Revoking Security Clearance Is Not An Attack On Free Speech (V)

Me | 8-16-2018 | Orangehoof

[OrangeHoof]

Critics of the revocation of security clearances for John Brennan and the likelihood of other mostly Obama-era former security chiefs continue to pound a talking point which is flat out false and you should not be swayed by it.

Revoking security privileges is not an attack on free speech or the first amendment. It is, rather, a discrediting of those who have sold out their clearances for financial and political gain as news media mouthpieces of discontent.

What Brennan, Clapper et al sell to the news media and, hence, the public is credibility - with inside knowledge - of the workings of the intelligence community. Brennan, Clapper et al are still free to sell themselves to the news media and are free to still opine to anyone and everyone who might value their opinion. It's just that their opinions will be less informed than if they still owned those security clearances which they have abused for personal gain.

[OrangeHoof]

In other words, their first amendment rights to free speech remain intact. The only thing that has been lost is some of the credibility they possessed by continuing to get intelligence briefings as if they were still part of the government. The longer they are separated from this type of intelligence, the less their values as news sources are to the media and elsewhere.

In that sense, Brennan, Clapper et al lose some of their monetary appeal as inside sources. But they have lost none of their ability to speak or write about their political opinions.

I believe the news media is intentionally distorting this because these revocations, and I hope there are more to come, lessen the credibility of these critics who will over time understand less of what they are talking about because they no longer have the insider's view. If someone still wants to pay for their opinion, there is nothing currently stopping these men from acquiring financial compensation for their expertise. It is only that their expertise will be of declining value the more time moves on without insider access.

Much like an ex-spouse as a source of someone's behavior can recite all he or she knows about their former spouse, their information diminishes with time spent away from the spouse, now Brennan, Clapper and the rest who no longer work for the government will have their insider information diminish as time passes which is exactly why they are making such bitter and sometimes outlandish claims.

But there is nobody telling them they can't express their opinions in the media or sell them for profit. All this does is diminish over time the credibility of such opinions.

[OrangeHoof]

My apologies if anyone out there is hammering this point but I am not seeing it communicated. This is not a first amendment nor free speech issue since speech is in no way restricted by this decision.

[Cowboy Bob]

There is no constitutional right to a security clearance.

[no-to-illegals]

Credibility is not built on lies. May many more of the liars lose clearance

[V K Lee]

File charges of ‘inside trading’ on these Klintoon Klowns and BOBs Burgers. Nothing in life is ‘free’ - have we not learned that even “free trade” is far from “free”.
Maratha Stewart received jail time for her indiscretions. And SHE was NOT endangering NATIONAL SECURITY! These persons are selling our nation bit by bit to the highest bidder in order to keep ONE MAN from doing the job he was voted TO DO by AMERICAN CITIZENS!

BOB certainly knew his strengths, and (unfortunately) our nation’s weaknesses.

[markomalley]

It boils down to this: each person who has a need for access to classified national defense information should be granted a clearance if they, based upon investigation, can meet the criteria in the adjudicative guidelines (32 CFR §147). Period.

If that person doesn't meet those criteria, they should be denied a clearance. If, after being granted a clearance, they cease to meet those criteria, their clearance should be either suspended or revoked.

Not emotional, not political, it's a cut and dried situation.

In the case of Brennan and Clapper, there is one criterion that clearly impacts their eligibility to hold a clearance...and that criterion is their outside activities as talking heads for MSNBC and CNN. Even if they were pro-Trump. Being a professional talking head for a news network is not compatible with holding a clearance.

See point (4) of the following snippet:

(For example, I would imagine that Sebastian Gorka no longer holds a clearance. If he again needs a clearance, he should have to give up his job as a talking head)

[Lisbon1940]

They’ll make no appearance now that they don’t have the clearance. Their vileness is plain for all to see.

[Fresh Wind]

I knew a guy who lost his TS clearance back in the cold war days, apparently for the problem mentioned in section (b)(2) and maybe (b)(3) in your post. My belief is that he got trapped in a honeypot.

I feel sorry for him, because it pretty much destroyed his employability in his chosen field, but he should have known better than to get involved in something like that. I don’t believe he knowingly or maliciously divulged sensitive information, but he put himself in a situation in which that could certainly be suspected.

Brennan, and his associates, want us to think that the clearance is an entitlement and that security is a joke. Nothing could be further from the truth. And much worse, the talking heads in the MSM, and most liberals in general, have no clue whatsoever what is involved in security clearances, and the responsibilities that they entail (especially at the highest levels).

So, Comrade Brennan, I say “TS” to you (and by that I don’t mean “top secret”).

[markomalley]

I knew a guy who lost his TS clearance back in the cold war days, apparently for the problem mentioned in section (b)(2) and maybe (b)(3) in your post. My belief is that he got trapped in a honeypot.

Probably not for the "Outside Activities" criterion. Was probably for the "Foreign Influence" or "Sexual Behavior" criteria:

[Sparky1776]

“Need to Know”

[VanDeKoik]

If it is a 1st amendment issue, then by that reasoning we are all being deprived of our rights by not having that security clearance.

[miss marmelstein]

That genius, Bret Baier, was saying it last night. How do you get there with this shoddy and illogical claim??? I guess he got the memo from the DNC.

[bmwcyle]

Liberals make shit up.

[mewzilla]

KABOOM: Sharyl Attkisson NUKES developing media narrative about WH trying to ‘silence’ John Brennan

[jughandle]

If a national security clearance is free speech then why can’t we all sit in on security briefings and have access to classified info...

[trebb]

Most folks lose access but retain their clearances until they die a natural death (the clearances: 5 years for TS and 10 years for secret - counted down from when investigation was started for the clearance).

Removing the actual clearance is a statement of lack of trust/credibility/reliability - taking actions that would prevent one from getting the clearance in the first place...all these folks qualify as being ineligible to maintain a clearance and Trump's actions make it so an outside "contractor" agency can't reactivate the clearances/access to classified material w/o a full-blown new investigation.

[greedo]

All of the Obama-era people who are about to lose their clearances seem to have serious anger management issues. My suggestion would be to also immediately place them on the No Fly list the day that they lose their clearance. Any one of them could board a civilian aircraft, have a few drinks and then God knows what will happen if they throw a little tantrum and “act out” during the flight. A couple of them probably even know how to crash a plane even if the cockpit door is locked.

[COBOL2Java]

There is no constitutional right to a security clearance.

---

I heard a good explanation this morning on the radio. It was a courtesy of Presidents to allow former IC heads to keep their clearances, so that they could be called in to advise on some issue for which they had expertise. It made it easier for the current agency to bring them back in to a meeting.

Unfortunately, the Obama slimeballs like Brennan et. al. abused this courtesy, and after giving them enough rope to hang themselves (so to speak), Trump is now pulling their clearances.

[FrankR]

A “security clearance” is NOT a right, it’s a privilege.

National secrets are not for public knowledge, they are for our security an defense.

Divulging classified information is punishable by law, therefore taking it out of the realm of “free speech”.

The only “secret” the media knows about is when, say, an Anchor person is having a sordid affair with their co-anchor...and even that doesn’t stay “secret” for long.

[Fresh Wind]

Yeah, without going into any more detail, “foreign influence” would almost certainly have been the source of his problem.