"You have humiliated us"

[OldLady]

For political purposes it's always been a no no Now it's just abuse of power

Nowhere in the manual or protocols for security clearances, does it say that President Trump has to be nice to John Brennan and let him keep his security clearance.

True but doesn't protocol mean anything ?Taken away because he doesn't like what Brennan says ??? Maybe all those who want to become intel people will forget about it now, now that they know they must keep their mouths shut?

Brennon can blab away all he wants as a loon on CNN........he never lost his 1st Amendment right..........He no longer has a need to know.......and leaked information during an election that was done to alter an election.

He LIED to the People......to the Senate........and to Trump......

Leakers don't deserve a damned thing.........and he's bought and paid for by the left...........their little stooge.
He should be facing charges right now.

leaked information during an election that was done to alter an election.
Leaked classified information? When was that?

The same dang RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA DOSSIER..............They were telling everyone about the Steele Dossier before the election........Leaked it to Senators and Congressmen.........and leaked it to the press.............

The Press didn't run with it before the election because they thought the election was in the bag........They didn't start running with it til after Hillary lost.

Been there done that Cuban crisis and yes it was scary

No dodging. When/if the shit hits the fan over Rump you'll pick up a weapon? I will, I've done it too.

Why are you even asking this? Another attempt to deflect the conversation?

That's between me and ed, go away.

And Wry?

You don't follow any of this very well. It's between me and Ed.

You said the same to Wry. You love to intimidate folks, but you're not very good at it.

I have a right to comment on what people post. If you don't want me to, send him a PM.

 

[danielpalos]

not being able to live on the interest on the interest, is virtually a market panic.

 

[Doc1]

Nowhere in the manual or protocols for security clearances, does it say that President Trump has to be nice to John Brennan and let him keep his security clearance.

True but doesn't protocol mean anything ?Taken away because he doesn't like what Brennan says ??? Maybe all those who want to become intel people will forget about it now, now that they know they must keep their mouths shut?

Brennon can blab away all he wants as a loon on CNN........he never lost his 1st Amendment right..........He no longer has a need to know.......and leaked information during an election that was done to alter an election.

He LIED to the People......to the Senate........and to Trump......

Leakers don't deserve a damned thing.........and he's bought and paid for by the left...........their little stooge.
He should be facing charges right now.

leaked information during an election that was done to alter an election.
Leaked classified information? When was that?

The same dang RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA DOSSIER..............They were telling everyone about the Steele Dossier before the election........Leaked it to Senators and Congressmen.........and leaked it to the press.............

The Press didn't run with it before the election because they thought the election was in the bag........They didn't start running with it til after Hillary lost.

No dodging. When/if the shit hits the fan over Rump you'll pick up a weapon? I will, I've done it too.

Why are you even asking this? Another attempt to deflect the conversation?

That's between me and ed, go away.

And Wry?

You don't follow any of this very well. It's between me and Ed.

You said the same to Wry. You love to intimidate folks, but you're not very good at it.

I have a right to comment on what people post. If you don't want me to, send him a PM.

You can't understand the quote function, you're stupid....I get it. When you quote ANYONE EVERYONE in the conversation gets tagged. Glad I could help. I'm happy to keep slapping you around if you persist honey. You really are NOT very bright.

 

[OldLady]

True but doesn't protocol mean anything ?Taken away because he doesn't like what Brennan says ??? Maybe all those who want to become intel people will forget about it now, now that they know they must keep their mouths shut?

Brennon can blab away all he wants as a loon on CNN........he never lost his 1st Amendment right..........He no longer has a need to know.......and leaked information during an election that was done to alter an election.

He LIED to the People......to the Senate........and to Trump......

Leakers don't deserve a damned thing.........and he's bought and paid for by the left...........their little stooge.
He should be facing charges right now.

leaked information during an election that was done to alter an election.
Leaked classified information? When was that?

The same dang RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA DOSSIER..............They were telling everyone about the Steele Dossier before the election........Leaked it to Senators and Congressmen.........and leaked it to the press.............

The Press didn't run with it before the election because they thought the election was in the bag........They didn't start running with it til after Hillary lost.

Why are you even asking this? Another attempt to deflect the conversation?

That's between me and ed, go away.

And Wry?

You don't follow any of this very well. It's between me and Ed.

You said the same to Wry. You love to intimidate folks, but you're not very good at it.

I have a right to comment on what people post. If you don't want me to, send him a PM.

You can't understand the quote function, you're stupid....I get it. When you quote ANYONE EVERYONE in the conversation gets tagged. Glad I could help. I'm happy to keep slapping you around if you persist honey. You really are NOT very bright.

Don't be trollin' now, Red Pill. There's a mod about.

 

[eagle1462010]

CIA admits to spying on Senate staffers

• CIA director apologises for improper conduct of agency staff
• One senator calls on John Brennan to resign in wake of scandal

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, issued an extraordinary apology to leaders of the US Senate intelligence committee on Thursday, conceding that the agency employees spied on committee staff and reversing months of furious and public denials.

Brennan acknowledged that an internal investigation had found agency security personnel transgressed a firewall set up on a CIA network, which allowed Senate committee investigators to review agency documents for their landmark inquiry into CIA torture.

 

[Coyote]

Do you still think the security clearance issue is nothing more than because the president did it? Should every single security clearance be revoked if they are no longer in that position or only those of the president’s poltical critics and enemies?

Thanks, I appreciate your redirection.

To answer your question, it doesn't matter why you may or may not think the President revoked John Brennan's security clearance (you made your beliefs about that obvious prior to me asking you and in the post I initially responded to). Not harping, but my question is why should the US Government either issue or maintain a security clearance for John Brennan?

From a very practical stand point (and what I pointed out in an earlier post) - for continuity. Because investigations and knowledge doesn't exist in discrete boxes defined by elections. An investigation today might involve some of the same people or entities a prior official was working on years earlier and his knowledge and insight would be valuable. Without a clearance he can not be consulted. It is not uncommon for former officials to donate their time and expertise, often at no charge, to the officials who are continuing work on their cases. It is also not uncommon for them to go into private employ, contracting to the government and working on the same cases from the private side. Having a security clearance is useful, not having one severely limits their ability to consult and assist. So why would you want to remove it? Essentially, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Ultimately you are hurting the US' interests by removing the ability of former experts to be called in on matters they have a great deal of experience in. Another poster pointed out that the top commanders in the military do a similar thing when they retire - they retain their clearances and are often called upon to advise.

And, let's be accurate here. It's not the US Government removing Brennan's clearance - it is Trump, personally, on his own and it's officials of the US Government objecting to this departure from normal procedures.

I am not saying anything about anyone other than John Brennan. I am not expressing an opinion on what I think John Brennan did, nor why the President rescinded his clearance. I am clearly asking you for what reason should the government currently provide or maintain a security clearance for John Brennan?

Answered above. Is there any reason they should revoke it?

I am not trying to suggest that anyone else's security clearance should or should not be rescinded. I could suggest that if someone wants to maintain their existing security clearance, it won't help them out to piss off the people who issue it to them, because the US Government is not obligated to provide them with one, and you maintain one at the discretion of the command (it's always been that way).

Should the threat of revocation of security clearances be used to punish people for exercising their rights? Should it be used to punish people politically? This is a very disturbing precedent - and it's chilling in it's potential ramifications and the abillity of the US government to be able to call on expertise. I have no problem with revocation based on criminal activity or simply bad conduct (loose lips etc) - but this isn't. It's for spite, revenge and it's about power. It shouldn't matter who is in power, we should not simply be ok with it.

(Edit)
On a lighter note and to possibly address why you asked me the other questions versus my response. In my experience, when someone lost their security clearance (for whatever reason), the common response was "damn dog, you screwed the pooch and got your security clearance yanked". It seems as though it is more popular to go with "the cheeto did it" now.

I think in this case...the people on the "list" did nothing to "screw the pooch". There was no crime, violation of protocol that I am aware of or I would agree. It would appear that the list he drew up to examine are "political enemies"...that is what disturbs me. It seems petty, vengeful and incomprehensible in a man in that position.

 

[Coyote]

True but doesn't protocol mean anything ?Taken away because he doesn't like what Brennan says ??? Maybe all those who want to become intel people will forget about it now, now that they know they must keep their mouths shut?

Brennon can blab away all he wants as a loon on CNN........he never lost his 1st Amendment right..........He no longer has a need to know.......and leaked information during an election that was done to alter an election.

He LIED to the People......to the Senate........and to Trump......

Leakers don't deserve a damned thing.........and he's bought and paid for by the left...........their little stooge.
He should be facing charges right now.

leaked information during an election that was done to alter an election.
Leaked classified information? When was that?

The same dang RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA DOSSIER..............They were telling everyone about the Steele Dossier before the election........Leaked it to Senators and Congressmen.........and leaked it to the press.............

The Press didn't run with it before the election because they thought the election was in the bag........They didn't start running with it til after Hillary lost.

Why are you even asking this? Another attempt to deflect the conversation?

That's between me and ed, go away.

And Wry?

You don't follow any of this very well. It's between me and Ed.

You said the same to Wry. You love to intimidate folks, but you're not very good at it.

I have a right to comment on what people post. If you don't want me to, send him a PM.

You can't understand the quote function, you're stupid....I get it. When you quote ANYONE EVERYONE in the conversation gets tagged. Glad I could help. I'm happy to keep slapping you around if you persist honey. You really are NOT very bright.

Cool it Doc.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[easyt65]

The evidence of Trumps’ collusion with Russia and his obstruction of justice is in his own words. His speeches, his Twitter feed and his press conferences.

Since you can't find any evidence anywhere else after 2 years you are now saying his Tweets, that drive you snowflakes bat shit crazy, prove he is a traitor and a Russian colluder.

Bwuhahahaha....

That's the most hilarious admission of FAILURE to find any evidence I have ever heard.

 

[Hiryuu]

Do you still think the security clearance issue is nothing more than because the president did it? Should every single security clearance be revoked if they are no longer in that position or only those of the president’s poltical critics and enemies?

Thanks, I appreciate your redirection.

To answer your question, it doesn't matter why you may or may not think the President revoked John Brennan's security clearance (you made your beliefs about that obvious prior to me asking you and in the post I initially responded to). Not harping, but my question is why should the US Government either issue or maintain a security clearance for John Brennan?

From a very practical stand point (and what I pointed out in an earlier post) - for continuity. Because investigations and knowledge doesn't exist in discrete boxes defined by elections. An investigation today might involve some of the same people or entities a prior official was working on years earlier and his knowledge and insight would be valuable. Without a clearance he can not be consulted. It is not uncommon for former officials to donate their time and expertise, often at no charge, to the officials who are continuing work on their cases. It is also not uncommon for them to go into private employ, contracting to the government and working on the same cases from the private side. Having a security clearance is useful, not having one severely limits their ability to consult and assist. So why would you want to remove it? Essentially, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Ultimately you are hurting the US' interests by removing the ability of former experts to be called in on matters they have a great deal of experience in. Another poster pointed out that the top commanders in the military do a similar thing when they retire - they retain their clearances and are often called upon to advise.

And, let's be accurate here. It's not the US Government removing Brennan's clearance - it is Trump, personally, on his own and it's officials of the US Government objecting to this departure from normal procedures.

I am not saying anything about anyone other than John Brennan. I am not expressing an opinion on what I think John Brennan did, nor why the President rescinded his clearance. I am clearly asking you for what reason should the government currently provide or maintain a security clearance for John Brennan?

Answered above. Is there any reason they should revoke it?

I am not trying to suggest that anyone else's security clearance should or should not be rescinded. I could suggest that if someone wants to maintain their existing security clearance, it won't help them out to piss off the people who issue it to them, because the US Government is not obligated to provide them with one, and you maintain one at the discretion of the command (it's always been that way).

Should the threat of revocation of security clearances be used to punish people for exercising their rights? Should it be used to punish people politically? This is a very disturbing precedent - and it's chilling in it's potential ramifications and the abillity of the US government to be able to call on expertise. I have no problem with revocation based on criminal activity or simply bad conduct (loose lips etc) - but this isn't. It's for spite, revenge and it's about power. It shouldn't matter who is in power, we should not simply be ok with it.

(Edit)
On a lighter note and to possibly address why you asked me the other questions versus my response. In my experience, when someone lost their security clearance (for whatever reason), the common response was "damn dog, you screwed the pooch and got your security clearance yanked". It seems as though it is more popular to go with "the cheeto did it" now.

I think in this case...the people on the "list" did nothing to "screw the pooch". There was no crime, violation of protocol that I am aware of or I would agree. It would appear that the list he drew up to examine are "political enemies"...that is what disturbs me. It seems petty, vengeful and incomprehensible in a man in that position.

A security clearance isn't like a court of law. You only receive or maintain one at the discretion of command. You do not have to violate a specific protocol for command to lose trust in your ability to manage classified material. It's simple, it's not civilian (in basic nature), none of your objections make a difference.

Please attempt to understand what it is I am saying, because to tell you the truth, it looks like your hatred has blinded you, and that is sad*.


* I am not even particularly defending President Trump, we are simply talking facts here, that have nothing to do with who is President (which in no way excludes President Trump).

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Wry Catcher]

For political purposes it's always been a no no Now it's just abuse of power

Nowhere in the manual or protocols for security clearances, does it say that President Trump has to be nice to John Brennan and let him keep his security clearance.

True but doesn't protocol mean anything ?Taken away because he doesn't like what Brennan says ??? Maybe all those who want to become intel people will forget about it now, now that they know they must keep their mouths shut?

Brennon can blab away all he wants as a loon on CNN........he never lost his 1st Amendment right..........He no longer has a need to know.......and leaked information during an election that was done to alter an election.

He LIED to the People......to the Senate........and to Trump......

Leakers don't deserve a damned thing.........and he's bought and paid for by the left...........their little stooge.
He should be facing charges right now.

leaked information during an election that was done to alter an election.
Leaked classified information? When was that?

The same dang RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA DOSSIER..............They were telling everyone about the Steele Dossier before the election........Leaked it to Senators and Congressmen.........and leaked it to the press.............

The Press didn't run with it before the election because they thought the election was in the bag........They didn't start running with it til after Hillary lost.

You have no clue what other people think, that's why I pushed the funny button.

 

[eagle1462010]

Brennan leaked the information to Reid...........this is what Reid wrote to the FBI at the time....

And they leaked it to the media.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3035844/Reid-Letter-to-Comey.pdf

NOTE THE DATE

 

[danielpalos]

Junk Bonds, not Junk Laws!

And,

one less comma or two could, make it perfect.

 

[Coyote]

It it is revoked for partisan or personal reasons (not due to performance or criminal activity) then yes - it is an abuse of power even though it is up to the President ultimately. When the revoking of security clearances are being done to intimidate or punish people for exercising their rights *but not violating protocols or the law* I would say that is an abuse. There is a list of people he is reviewing removing clearances from for the sole reason of criticizing him. That should be disturbing.

John Brennan doesn't have a Constitutional right to a security clearance. No matter how you want to try and argue, you will always miss the fact that a security clearance is not provided to an individual so they can do whatever they feel like with the information, locations or materials they are allowed to access.

Who said that he did?

What the heck are you thinking? Geeze, Coyote, there's no need to take a leap off the deep end just because you don't like the President. What you are suggesting should be tolerated from someone with a security clearance is not only counterproductive, and defeats the purpose of having one, but it is fricken insane.

THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, and leave your hatred at home.

So being able to consult with prior experts on terrorism, and other cases they worked on is "fricken insane"?

If you want to blame everything on "hating the president" - that's your perogative. I think you would do better to distance yourself from your adoration of him and look at his actions in a logical manner.

Has any other president used security clearances as a way to punish his critics? Yes or no? Simple question really.

If not - is this a good precedent to set for the revokation of clearances? Yes or no? Another simple question.

These two questions have nothing to do with how I or anyone else feels about the current occupant of the White House. It should apply to anyone in that position.

Holy smokes people.
A security clearance is what you need to access materials the government has classified as being sensitive or secret. Do you know what a fricken secret is?

Do you? Do you understand the role of clearances?

 

[OldLady]

Do you still think the security clearance issue is nothing more than because the president did it? Should every single security clearance be revoked if they are no longer in that position or only those of the president’s poltical critics and enemies?

Thanks, I appreciate your redirection.

To answer your question, it doesn't matter why you may or may not think the President revoked John Brennan's security clearance (you made your beliefs about that obvious prior to me asking you and in the post I initially responded to). Not harping, but my question is why should the US Government either issue or maintain a security clearance for John Brennan?

From a very practical stand point (and what I pointed out in an earlier post) - for continuity. Because investigations and knowledge doesn't exist in discrete boxes defined by elections. An investigation today might involve some of the same people or entities a prior official was working on years earlier and his knowledge and insight would be valuable. Without a clearance he can not be consulted. It is not uncommon for former officials to donate their time and expertise, often at no charge, to the officials who are continuing work on their cases. It is also not uncommon for them to go into private employ, contracting to the government and working on the same cases from the private side. Having a security clearance is useful, not having one severely limits their ability to consult and assist. So why would you want to remove it? Essentially, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Ultimately you are hurting the US' interests by removing the ability of former experts to be called in on matters they have a great deal of experience in. Another poster pointed out that the top commanders in the military do a similar thing when they retire - they retain their clearances and are often called upon to advise.

And, let's be accurate here. It's not the US Government removing Brennan's clearance - it is Trump, personally, on his own and it's officials of the US Government objecting to this departure from normal procedures.

I am not saying anything about anyone other than John Brennan. I am not expressing an opinion on what I think John Brennan did, nor why the President rescinded his clearance. I am clearly asking you for what reason should the government currently provide or maintain a security clearance for John Brennan?

Answered above. Is there any reason they should revoke it?

I am not trying to suggest that anyone else's security clearance should or should not be rescinded. I could suggest that if someone wants to maintain their existing security clearance, it won't help them out to piss off the people who issue it to them, because the US Government is not obligated to provide them with one, and you maintain one at the discretion of the command (it's always been that way).

Should the threat of revocation of security clearances be used to punish people for exercising their rights? Should it be used to punish people politically? This is a very disturbing precedent - and it's chilling in it's potential ramifications and the abillity of the US government to be able to call on expertise. I have no problem with revocation based on criminal activity or simply bad conduct (loose lips etc) - but this isn't. It's for spite, revenge and it's about power. It shouldn't matter who is in power, we should not simply be ok with it.

(Edit)
On a lighter note and to possibly address why you asked me the other questions versus my response. In my experience, when someone lost their security clearance (for whatever reason), the common response was "damn dog, you screwed the pooch and got your security clearance yanked". It seems as though it is more popular to go with "the cheeto did it" now.

I think in this case...the people on the "list" did nothing to "screw the pooch". There was no crime, violation of protocol that I am aware of or I would agree. It would appear that the list he drew up to examine are "political enemies"...that is what disturbs me. It seems petty, vengeful and incomprehensible in a man in that position.

From a very practical stand point (and what I pointed out in an earlier post) - for continuity. Because investigations and knowledge doesn't exist in discrete boxes defined by elections. An investigation today might involve some of the same people or entities a prior official was working on years earlier and his knowledge and insight would be valuable. Without a clearance he can not be consulted.

George Smiley never would have gotten Karla without Connie Sachs, retired in her bungalow, but with every detail of every Russian operative known to man within her head.

 

[Dragonlady]

The evidence of Trumps’ collusion with Russia and his obstruction of justice is in his own words. His speeches, his Twitter feed and his press conferences.

Since you can't find any evidence anywhere else after 2 years you are now saying his Tweets, that drive you snowflakes bat shit crazy, proves he is a traitor and a Russian colluder.

Bwuhahahaha....

That's the most hilarious admission of FAILURE to find any evidence I have ever heard.

There is a lot more proof but Mueller hasn’t released it yet. Have patience little Ruskie. Archibald Cox took two years to complete the Watergate investigation and all his evidence and witnesses were in the US.

I was responding to your claim that there is no evidence by pointing out to you that there was so much evidence because Trump was doing it all out in the open, right in front of us.

Why do you think Trump shits himself on Twitter every morning? He’s that scared. And I’ll bet your boss is too. Your trolls have really been amping up your attacks lately.

Not everyone is as blind and stupid as you appear to be.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Brennan leaked the information to Reid...........this is what Reid wrote to the FBI at the time....

And they leaked it to the media.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3035844/Reid-Letter-to-Comey.pdf

NOTE THE DATE

Was the letter classified? If so by who and when?

 

[eagle1462010]

Obama, Brennan And Hillary Colluded To Take Trump Down

It worked. Pushed on by Brennan, Reid, then the most powerful person in Congress, wrote a letter to FBI Director James Comey citing "evidence of a direct connection" between the Trump campaign and seeking an investigation.

Not only did Brennan share intelligence with the FBI, but soon after, the Democrat-linked opposition research firm Fusion GPS began leaking the "Trump Dossier" to the media. The fix was in.

As the release late last week of the FBI's FISA court application used to spy on former Trump aide Carter Page indicates, the dossier was used extensively for the application. That's contrary to what the FBI had maintained.

Moreover, an influential article written by Michael Isikoff detailing the dossier's contents and Harry Reid's letter to the FBI were likewise used to get approval for the FISA court application.

What do they all have in common? They all go back to the same phony dossier, written by former British spy Christopher Steele for Fusion GPS. It was never verified or validated by the FBI. It was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and her pals at the Democratic National Committee, solely to smear Trump.

 

[edward37]

Do you still think the security clearance issue is nothing more than because the president did it? Should every single security clearance be revoked if they are no longer in that position or only those of the president’s poltical critics and enemies?

Thanks, I appreciate your redirection.

To answer your question, it doesn't matter why you may or may not think the President revoked John Brennan's security clearance (you made your beliefs about that obvious prior to me asking you and in the post I initially responded to). Not harping, but my question is why should the US Government either issue or maintain a security clearance for John Brennan?

From a very practical stand point (and what I pointed out in an earlier post) - for continuity. Because investigations and knowledge doesn't exist in discrete boxes defined by elections. An investigation today might involve some of the same people or entities a prior official was working on years earlier and his knowledge and insight would be valuable. Without a clearance he can not be consulted. It is not uncommon for former officials to donate their time and expertise, often at no charge, to the officials who are continuing work on their cases. It is also not uncommon for them to go into private employ, contracting to the government and working on the same cases from the private side. Having a security clearance is useful, not having one severely limits their ability to consult and assist. So why would you want to remove it? Essentially, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Ultimately you are hurting the US' interests by removing the ability of former experts to be called in on matters they have a great deal of experience in. Another poster pointed out that the top commanders in the military do a similar thing when they retire - they retain their clearances and are often called upon to advise.

And, let's be accurate here. It's not the US Government removing Brennan's clearance - it is Trump, personally, on his own and it's officials of the US Government objecting to this departure from normal procedures.

I am not saying anything about anyone other than John Brennan. I am not expressing an opinion on what I think John Brennan did, nor why the President rescinded his clearance. I am clearly asking you for what reason should the government currently provide or maintain a security clearance for John Brennan?

Answered above. Is there any reason they should revoke it?

I am not trying to suggest that anyone else's security clearance should or should not be rescinded. I could suggest that if someone wants to maintain their existing security clearance, it won't help them out to piss off the people who issue it to them, because the US Government is not obligated to provide them with one, and you maintain one at the discretion of the command (it's always been that way).

Should the threat of revocation of security clearances be used to punish people for exercising their rights? Should it be used to punish people politically? This is a very disturbing precedent - and it's chilling in it's potential ramifications and the abillity of the US government to be able to call on expertise. I have no problem with revocation based on criminal activity or simply bad conduct (loose lips etc) - but this isn't. It's for spite, revenge and it's about power. It shouldn't matter who is in power, we should not simply be ok with it.

(Edit)
On a lighter note and to possibly address why you asked me the other questions versus my response. In my experience, when someone lost their security clearance (for whatever reason), the common response was "damn dog, you screwed the pooch and got your security clearance yanked". It seems as though it is more popular to go with "the cheeto did it" now.

I think in this case...the people on the "list" did nothing to "screw the pooch". There was no crime, violation of protocol that I am aware of or I would agree. It would appear that the list he drew up to examine are "political enemies"...that is what disturbs me. It seems petty, vengeful and incomprehensible in a man in that position.

Last who did it was Tricky Dick Nixon