Trump Strips Former CIA Chief John Brennan of Security Clearance

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Crap, can't edit, but here was the transcript from FOX:

Sean Hannity: Do you see crimes?

Rudy Giuliani: Absolutely … I’m gonna tell you who orchestrated, who was the quarterback for all of this. It isn’t just Strzok. He’s a bit of a puppet. It’s not just Mueller, he’s a puppet…

Sean Hannity: I have a funny feeling you’re about to drop a bomb on me.

Rudy Giuliani: The guy’s running it was Brennan. And he should be in front of a grand jury.

You know your brains been fried by trumps jizz when you start quoting Hannity and Rudy as people who speak the truth.

 

[Bargey]

I’m amazed it took this long for it to be revoked.

Brennan’s conduct is close to seditious.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

These aren't arguments.

AKA. I have no clue what I am talking about and cannot form an counter-argument.

No really, all people that were at any point and time given security clearance should have it until the moment they die. No wait, even longer encase the come back 3 days later alive again.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

How about 4. Trump incorrectly believes that JB can't be trusted?

That would be completely irrelevant.

If President Trump himself cannot trust John Brennan, that's the end of the discussion. It doesn't matter if you, me, or anyone else on the face of the Earth thinks President Trump should trust John Brennan. It's an unreasonable expectations to force someone to act as though they trust someone, when in reality they don't.

 

[Bargey]

Explain why, as that has never been the case. Also, Trump is clearly doing it punitively.

It’s not punitive. Brennan appears unhinged and is not a reliable character right now.

 

[Fawlty]

From my post in the Mueller thread, because it's not obvious how security clearances work:

Clearances go away in two stages. They become inactive when you stop working for the government, and they expire some time after that (typically they are good for 15/10/5 years depending on the clearance). It is relatively easy to activate a clearance that has not expired. It is very expensive and time-and-resource intensive to get a clearance again after expiration (and that office of government has been way overworked and understaffed as long as I've known).

Trump seems to be suggesting that, out of spite for a lack of fealty, he's going to revoke clearances, which will make it more difficult (or impossible) for those people to get jobs in areas where they are qualified, and also seems to be suggesting that he will disallow them from getting clearances at all while he is President.

 

[HereticBD]

Can I jus ask if the guy is former why does he still need a security clearance?

In fairness, it's understandable that these guys would be privy to classified material so that they can serve as advisers, even after they've resigned, or whatever. Their experience is valuable.

However, if you want to abuse that power for politically motivated agendas....yoink.

 

[jamel]

yall really need to analyze the disqualifying factors for a clearance.

This is the most "do as I say not as I do administration ever."

Gotdamn just imagine if the military leadership starts cuttin up like their Commander in Chief? Imagine the ripple effect?

Standards need to be upheld.

 

[Joe]

lolol at trump supporters saying someone can't be trusted. Lololol

 

[spin]

AKA. I have no clue what I am talking about and cannot form an counter-argument.

No really, all people that were at any point and time given security clearance should have it until the moment they die. No wait, even longer encase the come back 3 days later alive again.

He's already made his case.

They need security clearances for future jobs, and most importantly to have candid conversations with people currently in government who need help with information.

Being able to talk to the past CIA director candidly about classified material is probably pretty fucking helpful.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Can I jus ask if the guy is former why does he still need a security clearance?

Because people that had these jobs still need to use it to discuss issues with the people that replace them, among others.
You've got a guy that ran the CIA (for example). Now you run the CIA, and need to talk to him about who knows what national security shit.
Oh wait, you can't.
Because of spite.
And if he does talk to you about it, he can get the book thrown at em for being a disgraceful, blabbing deep state thug trying to compromise the Presidency for any number of nefarious reasons.

 

[panamaican]

If he is a FORMER anything, the security clearance that comes with it, should be removed immediately...

I think that's a bad idea, you're basically cutting off access to past expertise.

As others have said, what happens when the current head of something wants to consult the individual who previously oversaw a specific project?

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

He's already made his case.

for future jobs is a reason that has been refuted. And thus, his case has been rejected and requires a better argument to support it.

Crazy thing about a debate is that it moves forward after the next person speaks...

 

[Fawlty]

yall really need to analyze the disqualifying factors for a clearance.

This is another area where the President has too much power. While previously there was enough trust and patriotism that this would rarely be abused, it is now abused broadly and openly. Yet another norm that made America great bites the dust. But long story short, the CiC can do whatever he wants here, and only Congress can stop him.

 

[dontsnitch]

That would be completely irrelevant.

If President Trump himself cannot trust John Brennan, that's the end of the discussion. It doesn't matter if you, me, or anyone else on the face of the Earth thinks President Trump should trust John Brennan. It's an unreasonable expectations to force someone to act as though they trust someone, when in reality they don't.

Sure, it's certainly his prerogative, but your list is not truly exhaustive because you made it so that JB can't be trusted, though I realize that this doesn't address your main thesis. Don't mind my hairsplitting.

 

[HomerThompson]

No, they are approval of Trump's rationality behind his decision.

John Brennan is a highly partisan, dirty, lying shit bag, who doesn't deserve security clearance. I don't care how upset you are, or care to indulge your feelings on how you think this is how dictatorships start. I agree with Trump's decision. The end.

Why, specifically, doesn't he deserve his clearance?

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

I think that's a bad idea, you're basically cutting off access to past expertise.

As others have said, what happens when the current head of something wants to consult the individual who previously oversaw a specific project?

Security clearance is required for ACQUIRING information. There is nothing stopping someone in government WITH clearance to ask him questions and it would then fall on him to find out if they are cleared to know what he knows...so in your example, he would instantly know the person is cleared since they hold his position or are in charge of projects.

 

[HomerThompson]

I’m amazed it took this long for it to be revoked.

Brennan’s conduct is close to seditious.

In what way?

Please be specific.

 

[spin]

for future jobs is a reason that has been refuted. And thus, his case has been rejected and requires a better argument to support it.

Crazy thing about a debate is that it moves forward after the next person speaks...

It hasnt.

And here's two more posters

Because people that had these jobs still need to use it to discuss issues with the people that replace them, among others.
You've got a guy that ran the CIA (for example). Now you run the CIA, and need to talk to him about who knows what national security shit.
Oh wait, you can't.
Because of spite.
And if he does talk to you about it, he can get the book thrown at em for being a disgraceful, blabbing deep state thug trying to compromise the Presidency for any number of nefarious reasons.

I think that's a bad idea, you're basically cutting off access to past expertise.

As others have said, what happens when the current head of something wants to consult the individual who previously oversaw a specific project?

All explain the same thing.

Care to counter?

 

[woodguyatl]

Good fuck’em.

Like him or not, we want these guys, even the assholes, to keep their clearances so they can be consulted if necessary. For instance, he may have a contact the CIA wants him to talk to but he can no longer do that. Or he may have some helpful knowledge on ongoing operations. What's next, the next President stripping Trump of his clearance when he leaves office? You know damn well Trump is going to take pot shots at his replacement.