sort of like if he went on MSNBC or CNN and trashed your reputation on live television 5 times a week, huh?
Jennifer Rubin, a pathetic hack who serves as one of the Washington Post’s kennel of fake “conservative” writers, said this in a tweet:
Jennifer Rubin ✔ @JRubinBlogger a sickening example of content discrimination, violation of First Amendment. I hope they do it so the victims can sue https://wapo.st/2uYgled?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.0a0751398ea0 …
So, this nitwit is so unalterably vacuous that she actually believes that there is some sort of constitutional right for a person to maintain a national security clearance. Ok, where do I go to get mine? Holy cow.
Interestingly, Brennan, who has been so hyper-vocal and outrageously over-the-top in his criticisms of President Trump – even to the point of accusing him of committing treason in his meeting with Vladimir Putin last week – has so far remained silent on the matter. In fact, that July 16 tweet accusing a sitting U.S. President of treasonous acts is the last tweet this particular seditionist has issued. Since then, it’s been radio silence on the Brennan Twitter account. We also haven’t seen him raise his ugly mug on television since that outburst. Maybe someone convinced him to get back on his meds.
Back to the question at hand, what possible legitimate purpose does it serve for any of these people to still have security clearances to begin with? It’s unimaginable that this step has not already been taken, given the unending efforts by this pack of disloyal seditionists to bring down the Trump presidency.
Some buffoon talking heads are arguing that it’s important for high-ranking ex-intelligence officials to retain their security clearances in case the current administration needs their advice. Wait, what? Are we really to think that President Trump is going to call Brennan or Comey up in the midst of some international crisis and ask for their advice? Clapper? The insipid Susan Rice? These people have literally nothing useful to offer this administration.
The only advice Susan Rice could offer anyone is how to bald-face lie about an international incident on five news shows on the same Sunday morning. Please. Plus, Clapper, Comey and Brennan have all blatantly perjured themselves in congressional testimony in their ongoing efforts to harm the current administration – that’s just a matter of clear public record at this point.
There’s an old lawyer joke that goes something like this:
What do you call 20 lawyers with cement blocks chained to their ankles at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean?
Answer: A good start.
Same answer here. Do it, Mr. President. Just do it. And please, add Peter Strzok to the list.
Just another day in how does John Brennan still have a security clearance America.
That is all.
Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon
Now Trump can revoke their clearances...meaning they will no longer be able to get access to classified intel in the future. That is a different matter. No one apparently knows enough to point this out!
Need to know and access are the limiting factors.
For those who may need a refresher:
Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to federal investigators. But for lying after stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives — in an apparent attempt to alter the historical record on terrorism, no less — former Clinton national security adviser and Kerry campaign adviser Sandy Berger will get a small fine and slap on the wrist. He will pay $10,000 and get no jail time. His security clearance will be suspended until around the end of the Bush administration — meaningless for a career Democrat like Mr. Berger. It makes us wonder who at the Department of Justice is responsible for letting such a serious offense go virtually unpunished.
There are plenty of defense contractors out there with security clearances. This is perfectly fine. A clearance is an administrative background check that permits a person to receive classified information up to that clearance level.
Just because you have a clearance however, doesn't mean you get access to any piece of classified information. You get access to information on a need to know basis, as in, you have a job related to the government, and you need the information in order to do your job.
There's no reason why Clapper and Comey should have access to classified information since leaving the government.
Yes, but that can't be adequately conveyed while everyone is hyperventilating. Most people seem to think these guys can officially just log on or make a phone call and see anything classified they want, which is certainly not true.
Actually, they can find out almost anything they want, just not legally. That's what comes from keeping Obama/Clintonoids in place.
Heard a couple of retired Army grunts bitching about “that major” that pulled all that crap during the Reagan Administration. I finally got it out of them that it was Ollie North, and told them he was a light colonel. Their attitude was “Even so, no light colonel has that kind of power. “ They couldn’t grasp that working st NSA was different than an infantry posting.
For a while I worked on the Tomahawk Cruise missile. I had a TS security clearance because I had to know things about how a nuclear warhead would fit in the missile.
I was not in the government.
Suggestions on how I could do my job without the clearance?
HOWEVER, what rationale can be advanced for allowing these privileges to those who were FIRED from their positions for violating various agency policies, insubordination or 'lack of candor'?
Mr. Berger smiles.
My recollection is that security clearances, at least the TS/SCI versions, require a periodic RENEWAL.
An important element of that RENEWAL is a POLYGRAPH. I think Trump should order this up for the full list, Brennan et al, and see what they say. Refusal automically terminates their clearances.
“Revocation of a clearance, to my understanding, is a more serious matter than inactivation”
After reading your explanation, I think I understand now why Rand Paul and the White House are objecting on the basis that these ex officials are “monetizing their security clearances”.
In other words, they are profiting by the fact of having a security clearance, which, even though inactive, can be used to suggest that their opinions as pundits may be based on classified Intel (even though they are not).
Notice that by using the word “monetizing” RP and the WH are avoiding any accusation that they are actually trading classified information.
Thanks for the clarification.
Question:
How many persons from the Reagan administration still have security clearances?
From the Nixon administration?
From the JFK administration?
From the Ford administration?
From the George Bush 41 administration?
From the Jimmah Carter Administration?
From the Bill Clinton administration?
From the George Bush 43 administration?
I see absolutely NO reason for anyone who no longer has the job to have such ‘clearances’.
If they are being handed out like business cards at a convention, then what value are they?
What kind of vetting does a person get before they are granted a security clearance?
NONE of this behavior is one bit funny.
That’s totally different.....geesh I meant if you weren’t WORKING for the Govt!!! Do you still have it?
Excellent idea!
Polygraph, and make sure access is restricted to need to know. It sounds better than revoked, and if they dont take the poly...it can be revoked, anyway...for cause.
I’m surprised Freepers could come up with some juicy questions for the poly exam.
DJT/staff/Q — are ya listening?
DJT/
In above post, I meant to type sure, rather than surprised.
Still wondering why it’s necessary to have or maintain a security clearance in order to guarantee an agency’s “continuity” or to provide background on PAST operations. And in the rare cases where new secrets must be revealed in order to tap old heads, couldn’t temporary clearances be granted?
What it’s really all about is ACCESS, need-to-know or not; and the degree of authority a valid clearance lends (viz. to a pundit, a rival, etc.). Both of these serve the individual far more often than they aid the current government.
Clearances, all of them, should be revoked with the end of a term of service.
No, I no longer have it and that is appropriate. BUT, I do still have a copy of my PSQ from 1978. If I needed a clearance again there had better not be a difference between what I said the first time and a new one. ;o)
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.