Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Free Speech, Media, Politics

Trump Revokes Clearance Of John Brennan and Orders Review Of Other Former Officials

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedIn a highly controversial move, President Donald Trump has revoked the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan and ordered the review of other officials who all share one obvious distinguishing characteristic: they are all fierce critics of Trump.  The move has been widely condemned as Nixonian and amounting to a black or enemies list.  While I have been highly critical of everyone on the list (and called for some to be fired and, in a couple cases, prosecuted), I find the move very troubling from a free speech perspective.  Indeed, I am still uncertain about the rationale for the actions and why the list would be composed entirely of Trump critics if based on a consistent, apolitical basis.

The press conference only served magnify these concerns.  Sarah Huckabee Sanders read a letter from Trump dated three weeks ago but only now announced to the world.  Brennan was singled out as using his status “to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations” and “wild outbursts on the Internet and television about this administration.”

The letter appears to have been written around the time when this idea was first made public on July 23rd but nothing was said about its implementation.  Even stranger is the issuing of the letter today with the July 26th date and then the reissuing of the letter without the date with no explanation. It is another example of the poor record of rollouts for this Administration. These are basic errors that seem to plague this Administration.

The list itself however is the most curious. The letter calls for the review of former FBI director director James Comey, former national intelligence director James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser Susan Rice and former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe. former acting attorney general Sally Yates, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI counsel Lisa Page, and FBI agent Bruce Ohr.

Former high ranking officials are allowed to maintain access to classified information to allow them to consult on matters that arose during their tenures as well as a simple professional courtesy.  Frankly, most do not use the clearances after leaving the government and this is not likely to have a pronounced effect.  Indeed, Comey and McCabe already lost their clearances — a point that was repeatedly made back in July when this idea was first aired.

However, the greatest question remains the reason for those specific individuals.  Ohr and Page have not gone public.  Yates (who I agreed with Trump in firing) achieved notoriety because of her stand against the travel ban.  She was wrong in the action that she took, but that hardly distinguishes her from other prior officials in terms of her clearance.  She is also a vocal critic of the President’s.

It is difficult not to see this list as reflecting the criticism of the President.  Lines like this one seems less than objective in describing Brennan’s public commentary: “Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets, and facilities [facilitates] the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos.”

Indeed, it would have been an easy thing to add other officials who committed the predicate acts  — once the Administration clearly states what those acts or criteria may be.  It does not help matters that the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats was reportedly not consulted on unprecedented order.

Having stated the obvious free speech concerns, this order (like such many in this Administration) would push us into uncharted legal waters if challenged.  Trump has the clear advantage.  The assumption is that a challenge could be raised for a clearly unconstitutional purpose like banning African-Americans from holding clearances.  However, the White House has emphasized that this is a case-by-case determination with only Brennan being revoked thus far.  Clearances are a privilege controlled ultimately by the President.  Courts are loathe micromanage who can hold clearances in the Executive Branch.  Most cases focus on procedural rights in being allowed to challenge such decisions. There is currently no case that would directly contravene Trump’s authority in barring access to former officials on a case-by-case basis.

Here is the letter read by Sanders:

As the head of the executive branch and Commander-in-Chief, I have a unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nation’s classified information, including by controlling access to it.  Today, in fulfilling that responsibility, I have decided to revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Historically, former heads of intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been allowed to retain access to classified information after their government service so that they can consult with their successors regarding matters about which they may have special insights and as a professional courtesy.

Neither of these justifications supports Mr. Brennan’s continued access to classified information.  First, at this point in my administration, any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with Mr. Brennan are now outweighed by the risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior.  Second, that conduct and behavior has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him.

Mr. Brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.  In 2014, for example, he denied to Congress that CIA officials, under his supervision, had improperly accessed the computer files of congressional staffers.  He told the Council of Foreign Relations that the CIA would never do such a thing.  The CIA’s Inspector General, however, contradicted Mr. Brennan directly, concluding unequivocally that agency officials had indeed improperly accessed congressional staffers’ files.  More recently, Mr. Brennan told Congress that the intelligence community did not make use of the so-called Steele dossier in an assessment regarding the 2016 election, an assertion contradicted by at least two other senior officials in the intelligence community and all of the facts.

Additionally, Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations — wild outbursts on the Internet and television — about this administration.  Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets, and facilities [facilitates] the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos.

More broadly, the issue of Mr. Brennan’s security clearance raises larger questions about the practice of former officials maintaining access to our nation’s most sensitive secrets long after their time in government has ended.

Such access is particularly inappropriate when former officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate their political attacks.  Any access granted to our nation’s secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal, interests.  For this reason, I’ve also begun to review the more general question of the access to classified information by government officials.

As part of this review, I am evaluating action with respect to the following individuals: James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr.

Security clearances for those who still have them may be revoked, and those who have already lost their security clearance may not be able to have it reinstated.

It is for the foregoing reasons that I have exercised my constitutional authority to deny Mr. Brennan access to classified information, and I will direct appropriate staff of the National Security Council to make the necessary arrangements with the appropriate agencies to implement this determination.

450 thoughts on “Trump Revokes Clearance Of John Brennan and Orders Review Of Other Former Officials”

    1. It’s worth listening to Bill Binney remind us all about former Qwest Communications CEO, Joe Nacchio, who was jailed for 5 years based on what he said was fabricated evidence and retaliation because he refused to cooperate with the NSA when they came asking for him to turn over his customer data to them without first producing a warrant. He said no to the NSA’s request to spy on his customers and they destroyed him and nearly drove Qwest into the ground.

      Bottom line: It’s not a bad thing that Trump slapped Brennan down. Good on Trump.

      1. is that the same Bill Binney who says the socalled Russian hack is most definitely a leak?

        the same bill binney that had a way to search NSA archives for key words without mass dragnet surveillance of americans contrary to the fourth amendment but the goofs at NSA wanted to use 9/11 to do it the bad way, anyhow?

        bill binney a great man

    4. Bill Binney is a hero and it is more important than ever to pay attention to what he’s saying, especially in light of recent pathetic attempts to discredit his and his fellow Intel vets’ investigation debunking the Russian hacking hoax.

  2. It should come as no surprise that a dictator will act like one. I’m always amazed at the cries of outrage and surprise that follow actions by Trump that disrupt the “norm” but are not anywhere forbidden in the Constitution. While the other branches can check some overreaches by the Chief Executive, we are learning every day that Trump finds new ways to punish and threaten people that cannot be challenged.

    1. Actually, igpres, Obama acted in a less democratic fashion. If you remember he said I have a pen and a telephone and then acted outside of Congress subverting the Constitution.

      Trump has done none of that except he said that he had an eraser and he erased most of Obama’s executive orders.

      Trump has been far more transparent and has followed the law far more closely than Obama. Why not complain about Obama and call him a dictator?

        1. There was no Muslim ban as proven by the number of Muslim countries not affected by the executive order. All the countries on the list had one thing in common. US security couldn’t rely upon the governments to provide adequate information on those leaving for the US.

          You are a fool.

          1. Agree. And he proved it with that one single comment right there.

            1. Right, and that’s why it kept getting trashed by the courts until it was finally modified and re-modified. But, Allan baby, it was an XO.

              1. It got modified with a change in circumstances. The Supreme Court agreed with Trump you dolt.

                1. The SCOTUS only reviewed the latest of a series of revisions of the ban. It took no position on the prior bans. And it did not agree with Trump. It just said he had the power to do what they ended up approving. And it was a 5-4 decision.

                  1. Yes, Trump prevailed in the Supreme Court and tomorrow he will prevail with a greater number.

  4. Pingback: On the Prowl re: @realDonaldTrump & @JohnOBrennan | Welcome to My Corner Here on Word Press

  5. Brennan was hardly conducting himself like he was a current CIA chief. A no holds barred publication relations assault against the President, calling him a traitor, and using his clearances as additional reasons to regard Brennan as ‘in the know’ regarding the scurrilous allegation that the President is being blackmailed by Putin is a bridge too far. Actually, I was hoping for enhanced interrogation of Brennan at a black site for a few years, but this is a good start.

    1. Brennan is behind the whole frame-up job. Colluding with foreign intelligence to spy on the Trump campaign, to shopping the phony dossier around to Congressional leaders and media, for starters.

  6. Continuing Brennan’s security clearance would have been a good idea if Trump actually consulted with people who know more about national security matters than he does, but he doesn’t. He is the smartest stable genius and doesn’t need to study anything or consult with anyone. If the president had to undergo scrutiny for a security clearance he wouldn’t get one. And how the hxll did Jared get one? Daddy-in-law just handed it out?

    1. yah right. Even Feinschwein had reservations about Brennan after she found out he’d spied on the Senate — which Obama ignored.

      “Shortly before 9 a.m. on March 11, 2014, Dianne Feinstein, the 80-year-old chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, walked into the Senate chamber with a thick stack of papers and a glass of water. The Senate had just finished a rare all-night session a few minutes earlier, and only a handful of staffers were left in the room. Feinstein had given thousands of speeches over her career, but none quite like this.

      “Let me say up front that I come to the Senate floor reluctantly,” she said, as she poked at the corners of her notes. The last two months had been an exhausting mix of meetings and legal wrangling, all in an attempt to avoid this exact moment. But none of it had worked. And now Feinstein was ready to go public and tell the country what she knew: The CIA had broken the law and violated the Constitution. It had spied on the Senate.

      “This is a defining moment for the oversight of our intelligence community,” Feinstein said nearly 40 minutes later, as she drew to a close. This will show whether the Senate “can be effective in monitoring and investigating our nation’s intelligence activities, or whether our work can be thwarted by those we oversee.”

      Two hours later and a few miles away at a Council on Foreign Relations event near downtown Washington, the CIA responded. “As far as the allegations of, you know, CIA hacking into Senate computers,” CIA Director John Brennan told Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, shaking his head and rolling his eyes to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the charges, “nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, we wouldn’t do that.”

      Brennan was 58, but that morning he looked much older. He’d hobbled into the room on a cane following yet another hip fracture, and after some brief remarks he eased himself into a chair with obvious discomfort. Two years earlier in a commencement address at Fordham University, his alma mater, Brennan had rattled off a litany of injuries and ailments: In addition to his hip problems, he’d also had major knee, back, and shoulder surgeries as well as “a bout of cancer.” Years of desk work had resulted in extra weight and the sort of bureaucrat’s body that caused his suits to slope down and out toward his belt. “I referred the matter myself to the CIA inspector general to make sure that he was able to look honestly and objectively at what the CIA did there,” Brennan said. “And, you know, when the facts come out on this, I think a lot of people who are claiming that there has been this tremendous sort of spying and monitoring and hacking will be proved wrong.”

      Mitchell, who had already asked him two questions about the allegations, pressed again. “If it is proved that the CIA did do this, would you feel that you had to step down?”

      Brennan chuckled and stuttered as he tried to form an answer. Two weeks earlier, he had told a dinner at the University of Oklahoma that “intelligence work had gotten in my blood.” The CIA wasn’t just what he did; it was his “identity.” He had worked too hard to become director to give up without a fight. “If I did something wrong,” Brennan eventually told Mitchell, “I will go to the president, and I will explain to him exactly what I did, and what the findings were. And he is the one who can ask me to stay or to go.”

      But Obama was never going to ask for his resignation. Not then, and not months later when the CIA inspector general’s report came back, showing that the agency had done what Feinstein claimed. Brennan was Obama’s man. His conscience on national security, and the CIA director he’d wanted from the very beginning. Not even a chorus of pleas from Democratic senators, members of Obama’s own party, made any difference. John Brennan would stay, the untouchable head of America’s most powerful intelligence agency.

      Brennan has been many things: a CIA official, a CEO, and even, briefly, a television pundit. He was a top official at the CIA during the torture years of the Bush administration, and the architect of Obama’s shadowy, controversial drone program.”

      The Untouchable John Brennan

      How did the candidate of hope and change turn into the president of secret kill lists, drone strikes hitting civilians, and immunity for torturers? The answer may lie in his relationship with the CIA director, a career bureaucrat turned quiet architect of a morally murky national security policy who isn’t going to let a little thing like getting caught spying on the Senate bring him down.

      https://www.buzzfeed.com/gregorydjohnsen/how-cia-director-john-brennan-became-americas-spy-and-obamas?utm_term=.ho9AD2AP8x#.uqXzr3zMdg

    2. are you some kind of suckup to Brennan? out here shilling for him, pathetic.,

      nobody much likes this creep and he is no loss to the “intelligence community” let alone America.

      1. Mr Kurtz, my remark really had little to do with Brennan, it was more of a snark at the petty little-hand man who thinks he’s too smart to listen to anyone else.

        2. so you will support a loser like brennan because you hate trump. ok. got it.

    3. BettyKath,….
      There are actually high ranking former intelligence officials who are not political hacks like Brennan.
      Brennan is certainly free to perform as a partisan “analyst” on TV, but there is no obligation on the part of any president to maintain security clearances for those political actors like Brennan who seek to undermine an Administration.
      That’s just common sense.

  7. If Brennan’s behavior is erratic then Trump’s tweeting, lying, out of control tirades make him a slam dunk candidate for a mental institution. As far as hypocrisy, treason, lies, etc. if ever there was the pot calling the kettle black it’s Trump accusing, or deriding just about anyone. What it comes down to is respect by any means. ‘Say bad things about me and I’ll Putinize ya. Or, I’ll Ergodanize ya. Trump spends most of his time defending himself and his actions. Trump is up to all hours of the night surfing the news to see if someone has badmouthed him. Paranoid schizophrenic comes to mind. Add that to megalomaniac, pathological liar, and imbecile; well you do the math.

    1. While your right about everything you said, it’s best just to constrain those who are dangerous to themselves and others, without insulting them.

      1. Isaac son of Bason is wholly wrong but you son of Bacon are mostly right about the impropriety of insulting people with mental illness. You two sons however are not psychiatrists and not qualified to diagnose any such thing. THus ends your two unqualified opinions.

        1. Mr. Kurtz,…
          I’d have to review the exchanges between Trump and Brennan to be sure, but I think the animosity between the two increased after Brennan accused Trump of “treason”.
          It’s not too difficult to figure out why that statement by Brennan might get a reaction from Trump.

          1. that was a very bad word to come out against a sitting president by the former head of the CIA. He is lucky he was not arrested.

            Trump as the elected representative of the American people has a mandate against the Deep State bureaucrats-appointees who think they are above elections. That is the bottom line our steadfast support needs to send.

          2. It’s interesting that Brennan’s accusation of “treason” against Trump is not mentioned in many “news” reports about Brennan the Victim.
            Probably wasn’t deemed important enough to mention😒😞 by many in the media.

            1. The establishment media is now mainly a psychological weapon of the cryptocracy aimed at all of our heads.

  8. WHY? Why would someone, anyone, who no longer works for the government, still have a security clearance? Does John Dean have one?

    1. Last evening in a discussion with Ed Henry, a guest knowledgeable on security clearances said they are very valuable to people when they leave government and seek other positions which require one. It can be quite a process to obtain one so someone having one is like having cash in hand.

      1. The guy is 62 years old and his pension is what’s due under law to someone who logged 35 years as a federal employee and was hired prior to 1984. He has a gig at MSDNC to tide him over until he is Medicare eligible (Sept. 2020) and can collect full Social Security (Nov. 2021).

        1. I agree with Dr Steve Piechenik, (sic), that the 1st thing that should be done to fix this country is to completely do away with all pensions/Med benefits for all new hires.

          It’d be better to pay them the cash up front so they don’t have to worry about hanging on to the job for the bennies.

          Next is kill govt employees unions.

  9. How is his free speech affected? He can still be a goon and talk about whatever he wants. Having a clearance does not mean he has access to material. If he does not have a need for TS info, he could not read it. Hopefully, this will keep him out of sensitive areas in the CIA.

  10. Co’me on this isn’t rocket science.

    A leaves government service and A’s clearance is placed on INACTIVE Status for a set perioid of time. Six months whatever. The clearance if not reactivated within the set period iof time is automaticaly revoked. The system is already in place. Just needs to be used.

    THis is really a Duuuuhhhh sort of problem and answer.

    To repeat B leaves a job which required a Clearance the clearance goes on standby and may not be used. If not activated in a time certain is revoked.

    C leaves a military assignment goes on leave

    D leaves a civilian government job and a year later gets a new one must file information on that one year the clearance kicks out of inactive status into a temporary or permanent status.

  11. The funniest part of the news conference was when all of the reporters said there were no Republicans on the list. Evidently, even the Lame Stream Media does not consider Comey a Republican. 🙂

      1. Comey lived in Northern Virginia until quite recently. Virginia does not have party registration. Comey is a blatant careerist. The only reason he’d register as Republican or Democrat would be in order to keep a political appointee off his back.

    2. PC Schulte,…
      Comey “officially” dropped his registration as a Republican months ago, probably over a year ago.
      His “official” identification as a Republican while FBI Director was actually meaningless; Comey was too busy working on achieving sainthood status to let temporal things like party affiliation distract him.
      That lobbying for sainthood continued….actually accelerated….with his book tour and associated sermons by him last spring.

      1. He lived in NoVa. Virginia doesn’t have party registration. I’ve yet to see someone who insists Robert Mueller is a ‘Republican’ even identify the state in which he is registered. Rosenstein is verifiably a Republican. He’s also been employed by the Department of Justice for > 90% of his career as an attorney and was considered ‘safe’ in Eric Holder’s Justice Department to hold a U.S. Attorney’s slot. You’ve seen how he’s behaved the last two years.

        1. Yes, Comey dropped his previous registration as a Republican.
          As I said, these worldly matters are of little significance when he’s going for St. 😇James Comey status, not GOP or Democratic or Independent James Comey.😏😕

          1. You cannot register as a ‘Republican’ in Virginia. It does not have party registration. You can in DC or Maryland. He moved from Virginia to DC fairly recently.

            1. TS to Dance,…
              I was just going by what was reported two years ago, like “Comey says he no longer a registered Republican”
              – Politico, July 7, 2016
              It looks like he made a point of telling the media that, shortly after he was fired, regardless of what registration policy actually is where he lives and votes.

      3. To the extent htere is any force in your words, you have to acknowledge that Trump made Comey a martyr. Comey then happily accepted the mantle.

        1. Yes, to those who were saps, Comey was and is a marytr.
          Martyrdom should give him a boost in his quest for canonization.

  12. I’ve asked why a quondam official would have a security clearance. I’m told it’s so his successors can seek out his marvelous wisdom. OK, why would Trump’s people have any interest in talking to Brennan?

    One of the motives for having an ‘enemies list’, Prof. Turley, is that you have actual enemies. Which the President does. Or hadn’t you noticed?

    1. TS to Dance,…
      Do you mean that a little thing like accusing a President of treason could make an enemy out of a President?

  13. Johnny was a TV talking head, merchandizing his security clearance for financial gain

    If Johnny would have discussed policies on Iran, North Korea & Syria then what? Maybe Johnny would like to discuss China during his tenure at the CIA. Perhaps all those man made islands that China built in the South China Sea would be a good topic. China advertised the islands as farming land. Now the islands are hardened military bases equipped with radar, SAM missile systems, runways for fighter jets & army boots on ground ready for combat.

      1. Mespo,..
        – I’ve previously mentioned that when we take in these immigrants like Isaac from these third-world countries, they can’t really be expected to understand American history, or American politics.

    2. Hogwash! Trump is doing what all private sector businesses do with EX-employees –
      yank security clearances, get the keys to the building back and reassign the parking space.

    3. Basically, I’d say he’s pulling a Nixon. But Nixon was stealthier about it.

  15. This is just another example of Trumps vindictive mpulses. He is an embarrassment but has a base that loves this kind of action and others who don’t really care. A bad situation for the country

    1. And what about vindictiveness of Brennan to run with and manipulate use of sleazy/sloppy/unsubstantiated dossier?

    2. When a washed-up hack like Brennan accuses the President of treason, there is less incentive to continue his security clearance.
      That is common sense, but it plays better if Brennan can play the victim of “vindictive impulses”.
      If Brennan is still pissy about Hillary losing the election, or Gus Hall losing in 1976, that’s his problem.

    3. Martha, If your housekeeper has the keys to your home do you let her keep them after you fire her?

    4. Hello, i am part of Trumps base. You are right I don’t care in fact I like it that Trump is vindictive. It’s high time we had a Republican president who has a pair

    1. Dear Late4Yoga: You seeking out some “scientific” description of Trump either means you are driven by a personal dislike of the man, or are secretly attracted to him. Either way it appears you are driven by some weird obsession of Trump which explains your endless ramblings.

      1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

        “Although Irritable Male Syndrome is most often caused by high stress and/or low testosterone; high estrogen levels can also cause irritability in men. The main source of this imbalance is a declining level of testosterone associated with andropause and aging. Other factors can contribute to the andropause-related mood swings in men including weight gain. This creates fat cells which produce estrogen from testosterone. The higher the estrogen levels and the lower the testosterone levels, the greater the likelihood of irritability in men. Furthermore, high levels of the stress hormone cortisol diminishes testosterone levels, causing the same increased likelihood of mood swings in men. Certain medications can also cause hormonal imbalances.”

        It’s possible that Trump might be too old for andropausal IMS by now. But Trump’s reputed cheeseburger habit in conjunction with high levels of stress may have extended Trump’s vulnerability.

        1. Ms. Late4Yoga: You really are quite persistent with your urge to share your obsession with bad boy Trump. Do you also dream about him?

        2. I had a huge test when I was younger and middle age responsibilities and stress does take an extra bite out of it on top of aging. Time to get me some TEST HRT muy pronto, thank you!

  17. Clearance for access to “security” intelligence is not nearly as useful as clearance to actual brain function intelligence. Unfortunately it’s rare to find the latter in the upper levels of power.

    1. Unfortunately, there is no known cure, yet, for chronic progressive reversion to high school. [I’m not talking about you, Mr. Bacon. (It’s Trump I’m talking about)]

  18. “There is currently no case that would directly contravene Trump’s authority in barring access to former officials on a case-by-case basis.”
    ******************
    Then what is “highly controversial” about it? CIA rules bar security clearances for people who behave like Brennan. Given his vote for an avowed communist, I wonder how he got a clearance in the first place.

    1. IANAL, but I’m guessing that federal employees are not allowed to ask job applicants who they voted for as though certain answers to such a question–but not necessarily other possible answers to such a question–might bar the job applicant from being hired for the job at issue. But since Mespo727272 is, in fact, a lawyer, I suppose he can tell me why I’m wrong without going to too much trouble. [Pshaw!]

      1. That question came up in a CIA polygraph when Comrade Brennan was asked if he ever considered supporting a group calling for overthrow of the government. He said he voted for the Communist Party as a protest only, of course.

        1. Ah-ha. So it’s not a legal issue, at all, then. It’s a political issue. One has to have one of the several politically correct political positions in order to be granted a security clearance. That’s different than what I was getting at with my comment about voting behavior. [Pshaw!]

          1. No you just have to show you’re not affiliated with a group trying to overthrow the government you’re working for and sworn to serve. It is the CIA after all, not the National Parks Service.

            1. Mespo727272 said, “Given his vote for an avowed communist, I wonder how he got a clearance in the first place.”

              Mespo727272 also said, “No you just have to show you’re not affiliated with a group trying to overthrow the government you’re working for and sworn to serve.”

              Your first comment cited above suggests that it was Brennan voting for an avowed communist that, in keeping with your second comment cited above, affiliated Brennan with a group trying to overthrow the government for which Brennan was working and sworn to serve at the time that “that question came up in a CIA polygraph”–an observation that you offered as a dodge for my observation about the secrecy of the ballot. Oh! But Brennan volunteered that answer about his voting behavior. Yes. And, consequently, the CIA couldn’t at the time, nor can Mespo727272 now, use Brennan’s answer against him for the very reason that I suggested–the secrecy of the ballot.

              1. I have no way of following your “logic” so I’ll just reiterate the facts. Brennan volunteered he voted for a Communist to pass a lie detector test. He must have thought that if he lied it would activate the machine and has said as much. He says he voted that way in 1980 to protest what he believed were problems in the US. I doubt that was his motivation and a good security officer would, too. Hence, my wonderment at how he got a clearance. It’s not secret, if you divulge it. You can question motives of avowed actions. That’s what you do everyday here.

                1. Mespo,..
                  -I once asked Paul Schulte about diagraming one of L4D’s rambling, run-on sentences.
                  I don’t think he or anyone else is up for that challenge.

                  1. You don’t follow the thread. The run-on sentence consisted almost entirely of Mespo727272’s own words. The pretzel logic is his, not mine. He wants to equivocate between the secrecy of the ballot versus punishing people for their voting behavior if they voluntarily disclose who they voted for during a mandatory polygraph test. Do not also fail to notice that Mespo727272 equates voting for a communist with affiliating oneself with a group seeking to overthrow the government. IOW, Mespo727272 equates exercising one’s right to vote with seeking to overthrow the government depending upon exactly for whom one votes. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that the secrecy of the ballot is supposed to prevent people from being accused of seeking to overthrow the government–amongst other things.

                    1. L4D:

                      It’s takes a fairly leaden brain not to understand that a vote for a Communist candidate IS a vote for an organization trying to overthrow the US government. I thought that was an implicit fact (Even Brennan gets that since he meekly characterized it as a “protest vote”) but if you want to characterize that as “punishment” for voting then I suppose you’d happily hire someone who volunteered they voted for Zeus in the last election. Nothing strange about that. No sirree. Welcome to the CIA! We need folks who can wield lightning bolts.

                      Can’t punish for disloyalty is quite the argument.

                    2. I think Brennan is a creep. One doesn’t need to go all the way back to 1976 to establish that, his tenure under Obama speaks for itself.

                      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/07/john-brennan-cia-drones-obama

                      But, I would disagree that a communist regime was necessarily an anti-American one. During the war obviously the communist regime of Stalin was an American ally. It fit with Stalin’s “socialism in one country” policy that repudiated the earlier revolutionary positions of the Socialist International.

                      Likewise, I do not see the Chicom government as one that is necessarily in favor of overthrowing the US. I think they just want to own a piece of it. And they do, quite literally, own a lot of our debt. hard to see how that fits into a strategy of overthrow.

                      THen there is Vietnam. Ho, was an anti-Japanese antagonist, and when America took France’s side against him he became anti-American. But look at how the Viet Coms today are strategically aligning with the US.

                      Communism was mostly nationalist in the post-Trotsky era, in those foreign countries. Even as the American communists maintained a Trotskyite inclination long after his liquidation. Any American that affiliated with Communism in the post-war soviet era was something of a fool, really.

                    3. Mr Kurtz – I would posit that even though we were technically allies with the Soviet Union for part of WWII, they were always our enemy. At no time did they stop stealing secrets from the US. Stalin knew about the nuclear tests before Truman told him. That is how good their system was.

                2. Mespo: Regarding Late4Yoga “I have no way of following your “logic””. Welcome to the club. Anybody trying to flush out logic from Late4Yoga runs the risk of engaging in an illogical act.

                  1. You have the mere word logic. You do not possess der dang in sich. And you never will.

                    1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – I have tried several times to translate this using Google and it doesn’t seem to translate.

                    4. Dasein translates literally as “being there.” However, Herr Heathling [Heidegger] gave it the philosophical meaning “being-in-the-world.”

                      Oddly enough, Kurtz is mostly correct in so far as logic cannot really be a thing in and of itself (except for such things as electrical circuits and the mechanical version of Boolean operators), but can only ever be an accumulated and learned experience of one’s being-in-the-world. In any case, since logic is still a tool for constructing or analyzing arguments, anyway, putting the mere word logic on a placard and waving it around a blawg as a protest against somebody else’s argument is just more evidence of the primitive mind running amok in the world in and of itself.

                3. So, if someone volunteers that they voted for a communist, then, according to Mespo727272, that person volunteered that they were (and still are?) affiliated with a group trying to overthrow the government. And this has nothing to do with punishing people for their voting behavior?

                  1. I would respectfully suggest that you go back to bed, get a little more sleep, then have another go at it.

                    1. Have you spanked a hippopotamus yet, Jitterbug Jitterbug Madre???

                      Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it.

                4. So, we should take away the security clearances of folks who have left government service and who disagree with Trump on some significant issues of national security? But we should leave Trump and all those who enable him in control of our government so that he can surrender our security to Putin (an avowed Communist)?
                  Whatever happened to you old school righties who mocked leftists claiming they felt “Better red than dead” and proclaimed yourselves “Better brave than slave”?
                  It appears you are ready to join Team Putin. Sad!

                  1. anyhow you guys meaning pretty much everybody in America … fails to understand that in Russia and China and Vietnam a “Communist” did not mean a big fat pinko socialist pansy, it meant, usually, just a NATIONALIST.

                    Hence the easy transition of post Mao China to state capitalism, and the transformation of Putin from party cadre and KGB man into later-day Czar.

                    2. Wow hollywood, you really need to get a grip. In your fetid imagination, the President should have no authority to order the review and revocation of security clearances for anyone. If those he directed to conduct the review make recommendations to revoke clearances, then should the President ignore them? This was a move that should have been done 4 years ago when his agency was caught spying on the Senate. Not only should his clearance have been revoked, he should have been fired. Damn you guys are pathological.

                    3. Hollwood, you’re a pawn for the belligerents intent on war. Pathetic!
                      There is much to admire about Putin, without being considered part of his “team.”
                      I reject categorically the demonization of foreign heads of state by our mass media.
                      They did it to Saddam Hussein, Qadaffi, Castro, now Putin, tomorrow maybe Xi.

                      YOU are the sad fool to be taken in by the propaganda machine.

                  2. “… Putin (an avowed Communist)?”
                    ****************
                    The old Soviet Union is gone. Putin is more nationalist than communist but maybe you’ve got some inside information.

                    1. in the context of Russia and China, communism was seen by many as a necessarily ruthless movement to modernize the nation, by crushing the feudal order and leap frogging ahead, if possible, in order to bring them up to par with the western powers. Obviously the leapfrogging part did not work, entirely, but the push for modernization in industrial, social, and military matters had some success.

                      Now, their transition to markets indicates a similar pragmatic approach to systemic adjustments to enhance their national competitiveness.

                      Nationalism was the fundamental ideology of Stalin, Mao, Ho, and Kim alike.

                      Communism for Americans was mostly a catchall for malcontents and subversives, by contrast.

                    4. The only inside information Hollowood has is from the bedpans he carries back and forth.

                    6. Actually, I see Putin more as a greedy, brutal, murderous, tyrannical psychopath.
                      And I see Trump attempting to emulate him and curry favor with him.

                    7. So to curry Putin’s favor, Trump arms Putin’s enemies the Ukrainians, puts missiles in Poland aimed at Putin, sanctions Putin’s diplomats out of the country, and opposed Russia’s life-saving oil pipeline. Trump’s the worst favor currier in history, just like our efforts to curry favor with Saddam Hussein!

                    8. 🙂 That’s great Mespo. If President Trump were Putin’s wingman, Putin would be wondering why his good buddy has a radar lock on him.

                  3. “Whatever happened to you old school righties who mocked leftists ”

                    The left plays politics with our security. The right understands real politic.

                    You are a fool.

        2. at CIA it’s a job qualification to be able to “beat the box.” When he told this baldfaced lie calmly, they said, He’s a ringer! Let him in.

  19. Did you ever think that the President has intel that these clearances were used while in office for nefarious purposes? 🙄

Comments are closed.