Trump looking into revoking security clearances for Brennan, other top Obama official

[Norm dePlume]

Trump looking into revoking security clearances for Brennan, other top Obama officials

President Trump is looking into revoking the security clearances of several top Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday, accusing them of having "politicized" or "monetized" their public service.

She made the announcement at Monday's press briefing, after Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., called on the president to specifically revoke Trump critic and former CIA Director John Brennan's clearance.

Sanders said Trump is considering it -- and also looking into the clearances for other former officials and Trump critics: former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and former CIA Director Michael Hayden (who also worked under President George W. Bush).

Sanders said Trump is “exploring mechanisms” to remove the security clearances “because [the former officials] politicized and in some cases actually monetized their public service and their security clearances in making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia.”

Sanders added that their clearances effectively give “inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence.”

Deploying the machinery of the state against political opponents is:
a. good
b. bad
c. whatabout Clinton?
d. stop calling me a racist

[80zephyr]

Deploying the machinery of the state against political opponents is:
a. good
b. bad
c. whatabout Clinton?
d. stop calling me a racist

That depends. Not long ago, former administrations would be loathe to criticize a sitting president. If they are using their insider knowledge to do so, maybe they should get their wings clipped.

BTW, I can't even believe this is a "thing". As far as I'm concerned, the day the administration changes hands, all those from the ousted one should lose their clearances.

Mark

[Norm dePlume]

That depends. Not long ago, former administrations would be loathe to criticize a sitting president.

Give me a fuckin' break.

Cheney sharply criticizes Obama on terrorism
MAY 21, 2009

How Barack Obama is Endangering our National Sovereignty: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That (Encounter Broadsides)
Paperback – May 18, 2010
by John R Bolton (Author)

[scott]

Deploying the machinery of the state against political opponents is:
a. good
b. bad
c. whatabout Clinton?
d. stop calling me a racist

*yawn*

You call them political opponents, I call them security risks. The President (any President) doesn't have to prove why they shouldn't have security clearances, they have to prove why their continued clearance contributes to our national security and it's the President's prerogative to accept or decline.

[80zephyr]

Give me a fuckin' break.

Cheney sharply criticizes Obama on terrorism
MAY 21, 2009

How Barack Obama is Endangering our National Sovereignty: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That (Encounter Broadsides)
Paperback – May 18, 2010
by John R Bolton (Author)

If you believe those "attacks" are even close to what Trump has endured, maybe you could give me a break.

Mark

[Norm dePlume]

If you believe those "attacks" are even close to what Trump has endured, maybe you could give me a break.

Mark

This is what you said:

Not long ago, former administrations would be loathe to criticize a sitting president.

They were not loath to criticize the sitting president. They were eager to. And there are a lot more examples. But, as you have just demonstrated, no number of examples would ever be enough for you. Also, Trump gets a great deal of criticism because he really sucks.

[Norm dePlume]

*yawn*

You call them political opponents, I call them security risks. The President (any President) doesn't have to prove why they shouldn't have security clearances, they have to prove why their continued clearance contributes to our national security and it's the President's prerogative to accept or decline.

So 'a'.

[scott]

So 'a'.

I answered your question and did not limit myself to your falsely framed choices.

You've demonstrated your ignorance about security clearances during the Hillary email discussions. Don't try to play expert here. Clearances are affirmatively granted for specific purposes, they are not entitlements.

[Norm dePlume]

I call them security risks.

... based on ...

[Norm dePlume]

I answered your question and did not limit myself to your falsely framed choices.

You've demonstrated your ignorance about security clearances during the Hillary email discussions. Don't try to play expert here. Clearances are affirmatively granted for specific purposes, they are not entitlements.

so 'c'

[scott]

so 'c'

Sources and methods.

Explicit requirement to safeguard.

Explicit requirement to use secure and approved systems.



So you're still ignorant.

[scott]

... based on ...

Their current lack of need to know since they are no longer in official positions.

This is all standard stuff but bureaucrats lately have been able to keep their clearances due to lax enforcement.

[Norm dePlume]

Their current lack of need to know since they are no longer in official positions.

This is all standard stuff but bureaucrats lately have been able to keep their clearances due to lax enforcement.

Having clearance doesn't mean they get everything sent to them. It's entirely possible to keep documents away from Clapper without revoking his clearance.

Now say something about Berger. You know you want to.

[Norm dePlume]

So you're still ignorant.

Oh, fuck. Now you hurt my feeling.

[Norm dePlume]

Probably just a coincidence that the list of people being considered for having their clearance revoked is entirely made up of people who have criticized Trump. Standard stuff, y'all. Nothing to see here.