Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 15, 2018

President Donald Trump has revoked former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced Wednesday. Sanders said Trump has a "unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nation's classified information." Brennan has been an outspoken critic of Trump.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

From Brennan's lips to God's ears. Trump continues to debase the office of the President on nearly a daily basis. The end of his tyrannical narcissism as POTUS cannot come quickly enough.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-08-15 03:58 PM | Reply


From the cited article:
... However, Trump revoked Brennan's access because he believes that Brennan has exhibited "erratic conduct" and questionable credibility, Sanders said. ...

Erratic conduct, questionable credibility? Is Ms Sanders sure she wasn't speaking of Pres Trump when she uttered those words?

For me it is all about Pres Trump's inability to handle criticism, plain and simple.

Pres Trump needs to be adulated. Pres Trump needs people to bow down before him.

I applaud fmr CIA Dir Brennan for speaking his mind. If only more Republicans would do so in the light of day, instead of cowering in the darkness.

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-15 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Headline could also read:

Trump breaks continuity of leadership at the CIA, harming US security.

But that is too many characters.

#3 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-08-15 04:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

WTF did he need it for in a life away from the government?

#4 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-15 05:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

The only thing Trump protects is himself.

The longer this farce goes on the more scorn and derision you idiots deserve for foisting this nonsense on the rest of us.

#5 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-15 05:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

For me it is all about Pres Trump's inability to handle criticism, plain and simple.

#2 | Posted by LampLighter

Why should he have to take crap from anyone, do you?

#6 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-15 05:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I just surprised it took Trump this long, given his narcissism.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-15 05:13 PM | Reply

About time.

#8 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-08-15 05:40 PM | Reply

About time.

#9 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-08-15 05:40 PM | Reply

About time.

#10 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-08-15 05:40 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Why should he have to take crap from anyone, do you?

#6 | Posted by Sniper

Because he's elected to represent EVERYONE, not just the racist morons who believe fox news.

If he doesn't want to be held accountable by citizens he should stay in the private sector.

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-08-15 05:45 PM | Reply

About time.

#10 | Posted by visitor_

Is it about time?

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-08-15 05:45 PM | Reply

"WTF did he need it for in a life away from the government?

#4 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2018-08-15 05:02 PM | REPLY | FLAG:"

As a former Director of the CIA, it seems likely to me that his opinion may well have been sought on issues of national security where his experience was considered valuable. I assume that without a security clearance, he cannot be consulted. Denying access to a valuable resource means the only loser is the US. I think we've seen enough of Trump to know this ranks a very distant second to him getting personal revenge.

#13 | Posted by Foreigner at 2018-08-15 05:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8


@#4 ... WTF did he need it for in a life away from the government? ...

These officials talk among themselves for insight and information. Even officials Pres Trump has put into office have stated that they often consult with officials of the prior administration to obtain a better understanding of the global situation.

Now those officials in the Trump administration have lost a significant source of information for the decisions they have to make, in some respects putting the Country in jeopardy. And you appear to be applauding the situation,.

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-15 06:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lamp,

At over 18 months removed, and counting, his value as a resource has been becoming an ever-diminishing return. On top of that I am doubtful that anyone is consulting him given his abject hostility to this administration. Further, now that he works for a media company the risk of leaks is even higher given the current atmosphere of leaks.

Of course, being the petulant child he is, Trump uses this as an opportunity to bash the guy.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 06:11 PM | Reply

"At over 18 months removed, and counting, his value as a resource has been becoming an ever-diminishing return."

You're making ---- up. You have no idea what he knows.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-15 06:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Wow,

Never thought I'd see the CIA so clearly shown to not be a shadowy puppet master but just another government agency mistreated by an orange fascist.

#17 | Posted by Tor at 2018-08-15 06:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

At over 18 months removed, and counting, his value as a resource has been becoming an ever-diminishing return. On top of that I am doubtful that anyone is consulting him given his abject hostility to this administration. Further, now that he works for a media company the risk of leaks is even higher given the current atmosphere of leaks.
Of course, being the petulant child he is, Trump uses this as an opportunity to bash the guy.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-08-15 06:11 PM | REPLY

You're full of caca as per the usual. You don't know crap Jeff you really don't. I betcha he was consulted a lot before this. You just make it up as you go don't you??

#18 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-08-15 06:23 PM | Reply

time.com

The White House announced Wednesday that President Donald Trump is revoking the security clearance of former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan, who has been a harsh critic of Trump's rhetoric and policies.

"Historically, former heads of intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been allowed to retain access to classified information after their government service, so that they can consult with their successors regarding matters about which they may have special insights and as a professional courtesy. Neither of these justifications supports Mr. Brennan's continued access to classified information," Trump said in a statement read aloud by White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders at Wednesday's press briefing.

"At this point in my administration, any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with Mr. Brennan are now outweighed by the risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior," the statement continued.

MY WORDS FOLLOW

You're really a Dummkopf Jeff.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-08-15 06:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You are a misogynist, Laura.

BTW - your c/p followed by an insult didn't disprove what I said in any way.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 06:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Unless Brennan is doing something illegal there is never any reason to "revoke" a security clearance. They are very expensive to get so you never "revoke" them without good cause.

When you leave an agency your clearance automatically goes to "inactive" and "current" status. They can be asked to return or help but they can only access classified material on a NEED TO KNOW BASIS. So even having a clearance does not do you any good unless you have a need to know.

Revoking Brennan's clearance means nothing. He can still be "read on" to see "need to know material".

Humpy is just being a spiteful douchenoozle.

F him and the whore he rode in on.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-15 06:31 PM | Reply

You are a misogynist, Laura.
BTW - your c/p followed by an insult didn't disprove what I said in any way.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-08-15 06:31 PM | REPLY

WTF???? That's way out of line Jeff even for you.

#22 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-08-15 06:32 PM | Reply

Danforth,

You don't know what he knows either.

Fact is with each passing day what he knows becomes more and more dated.

Having said that this is as much out of spite as it is anything else.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 06:33 PM | Reply

When it comes to the girls locker room and transgenders you are a misogynist, Laura.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 06:35 PM | Reply

When it comes to the girls locker room and transgenders you are a misogynist, Laura.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-08-15 06:35 PM | REPLY

You're a total disgrace Jeff. BTW What does that have to do with the subject matter at hand??

#25 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-08-15 06:36 PM | Reply

Demanding trans women be treated equally does not a Misogynist make Jeff.

#26 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-08-15 06:38 PM | Reply

Laterz.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-08-15 06:40 PM | Reply

At over 18 months removed, and counting, his value as a resource has been becoming an ever-diminishing return.

Do you know anything about this subject or are you just making ---- up? Our intel community works on generational issues that span decades, and successors are routinely called upon for input on these matters. By revoking a clearance because Brennan hurt Trump's fee-fees, our intel community is harmed and our nation is arguably less safe. Don't just take my word for it, here's a former Acting CIA Director:

"For as long as I have been aware, which is probably two decades, former senior officials have kept their clearances. And the purpose is not to benefit the individual. It's to benefit the government. So, for example, I go into CIA regularly and I help them think through issues, I talk to people, I'm there to assist in any variety of ways...I've been given a lot of briefings because a director or a deputy director or another senior official wanted me to know something because they wanted to ask me a question or get my reaction to something."

-Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell

Gee, who should I listen to on this one?

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-15 06:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

"When it comes to the girls locker room and transgenders you are a misogynist, Laura."

Misogyny is when you believe trans women women can use the women's locker room?

What's it called when you think trans women shouldn't be allowed to use the women's locker room?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-15 06:42 PM | Reply

Jeff, it doesn't matter what he knows - he's brought in because he has a clearance and history and can provide insight. Current events go stale, but the institutional memory is critical and should be maintained. This action, meant to punish Brennan, hurts all of us. Trump continues to put his feelings over our Country, and idiots like Sniper and Visitor cheerlead this idiocy. They even prove that this was nothing more than vindictive behavior, and they love Trump for it.

Trump's made this punitive for Brennan exercising this First Amendment rights, which Brennan is legally entitled to exercise without retribution from the Government. None of Brennan's comments have involved anything involving his clearance or information gleaned from classified materials. That means there was no legitimate reason for revoking his clearance.

This is another really stupid move on Trump's part, IMHO.

#30 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-15 06:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"You don't know what he knows either. "

Trump admits he confers with the current leaders, something you pretended didn't happen.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-15 06:43 PM | Reply

I apologize for hijacking the thread with the trans bathroom issue. I apologize to Laura for the personal attack-I went too far.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 06:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"This action, meant to punish Brennan, hurts all of us."

Care to tell us this doesn't weaken us, JeffJ? Just like Strzok's firing when he was recommended for suspension doesn't weaken that agency.

You must really believe in this Deep State nonsense. Sad. Bigly sad.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-15 06:45 PM | Reply

#30

That is really well-stated, Yav.

I am curious as to how much former intel members are consulted by new administrations. How much is exclusive to Brennan? Do his former underlings have it all covered?

From what I've read, other than Gates, the Obama administration rarely, if ever, consulted Bush's peeps.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 06:50 PM | Reply

And there's the Obama Deflection we've been waiting for!

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-15 06:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Just like your terrible understanding of equivalence your understanding of "deflection" is weak, at best , Snoofy.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 06:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Having said that this is as much out of spite as it is anything else"

It's purely out of spite.
You can't even name another reason!
LOL

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-15 06:55 PM | Reply


@#15 ... At over 18 months removed, and counting, his value as a resource has been becoming an ever-diminishing return. ...

If he has been receiving the info (and he has), he is remaining up to date. His ability to analyze the information, and provide opinions and insight does not diminish.


... On top of that I am doubtful that anyone is consulting him given his abject hostility to this administration. ...

Really? If you think that the intelligence agencies are so politicized that they push aside the knowledgeable contribution of someone, I'd say you are mistaken.

... Further, now that he works for a media company the risk of leaks is even higher given the current atmosphere of leaks. ...

I place this in the same category as your second item. fmr CIA Dir Brennan knows quite well the difference between classified info and news fodder. If you want to place that type of stain on him, I would hope you have some proof to offer.

 

On the other hand, Pres Trump has shown time and time again that he is thin-skinned and quite unable to handle criticism.

#38 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-08-15 06:56 PM | Reply

"Further, now that he works for a media company the risk of leaks is even higher given the current atmosphere of leaks. ..."

Fanciful, baseless BS from a fanciful, baseless BSer.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-15 06:58 PM | Reply

Fact is with each passing day what he knows becomes more and more dated.

What a myopic, ignorant view showing a complete disregard for the concept of institutional memory. What Brennan knows is not going to entail any interaction with Trump, it would involve his knowledge and expertise that was gleaned from his years of service and particular intimate knowledge of persons, countries or players who may still play a role in ongoing US security matters being solicited and shared with current officials, not to mention his relationships with career personnel he previously worked with who remain in government service that still seek his counsel and expertise.

This is true for any administration's former political appointments who served in intelligence and reportedly no prior administration ever took the steps to revoke someone's clearance regardless of party. Brennan has not divulged any classified information and has openly spoken about the way Trump presides and how his actions and decisions vary from every President that he served under previously prior to this one. Michael Hayden was a strong critic of Obama on some subjects and has been critical of Trump as well finds himself "under review" for possible revocation as does every single FBI/DOJ person that Trump summarily fired (or has been fired and affiliated with the ongoing investigation into his campaign: Yates, Comey, Strzok, Page, Ohr, McCabe, and a couple others).

It's inconceivable that anyone would try to downplay how destructive this is to the morale of those who work in our clandestine services as most quietly do their jobs to protect America at the same time the President they serve incessantly attacks them and their integrity on a daily basis. And now he acts vindictively because those who try and defend their former agencies dare criticize his unpatriotic rantings that serve no purpose but to protect his own fragile ego and likely criminal conduct from public exposure and likely prosecution. Trump is not going to win this battle, in fact he lost the second he decided his lies were more important than their truths.

#40 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-08-15 06:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why should he have to take crap from anyone, do you?

#6 | POSTED BY SNIPER

He doesn't need to but he chooses to. Because he's got the mind of an 8 year old.

#41 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-15 07:03 PM | Reply

"At over 18 months removed, and counting, his value as a resource has been becoming an ever-diminishing return."

You took extra stipid pills today, JeffJ.

You know the name Steve Jobs? You know he was CEO of Apple, then he left for like ten years, and he came back when Apple was circling the drain and built Apple into the behemoth it is today.

Maybe you know the name Howard Schultz? Did the same to a lesser extent at Starbucks.

You don't know a damn thing about how the world works, and it's embarrassing to the DR to endure your relentless shallow know-it-all stupidity.

Go find a BBQ forum or trans hate club where you can be useful. Pathetic moron.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-15 07:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Snoofy,

Please find a job.

You'd make a good barista. You are bright and well-read. PLEASE - it's ridiculous that you have been voluntarily unemployed for this long.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 07:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Why should he have to take crap from anyone, do you?"

Well Sniper you threatened murder and we didn't turn your into the cops.

#44 | Posted by Tor at 2018-08-15 07:48 PM | Reply

As President Donald Trump's White House struggled with accusations of racism over his attacks on African-American former aide Omarosa Manigault Newman, on Wednesday he announced security clearance reviews of a number of vocal critics ― and Susan Rice, who is also African-American. Rice, who served as former President Barack Obama's ambassador to the United Nations and later as his national security adviser, has kept a relatively low profile since Trump has taken office. "She's a convenient target for something that has nothing to do with what she's said," said Ned Price, a former CIA analyst and National Security Council spokesman under Obama.

The others on Trump's list: James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Bruce Ohr.

Clapper was the director of national intelligence under Obama; Comey was the FBI director in charge of the investigation into whether Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to help him win; Hayden led the National Security Agency under Obama, Yates was the deputy attorney general who notified the White House that Trump's first national security adviser had lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russia; McCabe, Strzok and Page are former FBI employees involved with the Russia probe (Strzok and Page sent each other text messages disparaging Trump in the course of a romantic relationship); and Ohr is a current FBI official whom Trump doesn't like because his wife works for an opposition research firm that worked for Trump's Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Of those, Clapper and Hayden have, like Brennan, been forceful in their criticism of Trump's actions and demeanor since taking office, with frequent television appearances. Rice has remained much lower key, typically expressing her opposition to his foreign policy moves in op-eds, rather than on TV.

Anyone else notice a trend here? Pure narcissistic vendetta; nothing more, nothing less.

#45 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-08-15 07:54 PM | Reply

JeffJ

Please find a clue.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-15 08:14 PM | Reply

Joe Biden @JoeBiden

In the time I have known him, John Brennan has never been afraid to speak up and give it to you straight. Revoking his security clearance is an act unbecoming of a President. If you think it will silence John, then you just don't know the man.

#47 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-08-15 08:15 PM | Reply

When backed into a corner, Jeff reverts to "trolling the libs" rather than admit he was talking from his sphincter. I wish there were a few intellectually honest conservatives on this site, but they really don't exist.

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-15 08:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I do give Jeff credit for this post:

I apologize for hijacking the thread with the trans bathroom issue. I apologize to Laura for the personal attack-I went too far.
#32 | Posted by JeffJ

#49 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-08-15 08:20 PM | Reply

So much f--king projection:

from Trump's full statement on revoking John Brennan's security clearance:

Additionally, Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations – wild outbursts on the internet and television – about this Administration. Mr. Brennan's lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the Nation's most closely held secrets and facilitates the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos.

www.foxnews.com

#50 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-08-15 08:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

wild outbursts on the internet

They have to be trolling by throwing that in there.

#51 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-15 08:38 PM | Reply

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner

July 24: Ryan says Trump is just trolling about revoking security clearances

July 26: Date on Trump statement revoking Brennan's security clearance

twitter.com

(Geidner=Legal Editor, @BuzzFeedNews NatSec Team. SCOTUS Correspondent. Covering Trump & Mueller.)

#52 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-08-15 08:45 PM | Reply

Ryan's become worthless little s**t at best.

#53 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-15 09:21 PM | Reply

On top of that I am doubtful that anyone is consulting him given his abject hostility to this administration.

Assuming people in the IC view everything as partisanly as Trump and his mouth breathing base.

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-15 09:34 PM | Reply

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw

This is a partisan and vindictive violation of the First Amendment, designed to shut up Trump's critics. It won't work and, worse, it's a serious abuse of presidential power, arguably a "high Crime and Misdemeanor."

#55 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-08-15 10:11 PM | Reply

--Laurence Tribe @tribelaw

This is a partisan and vindictive violation of the First Amendment,

What a steaming load. When did a security clearance become a constitutional right?

#56 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-15 10:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It isn't. Is what's going on here, the basic concept, just too difficult for you, or you doing your best to misdirect and obfuscate?

#57 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-15 10:35 PM | Reply

Has anyone stopped Brennan from exercising his 1st amendment rights on national tv? This guy is a dirtbag.

#58 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-15 10:41 PM | Reply

"Has anyone stopped Brennan from exercising his 1st amendment rights on national tv?"

If he was hoping to use one of the Seven Dirty Words, then yes, the government has stopped Brennan from exercising his First Amendment rights on national TV.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-15 10:49 PM | Reply

hen did a security clearance become a constitutional right?

While i don't necessarily agree with the theory, I believe they are saying that Brennan was punished by the government for speaking his mind, i.e. exercising his right to free speech. Not that one has a constitutional right to a clearance, but to speak without retribution.

#60 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-15 10:50 PM | Reply

#60 - what I said in #30, though I agree with the "theory" 100%.
The President has many powers, but the way he uses them matters a great deal.

#61 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-15 10:55 PM | Reply

Joe,

The wisdom of this decision is certainly debatable and I already stipulated that vindictiveness was likely an over-riding factor in this decision.

However, in no way is this a violation of Brennan's 1st Amendment rights.

His free speech is not being infringed by the government.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 10:59 PM | Reply

Hi Jeff. I didn't say it was. I merely explained the theory to someone who framed it incorrectly.

I'll note you never responded to #28.

#63 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-15 11:02 PM | Reply

"His free speech is not being infringed by the government.

#62 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-08-15 10:59 PM | REPLY | "

Agreed, but his exercise of free speech is being punished by this administration and this sends a message to others in Brennan's position. If the fear of having their security clearance revoked stops others from speaking freely, has their 1st amendment right been infringed?

#64 | Posted by Foreigner at 2018-08-15 11:20 PM | Reply

If the fear of having their security clearance revoked stops others from speaking freely, has their 1st amendment right been infringed?

#64 | POSTED BY FOREIGNER

No. Doesn't make this heavy-handedness and spitefulness right, but it's not a 1st Amendment violation.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 11:27 PM | Reply

I'll note you never responded to #28.

#63 | POSTED BY JOE

Didn't see it - family obligations took precedence. I'll take a look right now...

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 11:28 PM | Reply

It's a fair point, Joe. No doubt. My first argument was, and is, that as time passes his informational value diminishes. Secondly, I would feel very differently about this had a whole slew of others had their clearances withdrawn as well - it's not like others who were just under Brennan weren't privy to what he was privy to. Third, given his hostility to this administration I think the likelihood of both seeking his insight and Brennan providing anything useful is very low. Lastly, this administration has already been a leak-factory. Giving someone who is a contributor to a major media outlet clearance who is also demonstrably hostile is a risk for abusing clearance and leaking out of spite.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 11:35 PM | Reply

#65 - I agree - it's just a simple abuse of power - nothing to see here.

#68 | Posted by Foreigner at 2018-08-15 11:48 PM | Reply

#65 - I agree - it's just a simple abuse of power - nothing to see here.

#68 | POSTED BY FOREIGNER

I wouldn't so flippantly dismiss it.

Having said that, in his current capacity Brennan doesn't have a claim on security clearance. It's certainly spiteful but I'm not at all convinced it's an abuse of power.

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 11:52 PM | Reply

It's not just Brennan, it's the entire list of former officials now under White House "review" to determine whether they can keep their security clearances. What is this telling them?

The others on Trump's list: Susan Rice, James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Bruce Ohr.
Huckabee read the list today at the news conference. What have these people done that quantifies their clearances being withdrawn?

#70 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-08-15 11:57 PM | Reply

#70 The only name on that list that I am unfamiliar with in terms of warranting a review is Michael Hayden.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-16 12:05 AM | Reply

John Brennan's public service:

-CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia
-CIA chief of staff
-Director of Terrorist Threat Integration Center
-Director of National Counter terrorism Center
-White House Homeland Security Adviser
-CIA director
-Briefed three presidents

You tell me: Does anyone not think that this man can continue to play an important and vital role in this nation's ongoing security based upon the vast experience his career has afforded him?

Is there anything except Donald Trump's personal feelings that should deny this nation of his continued service if/as it might be needed?

And if it is solely based on Trump's personal feelings and no other objective security violation(s), wouldn't Trump's actions be potentially detrimental to US security? Trump's act is an abuse of power, an impeachable offense in its own right.

Trump continues to break the law in plain sight because he's still sure that the GOP and his base will never allow him to be held accountable.

#72 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-08-16 12:10 AM | Reply

"#70 The only name on that list that I am unfamiliar with in terms of warranting a review is Michael Hayden."

Oh I see.
You do support the Trump Purge.
Thanks for clearing that up, JeffJ.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-16 12:13 AM | Reply

#69 - My understanding is that there are 13 " adjudicative guidelines " for revoking a security clearance which set out the disqualifying conditions. None of the 13 are applicable for simply holding opposing political views or criticizing the incumbent administration.

Trump has the authority to revoke a security clearance but he has done so by ignoring the adjudicative guidelines - I call this an abuse of power.

#74 | Posted by Foreigner at 2018-08-16 12:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Trump has the authority to revoke a security clearance but he has done so by ignoring the adjudicative guidelines - I call this an abuse of power.

#74 | POSTED BY FOREIGNER A

That's not an unfair assessment. Trump's stated reasoning for terminating Brennan's clearance was to attack him personally. Whilst Brennan deserves no sympathy as he's getting back what he's dished out, Trump's rationale is vindictive and he isn't shy about it.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-16 12:28 AM | Reply

JEFF

CIA intel isn't a one-off thing. The cast of characters under investigation and their plots can be many years in the making.

Think again. Are you sure you didn't know that?

#76 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-08-16 06:35 AM | Reply

My first argument was, and is, that as time passes his informational value diminishes.

Not even the shameless Trump administration is making that argument, because it isn't true.They are tying the revocation exclusively to Brennan's mean words and the Russia probe. If you can say with a straight face that those are good enough reasons to remove an experienced intelligence resource i'll eat my hat.

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-16 07:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Unrelated to Brennar a bit, but I'm curious as to why Trump is intent on greasing the skids for his own impeachment. Trump is acting with total abandonment ~ and even appears to be writing the script for his own Articles of Impeachment even as the walls are closing in around him.

Stupidity?
Arrogance?
Mental condition?
Brain tumor?
Martyr?
Blind faith in Sean Hannity?
Blind faith in Russian election rigging?
Blind faith in his dwindling base?

I'm out of ideas.

#78 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-08-16 08:43 AM | Reply

#78 The problem is that the media gives him more airtime than anyone else, and his abject lies (and those of his stcophants) are given the same weight as truthful statements from nonpartisan sources. What we are left with is a situation where many people who don't pay close attention are left guessing as to who is right. 2020 will be a closer race than anyone thinks, if Trump isn't dead or in a prison cell.

#79 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-16 08:50 AM | Reply

"I'm out of ideas."

My guess is when it gets really close--say, Junior and Jared get indicted--Trump will pardon them, resign, and--no surprise--blame the deep state, Democrats, the media, the "fake news", i.e., everyone but himself.

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-16 08:52 AM | Reply

resign

Trump doesn't have enough shame to resign. Plus, the fact that he's President* is one of his primary arguments against being indicted or forced to testify. He'd pardon himself and invite litigation before resigning, and even then he'd still get 40%+ of the vote in 2020.

#81 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-16 09:03 AM | Reply

#78 Blind faith in himself?

#82 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-08-16 09:04 AM | Reply

"Trump's rationale is vindictive and he isn't shy about it"

It is also unconstitutional

but you and the other DR constitutional "experts" certainly won't proclaim that, even after you personally claimed an imaginary "constitutional Crisis" every week for the 8 years of OBAMA

#83 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-08-16 10:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

The things Brennan has done, under false pretenses, are unspeakable. But in his retired capacity he plays a minor role as a thorn in Trump's side. As pressure mounts on several fronts Trump is lashing out at his critics in every childish desperate way he can. Soon Trump's enemies list will consume all his time. There is no honor among war criminals.

#84 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-08-16 11:21 AM | Reply

"It's not just Brennan, it's the entire list of former officials now under White House "review" to determine whether they can keep their security clearances. What is this telling them?

The others on Trump's list: Susan Rice, James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Bruce Ohr.
Huckabee read the list today at the news conference. What have these people done that quantifies their clearances being withdrawn?"

What have they done that qualifies them to keep their clearance? They are the deep state that has kept their jobs while failing massively.

#85 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-08-16 11:26 AM | Reply

They are the deep state that has kept their jobs while failing massively.

#85 | POSTED BY VISITOR

STFU stooge.

#86 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-16 11:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#85 - as long as you're clueless, refuse to read, choose not to educate yourself, and keep asking the same question, I hope people continue to ignore you. Especially when you use terms like "deep state."

#87 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-16 11:38 AM | Reply

Brain tumor?
#78 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

Can't be that one as it would require him having a brain.

#88 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-16 12:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#69 - My understanding is that there are 13 " adjudicative guidelines " for revoking a security clearance which set out the disqualifying conditions. None of the 13 are applicable for simply holding opposing political views or criticizing the incumbent administration.

That is correct, I posted them here.

#89 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-08-16 12:21 PM | Reply

Trump cites Russia probe as a reason for revoking former CIA chief John Brennan's security clearance

www.google.com

#90 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2018-08-16 12:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The others on Trump's list: Susan Rice, James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Bruce Ohr.
Huckabee read the list today at the news conference. What have these people done that quantifies their clearances being withdrawn?"
What have they done that qualifies them to keep their clearance? They are the deep state that has kept their jobs while failing massively.

#85 | POSTED BY VISITOR_
...
Brennan hasn't had security clearance since Jan. 20, 2017. He was read out of his clearance upon leaving the CIA.
...
Trump revoked his security clearance that Brennan would have IF he started working for the Feds again in intelligence...meaning he would merely have to re-apply for it if he took up work for the CIA again.
...
The security clearance is good for a certain period of time but only while working for the Feds. It just means they've passed a full background check to handle sensitive information while in their position. Brennan isn't in that position any longer. Neither are most of the others you listed.
...
Please do tell us how they have failed massively though. And tell us what you know about their actions in the "Deep State" and why Trump hasn't done anything about it. Please, try using FACTS for once rather than crying like an Infowars snowflake.

#91 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-16 01:04 PM | Reply

#90 - He just doesn't keep his mouth shut, and I am grateful for it.
He's admitting that Brennan's revocation isn't based on any of the 13 adjudicative guidelines, and he has no legitimate reason for overriding the agencies grant on the clearance. He didn't cite (doubt he even knew they existed) any of them, either.

#92 | Posted by YAV at 2018-08-16 01:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The most petulant yam I have ever witnessed.

#93 | Posted by SunTzuMeow at 2018-08-16 01:23 PM | Reply

The first and second Iraq war. 911. Spying on American citizens.

#94 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-08-16 01:35 PM | Reply

Abu Ghraid, water boarding, rendition. These are the people you are holding up as heroes.

#95 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-08-16 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The first and second Iraq war. 911. Spying on American citizens.
#94 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT

Abu Ghraid, water boarding, rendition. These are the people you are holding up as heroes.
#95 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

I know reality is hard for you so let me help...

The issue isn't that these people are heroes. The issue is that Trump is revoking their security clearance because they are critical of him.

If you don't have an issue with that, this isn't the right country for you.

#96 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-16 02:14 PM | Reply

#89 - thanks.

#97 | Posted by Foreigner at 2018-08-16 03:07 PM | Reply

I wish I still had my TS SCI clearance now so I could get it revoked.

I would be honored to be on Humpy's "Enemies List".

#98 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-16 04:32 PM | Reply

The admiral who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden just hit Trump with a devastating editorial

Former Navy admiral Bill McRaven wrote an open letter to President Donald Trump in rebuke of him revoking the security clearance for former CIA director John Brennan.

"I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency," he wrote.

McRaven then explained that President Trump has failed to live up to his presidential expectations and said that his "McCarthy-era tactics" would not silence his critics.

"Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs."

He added, "Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities. Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation."

"If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken," McRaven concluded. "The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be."

Raw Story

#99 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2018-08-16 05:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

DONNER

"I would be honored to be on Humpy's "Enemies List."

At the rate Trump's paranoia is growing (www.deviantart.com - Giant Amoeba) there's little chance of any room left.

I understand that the few remaining wannabee enemy slots have gone to auction.

#100 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-08-16 10:07 PM | Reply

"Fact is with each passing day what he knows becomes more and more dated." - #23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-15 06:33 PM

The whole idea of allowing former intelligence officers access to sensitive materials is so that what they know does not become "more and more dated."

That, coupled with their experience and contacts, makes them very valuable to successive administrations.

#101 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-17 02:14 PM | Reply

"with each passing day what he knows becomes more and more dated."

I've served on one particular committee for the last 35 years, 8 of them as Chair. I stepped down from the chair about 15 years ago, and the current chair still calls me regularly for advice.

Institutional knowledge keeps you from making the same mistakes over and over.

#102 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-17 02:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Institutional knowledge may be valuable but Brennan's current demeanor calls his value into question.

#103 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-08-17 02:25 PM | Reply

"Brennan's current demeanor calls his value into question."

Absolute nonsense. Disagreeing with idiocy doesn't diminish one's value.

#104 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-17 02:32 PM | Reply

"Abu Ghraid, water boarding, rendition. These are the people you are holding up as heroes.
#95 | POSTED BY VISITOR_"

Oh you mean all the things you supported under Bush.

Well seeing as Gina Haspell is one of those heroes and is now head of CIA, it might be useful for her to compare notes with the other retired heroes.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-17 02:32 PM | Reply

Brennan's current demeanor calls his value into question.

I'd rather let high-level natsec officials determine what weight to accord Brennan's experience than you or Donnie Diapers.

#106 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-17 02:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pretty funny how progressives who used to hate the CIA now think Brennan is the second coming of Paul Revere.

#107 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-08-17 02:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I never claimed to hate the CIA, but now you'll claim you weren't talking about me.

#108 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-17 02:48 PM | Reply

Since when have progressives hated the CIA? Was it when Cheney's office blew Valerie Wilson's cover?

Nulli knows it's not about Brennan, it's about organizational continuity. But he can't pass up a chance to troll. It's how he adds value.

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-17 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort