Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38

Thread: Ex-CIA Chief Brennan's Security Clearance Should Have Been Revoked Long Ago

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    Wrong, Congress does not censor, congress would send the transcript to the justice dept for prosecution. They did not. Furthermore lying under oath to a congressional committee is a very serious offense. You are just making lame pathetic excuses.
    Of course Congress censures.

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Scarier than former CIA chief John Brennan losing his security clearance is the idea that he ever had one in the first place.


    1) Lying to Congress. Brennan lied to Congress on at least two occasions (cf. his denial of CIA surveillance of Senate staffer computers and the claim of an absence of collateral damage in drone attacks), and perhaps three (his absurd denial of knowledge of the seeding of the Steele dossier among government agencies). Democrats used to be outraged by Brennan’s deceit, and a few in the past had called for his resignation. Note that James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence, has also misled Congress, concerning NSA surveillance of American citizens. Clapper has admitted such (e.g., “the least untruthful” answer). Not lying to Congress is a pretty low bar to meet.

    2) Accusations of Treason against a Sitting President. Brennan believes his denial of continued access to intelligence is an infringement on free speech. But it is really another low bar to ask a former CIA director to refrain from leveling unproven charges of treason against the current president of the United States (“nothing short of treasonous”; “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history”). Such invective in theory could have foreign-policy consequences by branding the slander of presidential disloyalty with an imprimatur of a CIA security clearance.

    Note again that James Clapper similarly flat-out accused the president of the United States of treason, in being a spy for the Russians (“I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that’s what he’s doing with the president”). Clapper, of course, has no proof of that low charge. Nor has he produced any after his on-air accusation. If he is suggesting that his security clearance has allowed him access to incriminating evidence, then he should say so.

    3) Hired Political Commentary. Former intelligence chiefs certainly have a perfect right to offer their expertise, even enhanced by their current security clearances, against or in support of a current administration, on both foreign-policy and intelligence challenges, and as guest experts on television, radio, social media, and in print.

    That said, hiring oneself out as a political partisan to a network should be a different matter.

    Had Brennan and Clapper now and then visited the networks to voice their concern about Trump’s cancellation of the Iran deal or moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, it would be one thing. But going on salary with MSNBC and CNN to profit from one’s emeritus status and security clearances to libel the president of the United States removes all appearances of disinterested commentary. As private citizens, they can do all that on their own time without any vestigial connections to the U.S. government.

    An added note. When an intelligence official finds himself in a self-created mess, Washington agencies often have a tendency to rush to support of one of their own. But Brennan has long had a dubious record.

    He dramatically reinvented himself after the 2008 election from Bush point man on terror alerts (cf. the “Orange Terror alert” of 2003), renditions, and enhanced interrogations — to Obama aficionado, now shocked, in Casablanca-style, by such supposedly clumsy and less nuanced methods that he once had endorsed.

    When one collates Brennan’s politicized and often incoherent explanations on a number of key intelligence matters in various capacities between 2009 and 2016 (on the circumstances surrounding Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a.k.a. the “underwear bomber,” his confusing and changing narratives surrounding the bin Laden raid, and his bizarre and careerist-inspired description of jihad: “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community”), the portrait of a political contortionist rather than a professional and disinterested intelligence officer is confirmed.
    Comments

    All that can be said in condolence to John Brennan about losing his security clearance might be something along the lines of,
    “Try not to lie repeatedly to the U.S. Congress. Please do not allege that the current president of the United States is a traitor. And do not hire yourself out to partisans to issue near daily unproven invective, supposedly sanctified and monetized by your past tenure and present access to the highest level of covert U.S. intelligence.”
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ce-revocation/

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Bigdog (08-17-2018)

  4. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    First of all, any lie to Congress sworn or not, is illegal. Secondly it was a republican congress who would leave nothing up to Obama. Now, your next excuse?
    Get ready to make your own excuse lol.

    Below is a link from 2014, back before liberals felt obligated to defend the Lying Twins, Clapper and Brennan. I think they both lied about intelligence gathering on citizens and one of them made the patently absurd claim that drone strikes didn’t kill civilians.

    Enjoy:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.abde5bdb55a0
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    Bigdog (08-17-2018)

  6. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    11,056
    Thanks
    4,929
    Thanked 3,685 Times in 2,733 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 707 Times in 647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    Once again, if he really lied under oath, why hasn't he been punished?
    Because President Obama didn't do anything.

    So now that dump is in office he can do what ever he wants.

    It's how racist white men think.

  7. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    11,056
    Thanks
    4,929
    Thanked 3,685 Times in 2,733 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 707 Times in 647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    First of all, any lie to Congress sworn or not, is illegal. Secondly it was a republican congress who would leave nothing up to Obama. Now, your next excuse?
    He'll run from you now.

    He'll say he has to go.

  8. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    11,056
    Thanks
    4,929
    Thanked 3,685 Times in 2,733 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 707 Times in 647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    you simply do not understand separation of powers. If anything Congress would censor.
    And the lying was to Diane Feinstein's questions by the Senate Intelligence Committee ghearing
    Separation of powers????????......Susan Powers?...........LOL

    You racist fucks love to bash her.

    There is no such thing as separation of powers you racist dumb fuck.

  9. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    Wrong, Congress does not censor, congress would send the transcript to the justice dept for prosecution. They did not. Furthermore lying under oath to a congressional committee is a very serious offense. You are just making lame pathetic excuses.
    Congess is not tied to any remediation. again due to separation of powers, Congress would be loathe to prosecute.
    It was Obama's call for all intents

  10. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TTQ64 View Post
    Separation of powers????????......Susan Powers?...........LOL

    You racist fucks love to bash her.

    There is no such thing as separation of powers you racist dumb fuck.
    ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????

  11. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TTQ64 View Post
    Separation of powers????????......Susan Powers?...........LOL

    You racist fucks love to bash her.

    There is no such thing as separation of powers you racist dumb fuck.
    ROFL...you can't make this up! Thanks for the comic relief (powers not Powers)

  12. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????
    time for a laugh!

  13. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    Of course Congress censures.



    What is the penalty for perjury before Congress?
    Section 1621 covers general perjury, and stipulates that anyone who "willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true" is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both.Jul 7, 2016

  14. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    11,056
    Thanks
    4,929
    Thanked 3,685 Times in 2,733 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 707 Times in 647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    Congess is not tied to any remediation. again due to separation of powers, Congress would be loathe to prosecute.
    It was Obama's call for all intents

    No surprise there, it was niggas fault.

  15. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    time for a laugh!
    I hope she was mistaken on that one.

  16. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    Congess is not tied to any remediation. again due to separation of powers, Congress would be loathe to prosecute.
    It was Obama's call for all intents

    What is the penalty for perjury before Congress?
    Section 1621 covers general perjury, and stipulates that anyone who "willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true" is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both.Jul 7, 2016

  17. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    What is the penalty for perjury before Congress?
    Section 1621 covers general perjury, and stipulates that anyone who "willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true" is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both.Jul 7, 2016
    What does that have to do with you saying Congress does not censure? I just saw that, have not read the whole thread at all.

Similar Threads

  1. Is a national security clearance really a 1st Amendment issue?
    By canceled.2021.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 08-18-2018, 08:33 AM
  2. Replies: 128
    Last Post: 08-16-2018, 02:08 PM
  3. Peter Strzok of Secret Society Fame Has Lost His Security Clearance
    By hvilleherb in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-21-2018, 07:49 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-06-2018, 07:16 AM
  5. revoke Kushner’s security clearance
    By Buckly J. Ewer in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 195
    Last Post: 06-01-2017, 12:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •