![None Dare Call it Terrorism; All Dare Call for Gun Control [VIDEO]](https://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/toronto.jpg)
![Israel Rescues Syrian White Helmets: Zero Thanks [VIDEO]](https://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/IsraeliSoldiers.jpg)
If you haven’t heard, President Trump is considering revoking the security clearances of six high-profile, Obama era minions, er, former intel officials. Along with alleged serial leaker and ex-CIA Director John O. Brennan, they are:
“…former FBI Director James Comey, former DNI Director James Clapper, former NSA and CIA Director Michael Harden, former White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice and former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.”
While it’s true that just about all of those on this list have unprecedentedly criticized the current president, for me, the individual most deserving of having his creds yanked like a rotten wisdom tooth is none other than ex-CIA Director John Brennan.
THIS John Brennan:
Actually we do, and we did in during the height of the cold war when Brennan supported them https://t.co/VeGHjOwMY0
— Todd Donnelly (@FunkyLowNotes) July 23, 2018
Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???
— John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) July 16, 2018
You get the picture.
So, aside from voting for the Communist Party’s candidate during the height of the Cold. Freaking. War.—how does one become head of the CIA with THAT bright-red baggage?—let’s explore the super-short list of why he should no longer enjoy a security clearance, shall we?
1. He’s dishonest as the day is long. There’s a plethora of examples in the video below:
Exclusive: John Brennan still has top security clearance https://t.co/ifcc1d3WWi
Anyone leaving their gov job & moves to the public sector must have security clearance revoked. According to a story on Tucker Carlson,Brennan,Clapper,Hayden & S. Rice have security clear? Ty
— LiberalsGoneBad (@OldGlory1976) July 23, 2018
2. He (and this goes for Clapper, too) is a paid partisan political pundit for NBC News and MSNBC.
Media: “OMG THOSE ARE MY SOURCES!” https://t.co/xRYvcO4hIS
— David Reaboi (@davereaboi) July 23, 2018
Dear Senator, it’s more than that. As a former Director, #Brennan has daily access to finished intelligence, a courtesy offered to all previous DNI & Directors. As paid media pundits, both he and #Clapper should forfeit that access immediately. @RandPaul @SaraCarterDC @FoxNews
— Mary Beth Long (@LongDefense) July 23, 2018
Good questions. If employment by two of the most Trump hating, propaganda-spewing networks in existence isn’t a reason to have your security clearance pulled, I don’t know what is. Oh, maybe this:
3. Brennan’s current behavior looks every bit like the definition of “sedition:”
sedition
noun se·di·tion \ si-ˈdi-shən \
: the crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction
I call BS. Maybe Julius and Ethyl should have kept a clearance too? Brennan's recent tweet was the epitome of seditious behavior. As an American, I don't want him apprised of ANY state secrets.
— Retired Guest (@Retired_Guest) July 23, 2018
Bingo! We have a winner. But then again, what use would NBC and MSNBC have for the ex-CIA head without his handy-dandy access to classified info?
Watching the spectacle of the House “hearing” with Peter Strzok today, I was reminded of the words of Abraham Lincoln:
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
— John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) July 13, 2018
True. And a perfect example of the Left’s mastery of projecting its own behavior onto its political foes. Further, Mr. Brennan apparently hasn’t perused this:
The Hill: Opinion: One FBI text message in Russia probe that should alarm every American | TheHill.https://t.co/5dIFHQW0EY
via @GoogleNews
— Janee (@DJindasky) July 20, 2018
But he’s sure adept at shoveling horse apples:
All Americans—not just your supporters—deserve a President who is honest, ethical, selfless, & substantive. Our country faces daunting domestic & international challenges. If there is a scintilla of decency left in you, you would focus on your responsibilities, not on yourself. https://t.co/dVE2GlDRr7
— John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) June 16, 2018
Your fear of exposure is palpable. Your desperation even more so. When will those of conscience among your Cabinet, inner circle, and Republican leadership realize that your unprincipled and unethical behavior as well as your incompetence are seriously damaging our Nation. https://t.co/n6ivjOYxzo
— John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) June 23, 2018
It’s almost like he’s addressing the Scandal-Free Obama Administration™, of which he was an integral part.
It is the height of irony that the U.S. is withdrawing from UN Human Rights Council when the Trump Administration is perpetrating such cruel human rights abuses involving children on our border. The Trump Administration is ruining America’s reputation for compassion & justice. https://t.co/5gBqw0sqld
— John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) June 20, 2018
Sorry, no. Still Obama.
By any measure, the man looks utterly deranged…or deflecting from the impending firestorm.
He defends Andrew McCabe…
Andrew McCabe's security clearance was deactivated when he was terminated, according to what we were told was FBI policy. You would think the White House would check with the FBI before trying to throw shiny objects to the press corps… https://t.co/ZOKJDChpeP
— Melissa Schwartz (@MSchwartz3) July 23, 2018
(yes, let’s deflect from the reasons behind McCabe’s crap-canning; insert eye roll here)
…and James Comey, both of whom were fired from their positions as head of the FBI and deservedly lambasted in the OIG report released earlier this year; and even as Comey looks to have lied before Congress, and McCabe finds himself referred for criminal prosecution. That alone should tell us all we need to know about Brennan’s judgment and trustworthiness.
4. According to Senator Rand Paul, the list of Brennan’s abuses of power as CIA director is extensive:
Oh, but stripping him of his security clearance is an affront to the First Amendment!!! screech the perennial critics:
J – There is no right to a clearance (no First Amend right); clearance is a privilege & there are requirements for maintaining access (break the rules/no clearance); and USG discretion in granting/keeping access in part relies on likelihood of disclosure (PAID MEDIA = risk).
— Mary Beth Long (@LongDefense) July 23, 2018
Yeah, no one is shutting down Brennan’s speech, Ms. Rubin. He has no “right” to secret intel any more than you or I do. This is as stupid as “stupid” gets. So try again. And while you’re at it, please join the dishonest, demagogueing Democrat Party to which you obviously belong.
While it’s understandable that the intel community would feel unappreciated following Trump’s now-infamous Presser With Putin™, it’s also conceivable that he’d be less than fully trusting of intel and law enforcement agency heads that have, for two years now, worked to firstly: keep him out of office; and secondly: subvert his presidency following his election. See the continued obstruction of congressional oversight for further reading. And the head of that subversive snake is none other than John Brennan.
So, yes, Rand Paul—who filibustered Brennan’s 2013 CIA confirmation over the Obama administration’s disconcerting drone policy and Brennan’s apparent support of it—is right to call for the revocation of Brennan’s security clearance. Will it keep Brennan from attaining top-secret intel in other ways? Nope. DC is a Swampy Sieve.
Once their clearance has been revoked, any classified information passed onto them should be investigated.
— K. J. McMurtrey (@kevinmcmurtrey) July 23, 2018
Will it keep Brennan from criticizing Trump as the Chicken Little media would have us believe? Double nope, not any more than it’ll keep him from being a self-serving, hyper-partisan jackwagon, a.k.a. a liberal media darling, just so long as he’s willing to be exploited, you know, for the good of the country.
Anyone who’s potentially profiting by having access to classified information, and is suspected of sharing it with a media that’s hell-bent on destroying the sitting president by any means possible, and engages in seditious behavior against a democratically-elected POTUS, has no business having access to our nation’s secrets. Pull Brennan’s creds. With extreme prejudice. And do it yesterday.
Garland Twitty says: The current policy seems backward: former FBI employees should automatically lose their clearances, unless the director believes they are likely to be consulted about classified matters.
By analogy: If you resign from a job, you turn in all your keys and your computer access is terminated, unless the firm intends to retain you as a consultant.
Our federal government is full of crazy rules, not found in the private sector, that are continually the sources of self-inflicted wounds.
Marta Hernandez says: I can shed some light on this, if you’d like. The TS clearance itself is good for five years. That’s how long it takes for your single scope background investigation (SSBI) to expire. You remain ELIGIBLE for a cleared job, but that doesn’t mean you actually receive anything sensitive. With a TS – especially – you also need to be SCI eligible to get anything sensitive, and that requires a need to know, which you no longer have when you leave your government job. The clearance remains in case you want to go work for a contractor, or decide you want to go back to another government job after you leave. The SSBI is still good, because clearing people all over again is incredibly resource intensive, so if they’re still eligible, and they decide to come back as a contractor or with another agency, their SSBI is still good, and they can get cleared again.
Yanking that merely because someone disagrees with the President or is critical of him seems incredibly petty and foolish.
SFC D says: Absolutely correct. TS clearance remains, but in an inactive status. ACCESS is denied. If these people still have access after leaving government employ, then we have a much bigger problem.
GWB says: Yanking them because they seem to be founts of information to those neither cleared nor with a need to know seems pretty worthwhile, though.
(It’s not just classified you’re not supposed to talk about……)
GWB says: employment by two of the most Trump hating, propaganda-spewing networks in existence
Their opposition to the current administration is actually irrelevant. It’s that they work as consultants to media. Period.
And, while I understand the desire to keep them available for their expertise, every other employee has their access terminated upon leaving.
On top of which, their background investigations should expire within about a year of leaving that office, which should terminate ALL access and “current” clearances. (A SBI for Top Secret is supposed to last 5 years, iirc. Maybe if you were in for a full 2 terms of a president you could get an extra 2 years out of it.)
Skid Marx says: Brennan=Muslim rat P.O.S.
mer says: Anyone who’s ever held any level of clearance knows the key part is always “Need to know”. If your level of clearance is good but you don’t have a need to know, sucks to be you. (Yes, that’s the access part).
I’d like the policy to be a blanket policy, everyone holding a clearance, not simply because of who they are.
Danimal28 says: This is not directed at VG’s, but… Duh. People need to realize that these clearances are used to make serious money for these a$$holes as they peruse private data of serious financial players, et al.
VG’s – Keep on, keepin on!
BJC says: When I left the Air Force, I was told that my TS clearance would be in inactive status for 5 years, that meant I no longer had a need to know, but I was still responsible for what I knew and that should I divulge any information, I could still be prosecuted under the UCMJ. On a side note they also said that what I knew would more than likely be obsolete by then, but after 5 years I could still be prosecuted if I said anything that was still under clearance parameters. Obviously my line of knowledge was nowhere near on par to what these men know, but I wonder why they aren’t being held to at least the same standard that me and my fellow zoomies are, decades later.
Jodi Giddings says: Darned good question, BJC!
11 Comments