Ex-CIA Chief John Brennan Has His Security Clearance Revoked...

... and immediately starts screaming that it's an effort to suppress his free speech and intimidate him from expressing his all-consuming hatred of Donald Trump.

He is full of shit. Having a security clearance is a privilege, not a right. Brennan is free to continue trashing the POTUS on his twitter account, as a guest on MSNBC, or using whatever fucking vehicle he chooses.

When this story first broke I asked - Why aren't security clearances revoked AUTOMATICALLY when someone leaves the intelligence services? Presumably it's to allow retired senior intel people to discuss sensitive national security issues with their successors, if asked. That explanation may have made sense back in the days when both parties sought to maintain continuity in our foreign policy. It makes no sense today when we have a former CIA director running around like a lunatic accusing the POTUS of "treason" and shamelessly working to undermine him at every opportunity.

Nobody in the Trump administration is going to call Brennan in for advice. The only thing he will be called in for is to testify under oath about how he conspired with obama and others to hatch the Russian collusion canard, disseminate the phony Steele dossier, and illegally deploy the machinery of the federal government to spy on an opposing party's political campaign!

Anyone with an intel background have any thoughts?

Why dont you just ask if any of your fellow retarded jackass Republicans have any additional retarded input.

The jackass is and has long been the mascot for dim-retards. Looks as though the dim-retard education system spawned another nugget of dim-retard ignorance.

Anyone with an intel background have any thoughts? Originally Posted by lustylad

I turned in my access to classified material with my keys. Until recently, I never realized that wasn't routine at all levels.

The "need to know" rule of guidance means only those actually in such positions are the only ones who "need to know". Petreaus' girlfriend had a Top Secret security clearance, but she didn't have a "need to know".

Anyone with an intel background have any thoughts? Originally Posted by lustylad

only reason to retain security clearance is that to obtain some info and opinion/advice on a subject matter and strategy. Usually, its to ask question on why they did on certain policies they followed in the past employ.


personally, their security clearance should end at the moment their employment ends and should be only given in narrow circumstances like for a 1 day.


all the officers who worked for the previous administration (I do mean all of them up to the Nixon administration) should not be having security clearances.

Why dont you just ask if any of your fellow retarded jackass Republicans have any additional retarded input. Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Because the issue is a non-partisan one. Using intelligence effectively to protect our national security should be a priority of both parties - Democrat and Republican.

The fact that I even have to explain that indicates you don't understand the issue well enough to add any value to this thread.

And then there's this...

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2314286

When this story first broke I asked - Why aren't security clearances revoked AUTOMATICALLY when someone leaves the intelligence services? Presumably it's to allow retired senior intel people to discuss sensitive national security issues with their successors, if asked. That explanation may have made sense back in the days when both parties sought to maintain continuity in our foreign policy. It makes no sense today when we have a former CIA director running around like a lunatic accusing the POTUS of "treason" and shamelessly working to undermine him at every opportunity. Originally Posted by lustylad

I wondered the same thing.. HE WAS fired what, 4 months ago, and they are only NOW getting around to yanking his clearnce?? WTF!

only reason to retain security clearance is that to obtain some info and opinion/advice on a subject matter and strategy. Usually, its to ask question on why they did on certain policies they followed in the past employ.


personally, their security clearance should end at the moment their employment ends and should be only given in narrow circumstances like for a 1 day.. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Heck, in the mil, it ends the DAY YOU separate..Not the day after. The week after, or 3 years down the road..

I don’t think Brennan had his clearance removed. I think Twitler got tired of being dissed by someone who knows what an idiot he is. So in a true exhibition of leadership, he removed Brennan’s creds.

Hard times at 1600.

When Truman flew to Wake Island during the Korean War to rein in McArthur, the old general showed up for their meeting 45 minutes late. Truman was furious at this impudent display of disrespect. He yelled "I don't give a damn what you think of Harry Truman - but don't you ever keep your Commander in Chief waiting again!"

John Brennan has violated every rule of prudence and discretion and duty and honor and professionalism that every previous ex-CIA director had the common sense to abide by. For this he richly deserves to be punished and made an example of. Taking away his security clearance is just a slap on the wrist. He should also be placed in a public stockade in the lobby of the CIA headquarters in Langley. This would allow all honest and patriotic agency employees to laugh at and ridicule his impudent ass each day as they enter or leave the building.

Brennan's conduct since cleaning out his desk in Jan. 2017 has been so disgraceful it can only be interpreted as reflecting paranoia. He fears his lawless scheme to spy on and frame Donald Trump for so-called Russian collusion will wind up backfiring against him.

The fact that I even have to explain that indicates you don't understand the issue well enough to add any value to this thread. Originally Posted by lustylad

Or any other "issue" relevant to the Political Forum for that matter. He's the Poster Child for a failed, liberal run educational system in this country.

So, a communist loses his security clearance. BFD

Never should have had it in the first place.

only reason to retain security clearance is that to obtain some info and opinion/advice on a subject matter and strategy. Usually, its to ask question on why they did on certain policies they followed in the past employ. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Invitation only.

Some on here may be confusing Title 10 with Title 50:

http://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/...-50-Debate.pdf

Those a different "animals" and Title 50 provides privilege after separation from service and it is mandatory that the "privilege" be exercised and honored.

So, a communist loses his security clearance. BFD

Never should have had it in the first place. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

agree.. but what can you do if the people elect a candidate with communist leanings.

Because the issue is a non-partisan one. Using intelligence effectively to protect our national security should be a priority of both parties - Democrat and Republican.

The fact that I even have to explain that indicates you don't understand the issue well enough to add any value to this thread. Originally Posted by lustylad

He doesn't add much value to ANY thread.

I don’t think Brennan had his clearance removed. I think Twitler got tired of being dissed by someone who knows what an idiot he is. So in a true exhibition of leadership, he removed Brennan’s creds.

Hard times at 1600. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Spoken like a true patriot!!