Posted on 08/18/2018 7:15:49 AM PDT by centurion316
I do not share my friend David Frenchs theoretical constitutional concerns about the presidents revocation of security clearances at least when it comes to former government officials who become media commentators and have no demonstrable need for a security clearance. Like David and many other analysts, though, I think its a big mistake to politicize the revocation of security clearances.
Still, I am even less of a fan of the politicization of intelligence itself. And that justifies the revocation of former CIA director John Brennans clearance.
As is often the case with President Trump, the right thing has been done here for the wrong reason, namely, for vengeance against a political critic who is always zealous and often unhinged. That a decision amounts to political payback does not necessarily make it wrong on the merits, but its in-your-face pettiness is counterproductive, undermining its justification.
Brennans tweets about Trump are objectively outrageous. To compare, I think some of former CIA director Mike Haydens tweets are ill-advised particularly this one, comparing Trumps border-enforcement policy to Nazi concentration camps. But General Hayden is making anti-Trump political arguments, not intimating that he has knowledge of Trump corruption based on his (Haydens) privileged access to intelligence information (which he may or may not still have I havent asked him). Hayden is absolutely entitled to speak out in that vein. Generally, he is a voice of reason even when one disagrees with him, and lets be real here even his edgier tweets are pretty tame compared to the presidents.
Brennan, by contrast, speaks out in a nod-and-a-wink manner, the undercurrent of which is that if he could only tell you the secrets he knows, youd demand Trumps impeachment forthwith. (See, e.g., tweets here, here, and here.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Are “security clearances” in the Constitution? Serious question.
Where did that get the Mensheviks? Bullets to the head, death by exhaustion and starvation in the gulags. Their pecksniffian moral superiority in the face of monstrous barbarism played right into the Bolsheviks' hand.
Excellent observation, the best take on John Brennan that I have ever seen. Unfortunately, it’s not a game, he is playing to win and his objective is to destroy this country. The Intelligence community has become infested with people like John Brennan who are willing to use the power of government to advance their private political agenda. This corruption has been operating quietly for years, with mixed results. But, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton rose to power, these people were turned loose and received sanctions for their criminal behavior. Brennan is the tip of the iceberg.
I think Trump revoked it because he's preparing to partially declassify a whole bunch of redacted documents in Congress' hands right now -- by unredacting Brennan's name in those documents.
“This writer is a dip-stick.”
And one of the Original Never-Trumpers.
Most of the president’s worst mistakes come from waiting too long. He needs to use his own intuition and ignore his lawyers.
Isn’t that the truth.
It seems awfully presumptuous to think an outside observer can credibly define what “waiting too long” means in this context.
So many of them out there...
I kind of like that he lets these folks hang themselves so that even people who don’t follow politics are aware of how bad they are before he takes action.
Brennan was clearly a loose cannon to us a long time ago, but I think the public came up to speed on him, and Trump lowered the boom.
Look at those twelve supposed important people who trashed Trump for taking action on Brennan. You don’t have to dig much at all to find out what partisan hacks they have been.
Trump gives these folks enough rope to hang themselves.
And the mass hysteria with which they’ve all reacted is as well evidence that these clearances were a source of power to them.
bookmark
It is the right thing to do and should have been done the minute he was fired. Same with Hellary and the rest of them.
Revoking Brennans Security Clearance: The Right Thing, Even if for the Wrong Reason
Revoking Brennans Security Clearance: The Right Thing.
Consider it fixed.
George Washington had a very effective band of spies operating in occupied New York City, he understood secrecy. Our new country was also serious about treason and they hanged traitors. But, no “security clearances” did not make it to the pages of the Constitution. The current dust up is a deliberate disinformation campaign to protect the criminals.
He lied to Congress under oath at lteast twice: when he testified that the government wasn’t collecting information on American citizens and when he testified that the dossier had nothing to do with the Carter Page FISA application.
He admits to voting Communist for president once. How many more times is he NOT admitting to?
He has revealed classified information in tweets and other public fora.
All of those are good reasons to take his clearance.
One question that did come up. Does everyone on the President's WH team (including relatives) have security clearance? They should or they should leave. And what about Omarosa? The more we learn about her, the more we have to wonder how she had security clearance.
Then there's the issue of lying for a security clearance. Of course, anyone who lied on the application should have clearances permanently revoked.
If there's no one left to work for the Deep State, that's just icing on the cake.
“”Once someone appears on television as a political commentator, the security clearance should be revoked.””
That should be cast in stone and given to every former employee in writing as they walk out the door. Excellent idea!! BUT in case some don’t appear on TV, they need to be revoked anyway. I don’t know if Susan Rice appears as a commentator on any show since leaving the administration but there is no good reason whatsoever for her to have kept hers - if true - OR for her to ever have had secret service protection. Wonder if she still has it? I think it may have been Judge Jeanine last night filling in for Hannity who said she didn’t know if she has it. But then again, I can be mixing up remarks from various shows...
He assumes Trump acted with revenge. Is he inside Trump’s head?
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.