Trump Revokes Clearance Of Ex-CIA Boss Brennan, Puts Other Critics On Notice

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Are they worried they will not be able to garner the highest fees as insider pundits?

Quote

"Former government officials have the right to express their unclassified views on what they see as critical national security issues without fear of being punished," said the former officials, who served in the military, State Department, Justice Department and a range of security agencies.

The list includes Democrats and Republicans. More than 10 former ambassadors and more than 20 former U.S. attorneys signed on. Anthony Lake, a national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, and Bill Burns, a top State Department official for many years, were among those who took part.

As with the two earlier letters, the former officials said their show of support does "not necessarily mean that we concur with the opinions expressed by Former CIA Director Brennan or the way in which he expressed them."

But they added: "The country will be weakened if there is a political litmus test applied before seasoned experts are allowed to share their views."

Another Wave Of Ex-National Security Officials Criticize Trump

[Dashinka 24,489]

22 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

Another Wave Of Ex-National Security Officials Criticize Trump

So tell me how revoking Brennan’s clearance is violating his 1st Amendment Rights?  I heard he was on some of the Sunday talk shows, so it appears he can still speak his mind to his heart’s content.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Intel vets slam Brennan as Trump dares ex-spymaster to sue over security clearance

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/20/intel-vets-slam-brennan-as-trump-dares-ex-spymaster-to-sue-over-security-clearance.html

[Dashinka 24,489]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Intel vets slam Brennan as Trump dares ex-spymaster to sue over security clearance

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/20/intel-vets-slam-brennan-as-trump-dares-ex-spymaster-to-sue-over-security-clearance.html

It is interesting that many of the folks with the highest level of clearance on their resumes are complaining, and those in the ranks are not.

[smilesammich 10,727]

26 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So tell me how revoking Brennan’s clearance is violating his 1st Amendment Rights?  I heard he was on some of the Sunday talk shows, so it appears he can still speak his mind to his heart’s content.

only reason his clearance was revoked by trump is because he was speaking against trump. if you don't see why this is a bad idea, i can't help you.

[Dashinka 24,489]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

only reason his clearance was revoked by trump is because he was speaking against trump. if you don't see why this is a bad idea, i can't help you.

Yeah, it had nothing to do with his possibly using his access to confidential information politically to make a buck.  If you don’t see this as a bad idea I really cannot help you.  

 

Regardless, it did not violate his free speech rights as the biased media and others are trying to sell unless you have evidence Trump has actually silenced him which does not appear to be the case.  

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

only reason his clearance was revoked by trump is because he was speaking against trump. if you don't see why this is a bad idea, i can't help you.

I guess I am beyond help then ...

 

If you can't see how being against the president and his policies should allow you to have access to priveledged information to make subtle innuendos about the president's treasonous actions without ensuring he is brought to trial for those as yet unproven actions you are padding your wallet not showing the strength of your convictions, it's been an entitlement, not a necessity

[jg121783 3,915]

4 hours ago, smilesammich said:

only reason his clearance was revoked by trump is because he was speaking against trump. if you don't see why this is a bad idea, i can't help you.

If you can't see how allowing someone to keep a security clearance when they no longer have a job that requires it is a bad idea I can't help you.

[TBoneTX 45,267]

12 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Dug is what it was supposed to be.

Hot-duggity dog.

[Dashinka 24,489]

Brennan really seems to be coming unglued.  I wonder what he is afraid of?  Did he have the Steele documents back in August 2016 when he sent his letter to Harry Reid?  Considering he told Congress he only heard about that information in December of 2016 he is either lying, or he fed Reid a lot of ####### to kick-start a partisan political investigation into a candidate running for POTUS while serving in the Obama administration.  Hmmm, where was the real collusion?

 

 

By

Kimberley A. Strassel

The Wall Street Journal

July 19, 2018 6:29 p.m. ET

 

The Trump-Russia sleuthers have been back in the news, again giving Americans cause to doubt their claims of nonpartisanship. Last week it was Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Peter Strzok testifying to Congress that he harbored no bias against a president he still describes as “horrible” and “disgusting.” This week it was former FBI Director Jim Comey tweet-lecturing Americans on their duty to vote Democratic in November.

But the man who deserves a belated bit of scrutiny is former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan. He’s accused President Trump of “venality, moral turpitude and political corruption,” and berated GOP investigations of the FBI. This week he claimed on Twitter that Mr. Trump’s press conference in Helsinki was “nothing short of treasonous.” This is rough stuff, even for an Obama partisan.

That’s what Mr. Brennan is—a partisan—and it is why his role in the 2016 scandal is in some ways more concerning than the FBI’s. Mr. Comey stands accused of flouting the rules, breaking the chain of command, abusing investigatory powers. Yet it seems far likelier that the FBI’s Trump investigation was a function of arrogance and overconfidence than some partisan plot. No such case can be made for Mr. Brennan. Before his nomination as CIA director, he served as a close Obama adviser. And the record shows he went on to use his position—as head of the most powerful spy agency in the world—to assist Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and keep his job).

.

.

.

More notable, Mr. Brennan then took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was interfering in the election specifically to help Mr. Trump—which quickly evolved into the Trump-collusion narrative. Team Clinton was eager to make the claim, especially in light of the Democratic National Committee server hack. Numerous reports show Mr. Brennan aggressively pushing the same line internally. Their problem was that as of July 2016 even then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn’t buy it. He publicly refused to say who was responsible for the hack, or ascribe motivation. Mr. Brennan also couldn’t get the FBI to sign on to the view; the bureau continued to believe Russian cyberattacks were aimed at disrupting the U.S. political system generally, not aiding Mr. Trump.

The CIA director couldn’t himself go public with his Clinton spin—he lacked the support of the intelligence community and had to be careful not to be seen interfering in U.S. politics. So what to do? He called Harry Reid. In a late August briefing, he told the Senate minority leader that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump win the election, and that Trump advisers might be colluding with Russia. (Two years later, no public evidence has emerged to support such a claim.)

But the truth was irrelevant. On cue, within a few days of the briefing, Mr. Reid wrote a letter to Mr. Comey, which of course immediately became public. “The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” wrote Mr. Reid, going on to float Team Clinton’s Russians-are-helping-Trump theory. Mr. Reid publicly divulged at least one of the allegations contained in the infamous Steele dossier, insisting that the FBI use “every resource available to investigate this matter.”

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/brennan-and-the-2016-spy-scandal-1532039346