Ex-CIA official Gets Owned by Trump Supporter on Security Clearance

[Jorge Luis Borges]

That's ridiculous. Are you under the impression that one retains access to information merely by having a clearance?

If you don't retain access to information, then no need to retain a clearance. No doubt if some pressing national need arises, it would not be difficult to reinstate needed clearances on an expedited basis. Otherwise, I'd suggest that the sheer amount of leaks to the media by itself shows something needs to change.

I'd also speculate that the media outrage over Brennan losing his clearance suggests he's a key source of information for many reporters.

 

[Quipling]

If you don't retain access to information, then no need to retain a clearance. No doubt if some pressing national need arises, it would not be difficult to reinstate needed clearances on an expedited basis. Otherwise, I'd suggest that the sheer amount of leaks to the media by itself shows something needs to change.

I'd also speculate that the media outrage over Brennan losing his clearance suggests he's a key source of information for many reporters.

See, this is a fundamental failure to understand how clearances work.

Having a clearance doesn't, itself, give you access to knowledge. It's just a confirmation that you can be provided with that knowledge if the need arises. If it isn't necessary, ie, you leave the position, it is inactive, and can be reactivated easily if the need arises. The "expedited process" is what the clearances actually do. Stripping a clearance takes that off the table.

For example, a . . . person I know needed to handle a sensitive case. He was given a clearance. He did not have access to all information under that clearance. Instead, it meant that he could access specific information if it was relevant to the work that he was doing.

He no longer works in that position. But he still has a clearance. It is, however, inactive, meaning he does not have access to classified information through said clearance. Reactivating it is simple if necessary. If it was stripped, it would not be simple.

In short, the way you are claiming security clearances should is actually similar to how they already work. The way that you believe that they do work is not how they work.

And your final suggestion is a ridiculous smear. Brennan could not reasonably have been the source of the information in the (majority) of leaks. Nor is it likely a clearance was necessary for them. It's apparent that people in the Trump white house had access despite lacking clearances, and they have been very willing to leak.

 

[the ambush]

I think he's paid to appear on the show because of his background in intelligence and his ranking, not because he has a security clearance.

 

[SBJJ]

See, this is a fundamental failure to understand how clearances work.

Having a clearance doesn't, itself, give you access to knowledge. It's just a confirmation that you can be provided with that knowledge if the need arises. If it isn't necessary, ie, you leave the position, it is inactive, and can be reactivated easily if the need arises. The "expedited process" is what the clearances actually do. Stripping a clearance takes that off the table.

For example, a . . . person I know needed to handle a sensitive case. He was given a clearance. He did not have access to all information under that clearance. Instead, it meant that he could access specific information if it was relevant to the work that he was doing.

He no longer works in that position. But he still has a clearance. It is, however, inactive, meaning he does not have access to classified information through said clearance. Reactivating it is simple if necessary. If it was stripped, it would not be simple.

In short, the way you are claiming security clearances should is actually similar to how they already work. The way that you believe that they do work is not how they work.

And your final suggestion is a ridiculous smear. Brennan could not reasonably have been the source of the information in the (majority) of leaks. Nor is it likely a clearance was necessary for them. It's apparent that people in the Trump white house had access despite lacking clearances, and they have been very willing to leak.

The kind of clearance Brennan or Comey had during LM days is much different than that of your friend

Former Intel Agents working in the private sector with buddies still working in those agencies is not a good thing

 

[waiguoren]

See, this is a fundamental failure to understand how clearances work.

Having a clearance doesn't, itself, give you access to knowledge. It's just a confirmation that you can be provided with that knowledge if the need arises. If it isn't necessary, ie, you leave the position, it is inactive, and can be reactivated easily if the need arises. The "expedited process" is what the clearances actually do. Stripping a clearance takes that off the table.

For example, a . . . person I know needed to handle a sensitive case. He was given a clearance. He did not have access to all information under that clearance. Instead, it meant that he could access specific information if it was relevant to the work that he was doing.

He no longer works in that position. But he still has a clearance. It is, however, inactive, meaning he does not have access to classified information through said clearance. Reactivating it is simple if necessary. If it was stripped, it would not be simple.

In short, the way you are claiming security clearances should is actually similar to how they already work. The way that you believe that they do work is not how they work.

And your final suggestion is a ridiculous smear. Brennan could not reasonably have been the source of the information in the (majority) of leaks. Nor is it likely a clearance was necessary for them. It's apparent that people in the Trump white house had access despite lacking clearances, and they have been very willing to leak.

Did you "friend" have a TS clearance?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

This thread is funny

 

[Madmick]

The kind of clearance Brennan or Comey had during LM days is much different than that of your friend

Former Intel Agents working in the private sector with buddies still working in those agencies is not a good thing

Sure, it is, and it's also necessary for active personnel at that clearance to be able to seek their wisdom and counsel.

It's hilarious seeing all the cucks turn out for Trump on this issue. No, this private sector clearance has never been a problem, and nobody has ever questioned John Brennan...until this President; a man who surrounded himself with secret foreign agents, whose lawyer is a felon, whose campaign manager is a felon, who fucked a degenerate stripper while his wife was pregnant (and continues to try to lie about it), who has been caught in more verifiable lies than any politician in American history, who settled his own felony fraud case (defrauding his own biggest fans) for $25m before inauguration, who has scammed innumerable modest investors in real estate projects, who has repeatedly promised money to charities that he never pays, who has illegally used that charity to pay off successful litigation against him, who has lied and lied again to the American people's faces about his dealings with Russian government officials including Russian counterintelligence operatives, and who is currently shitting on his own appointment to head the Department of Justice in the same fashion he has attempted to vilify Brennan.

What sort of Benedict Arnold scumbag does one have to be to back Trump over the 175 former officials-- of both parties-- who signed that letter?
175 former US officials added to list denouncing Trump for revoking Brennan's security clearance

A similar statement was first signed by more than a dozen former intelligence officials last week. Sixty former CIA officials added their names to the statement soon after.

 

[Swing]

Did you "friend" have a TS clearance?

I had a TS clearance for all 5 years that I was in the Army. A TS clearance just means you can access TS information for the specific job that you're doing. I was never allowed to just access whatever I wanted. I had the same clearance level as all the analysts in our shop; but since they had to coordinate with higher ups and other shops on a regular basis, they obviously had access to more information than I did.

When we were getting ready to ETS, we were regularly told that we should put in to renew our clearances if we planned to use them after getting out because it's a bigger hassle to renew after it lapses. Obviously Brennan's situation would be way different than mine (I was just some random E4), but @Quipling seems to have it pretty much right based on my own experience.

I know there are others with clearances here, though, and mine expired in 2006. So I suppose I could be off the mark.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Got suspended, huh

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

It's called a double standard. You ever see one?

I have: the standard Trump applied to everyone in office before him, and the standard he applies to himself.

 

[SBJJ]

Sure, it is, and it's also necessary for active personnel at that clearance to be able to seek their wisdom and counsel.

It's hilarious seeing all the cucks turn out for Trump on this issue. No, this private sector clearance has never been a problem, and nobody has ever questioned John Brennan...until this President; a man who surrounded himself with secret foreign agents, whose lawyer is a felon, whose campaign manager is a felon, who fucked a degenerate stripper while his wife was pregnant (and continues to try to lie about it), who has been caught in more verifiable lies than any politician in American history, who settled his own felony fraud case (defrauding his own biggest fans) for $25m before inauguration, who has scammed innumerable modest investors in real estate projects, who has repeatedly promised money to charities that he never pays, who has illegally used that charity to pay off successful litigation against him, who has lied and lied again to the American people's faces about his dealings with Russian government officials including Russian counterintelligence operatives, and who is currently shitting on his own appointment to head the Department of Justice in the same fashion he has attempted to vilify Brennan.

What sort of Benedict Arnold scumbag does one have to be to back Trump over the 175 former officials-- of both parties-- who signed that letter?
175 former US officials added to list denouncing Trump for revoking Brennan's security clearance

You have no idea if it’s ever been a problem. Not one has really even looked into it. Now with people actually starting to look into it we are seeing it might not be so good

History has shown that our country has let many bad things continue to happen because we assumed there was no problem with it

Also, you really need to stop with the fucking name calling. I called you out in another thread for assuming I was something I was not. When u looked back at my posts you had to apologize. You did this same shit in a Devin Nunes thread where you started saying shit without actually thinking first

People can disagree without being Cucks or whatever name you make up for them. You should be better than this

 

[curryjunkie]

"The Spies That Came Into the TV Studio"

https://www.politico.com/magazine/a...claper-michael-hayden-former-cia-media-216943

Cliffs: the past, former CIA (or other alphabet employees) would leave their jobs and live a quiet retirement and perhaps write their memoirs.

However, they now spend their "retirement" cashing checks as talking heads on cable news.

No matter where you sit on the Trump/Brennan squabble, its an interesting read. But, please note this essay was written months ago.

I agree the trend of former staffers including intelligence officials,press secretaries, politicians going to lucrative contracts as pundits is bollocks,who needs panels with 8 people reacting to a story for 60 seconds each? No matter what party you worked for, it's no different than politicoanspgoing to work for lobbyists or cushy prearranged jobs in finance. Having said all that, iIdontdohave a problem wothwthem getting single interviews to comment on an individual story.

 

[SBJJ]

Also. Fucking LOL at you saying no one has ever questioned Brennan before. It’s like you don’t think before you say stuff sometimes. But hey, we are all guilty of that I guess

 

[SBJJ]

Hey Madmick

There were a few people who have questioned Brennan before

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spying-senate-staffers

 

[SBJJ]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...uld-fire-john-brennan/?utm_term=.10d8f9993f4d

Even though no one has EVER questioned Brennan. Magically, here is an article asking him to be fired.

 

[SBJJ]

Oh wait. Someone else requesting him to be fired

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th.../jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate

 

[Quipling]

Did you "friend" have a TS clearance?

I did not have a TS clearance-none of my cases while employed by the government merited it. I worked and am friends with people who did, though, and am familiar with the process.

 

[waiguoren]

I did not have a TS clearance-none of my cases while employed by the government merited it. I worked and am friends with people who did, though, and am familiar with the process.

Thanks for this response. I was just curious.

 

[SBJJ]

Let’s imagine this

Bernie beats Trump in 2020. Bernie requests better relations with Iran. Haspel or Pompeo then proceed to hit the media accusing Bernie of treason(crime punishable by death)

Would ANYONE question Bernie revoking their clearly

 

[Rematch]

That's the only thing you got from that?
Weird.

Nah. But his behavior is the most obvious thing.