MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rand Paul: Trump Should Keep Revoking Ex-Obama Officials’ Security Clearances

The Kentucky Republican is glad Trump stripped ex-CIA Director John Brennan of his security clearance. But Trump shouldn’t stop there, Paul says.

Douglas Christian/ZUMA Press/NewscomDouglas Christian/ZUMA Press/NewscomSen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) is hailing President Donald Trump's decision to strip former CIA Director John Brennan of his security clearance. But the Kentucky Republican doesn't think the president should stop with Brennan.

On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders accused Brennan, who led the CIA for most of former President Barack Obama's second term, of "lying." Brennan's "recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary," Sanders said, "is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation's most closely held secrets."

Sanders' remarks echoed the sentiments of Paul, who has spent weeks calling for Brennan, a harsh critic of Trump, to lose his clearance. Late last month, Paul wrote on Twitter that "Brennan and other partisans" should be stripped of their security clearances. He suggested Brennan has leveraged his clearance into gigs as a cable news talking head.

So it came as no surprise that Paul lauded Trump for taking away Brennan's security clearance. "I urged the President to do this. I filibustered Brennan's nomination to head the CIA in 2013, and his behavior in government and out of it demonstrate why he should not be allowed near classified information," Paul said in a statement. "He participated in a shredding of constitutional rights, lied to Congress, and has been monetizing and making partisan political use of his clearance since his departure."

In an interview yesterday with WKU Public Radio, Paul said he wants other ex-Obama administration intelligence officials, including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, to lose their clearances as well.

According to the Kentucky Republican, Clapper lied before the Senate Intelligence Committee when he was asked in March 2013 by Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) if U.S. intelligence was spying on American citizens. "When he was asked by Sen. Wyden if the NSA was collecting information on Americans, private information, he said no and that was a lie," Paul said. "Later, Edward Snowden revealed that they were collecting all Americans' phone information."

Paul has previously come down hard on ex-Obama administration officials. Last month, he suggested that Brennan, Clapper, and Comey were "bad apples that need to be dismissed from the swamp of Washington." And in April, Paul accused Rice of committing a crime by unmasking the identities of associates to Trump.

While Paul wants Trump to keep stripping security clearances, many former officials are making the opposite case. On Thursday, a dozen ex-intelligence officials blasted Trump's "attempt to stifle free speech." According to the officials: "Decisions on security clearances should be based on national security concerns and not political views."

As Reason's Scott Shackford argued last month, revoking the clearances is a bad move by the president:

What does this threat mean for those in the FBI responsible for investigating the role Russia played in meddling with the 2016 election? What does this mean for whistleblowers or anybody connected to the government who may attempt to warn the public of misconduct? Because this is not an effort to "drain the swamp" in any real way, it's really threatening that anybody who puts out information critical of the president could lose their security clearance and thereby lose job prospects.

Trump shouldn't strip former officials of their security clearances just because he doesn't agree with their political viewpoints. But in this case, it appears that that is Trump's primary motivation.

Photo Credit: Douglas Christian/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Juice||

    Trump shouldn't strip former officials of their security clearances just because he doesn't agree with their political viewpoints.

    The clearances should be stripped because they are former officials and not currently officials. If they become officials again, they can have their clearances reinstated.

  • I can't even||

    ^This^

    They should all lose their clearances as soon as they have no "need to know" because they left their government jobs.

    When I left the military, my Secret clearance went away immediately. A few years later I went back into the National Guard and it took a full year before my I was cleared again.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Sure. Next thing you're gonna tell us is that if you kept classified information on your own server you'd have gone to jail.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Too Deep State to Jail

  • Hank Phillips||

    I am constantly forced to spend $35 for sets of fingerprints for the lowest of unclassified bureaucratic work in the court system. Why should former members of either dangerous looter faction be spared the indignity?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Exactly. There's no good reason for them to retain those clearances.

  • Merl3noir||

    I've been wondering why they are allowed to keep the Security Clearance. Only reason I can come up with is the need to be briefed on things that they were involved in that could effect their life after they have left office. For example I could see the CIA chief being a target simply due to his prior job, and may need to be kept aware of classified information so he does not put himself or others close to him in danger. However I would think that they could revoke the clearance, while allowing a exemption for information that they have a need to know for their own protection.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Private intelligence firms.

  • SchillMcGuffin||

    The explanation I've heard has to do with "continuity". Retaining security clearance makes it easier to maintain on-going consulting relationships with former officials on on-going operations, investigations, etc.

    But it seems clear to me that this is entirely for the benefit and convenience of the government and department, and should probably only ever have been done sparingly and on an "as needed" basis. Instead it seems to have come be viewed as an employment perk, ensuring a sinecure of punditry for departing government officials. If an ex-offiical is philosophically at odds with a new administration, for noble reasons or ill -- such that no "consulting" relationship is desired or practical -- why should they continue to enjoy such privileges?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I've got this theory that it's actually about making sure that people still on the inside leaking to them don't get too nervous and cut them off; While still illegal, leaking to somebody who has a security clearance is probably easier to rationalize than leaking to somebody who's had their clearance revoked.

  • Nardz||

    This is like when there was controversy over not letting people who went to Syria to join IS back into the country. I had the same reaction:

    "Wait, not letting them return/lose security clearance ISN'T the normal procedure? WTF?"

  • aajax||

    Yes, often when you dig a little deeper, there are good reasons for things that are counterintuitive.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I've been wondering why they are allowed to keep the Security Clearance."

    Because the Deep State is a permanent ruling class. What part of "permanent" don't you understand?

  • John Galt Jr||

    What part of "conspiracy psycho" don't you grasp?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano goes to Sockpuppet #3.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Probably the part where it applies to obvious observations.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Of all the things Trump has done while in office, manipulating the Left into defending the integrity of the FBI, CIA and their apparatchiks is far and away the most lulzy.

  • John||

    David French wrote an article yesterday defending Brennen. If you set out to totally discredit French with Republicans, getting him to defend John Brennen is about as good of a means to do that as there is.

  • buybuydandavis||

    NRO is the right wing of the Deep State Globalist Uniparty.

    The most important accomplishment of Trump's presidency would be breaking the Uniparty's hold on the Republican Party. Americans would have one party for self government.

    The outcome of this fight has yet to be determined. But at least there is hope. If Hillary had won, the American Revolution was done.

  • John Galt Jr||

    GREAT satire! All Trumo's imbeciles will swallow it whole!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano swallows frequently in downtown Boise.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Mostly Trump has ensured that the next Democratic president will toss the right-wingers out of the FBI and CIA without delay.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Your fantasy life is almost as robust as your hicklib self-loathing.

  • JoeB||

    Revoke all fired bureaucrats' clearances. Drain the swamp. Love it!

  • BigT||

    Trump hasn't done that, only Comey. Do you expect/approve of such an over-reaction?

  • Paradigm||

    > Mostly Trump has ensured that the next Democratic president will toss the right-wingers out of the FBI and CIA without delay.

    Sure but, when we're all octogenarians, it won't make much difference.

  • Fancylad||

    "Removing an ex-employee's security clearance = firing current employees for their beliefs" - t.Kirkland

    I just shows how lefties can't into appropriate response or measures. It's scorched earth every time for those clowns.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Trump is a lefty. Who knew?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Like a good Lefty, you say that like it's a bad thing.

    Down with the Deep State. Term limits for all federal apparatchiks.

  • Dillinger||

    point seems so simple it's stupid there's debate

  • Jgalt1975||

    If Trump just declared that all former government employees' security clearances were being terminated and would be terminated going forward for anyone leaving government employment, I would have no problem with that. However, Trump himself has made it explicitly clear that he's selectively targeting people for this, not applying some sort of principled rule.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    But there are plenty of principled rules that would properly result in Brennan losing his security clearance. What you maybe mean is, that it wasn't a principled rule that *you* would apply.

    Lie to Congress about spying on Congress, lose your security clearance on being canned. Seems like a good principled rule to me.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Let the Deep State rule, because Trump"

  • John Galt Jr||

    Let the psychos drool, because Trump

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano knows all about drooling as his nurse wipes his chin.

  • PRussell||

    Actually, this is not really necessary. For most things security clearance is like a TSA pre-check. There is no reason to routinely revoke clearance because you would not be exposed to the information that they are worried about anyway.

    Also, in normal circumstances (certainly not now), these guys provide both formal and informal counsel once they have left their positions.

    To re-clear for top secret clearance is really time consuming and labor intensive. Personal FBI checks to your family and friends, etc.

    I am definitely concerned about these people with high level clearance pontificating on TV though.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    You seem to be unfamiliar with the protocols of the "Five Eyes" participants. With his security clearance, Brennan was able to go to any of the other Five Eyes governments and be allowed access to the pool of raw intelligence/data, subject only to their protocols (hint: not as stringent as Article in amendment #4, US Constitution). We have no information on how many times this has happened, because, well, they don't have to tell us!

  • buybuydandavis||

    They shouldn't have to reclear, but they should be denied *access* until they have a need to know validated by *government* needs beyond their own financial or political benefit.

  • Nuwanda||

    Correct. And it always pays to follow the money. These clearances obviously earn a premium on consultancy fees or for media appearances.

    Oh how they squeal when you pull their snouts from the trough.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Bingo.

    Glad there are still libertarians at Reason, even if only in the Comments.

  • John Galt Jr||

    That's already a proven lie. The Sunday talk shows,
    But ... Obama Muslim/

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano going increasingly senile.

  • JWC||

    Exactly! Clearances should end routinely unless a compelling reason is given for them to be maintained. When I leave a job, I do not get to retain the key to the front door and a company email address. Were I routinely bad-mouthing my former employer to the point where I suggest he should be jailed, I would not expect to even be allowed in the front door, regardless of how that may or may not affect other job prospects.

    John Brennan has gone of the rails in his cable news trolling, far beyond mere differences in "political viewpoints" with the President. His actions suggest that Rand Paul was correct all along: Brennan is one of several "bad apples" brought on by the Obama administration, and Washington is better off without what questionable expertise they bring to the table.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    This smells to me an awful lot like the Clinton 'Travelgate' fuss. Unlike Clinton, who wanted his own people in the White House Travel Office but didn't want to say "I have the legal right to do this, so get stuffed", Trump has no problem saying he yanked a clearance he was entitled by law to yank on personal grounds.

    More power to him.

    If you can point to a law that says he DOESN'T have the legal authority, that will be a different kettle of fish.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Umm, it can be obstruction, if he continues attacking all the potential witnesses.
    Thanks for asking.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano needs to protect his precious government bureaucrats.

  • Just Say'n||

    "White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders accused Brennan, who led the CIA for most of former President Barack Obama's second term, of "lying."

    Can we get a fact check, you know since this is just an "accusation" that totally hasn't been proven true or anything

  • John||

    She also "accused" Tom Brady of being the starting QB on five super bowl winning teams.

    This is the kind of thing that just infuriates me about Reason. Brennen lied to Congress multiple times. It is not an accusation. Even if Reason wants to defend Brennen and claim he shouldn't lose his clearance, why do they feel the need to insult their readers by pulling chicken shit like this? Someone needs to explain to the Reason staff that lying to their readership doesn't help their case.

  • ThomasD||

    Well, I'm not aware of anyone who has accused Setyon of being a "journalist," so you might be asking a bit too much from him.

  • John||

    Touche

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Trump has lied 400 x as much, on far worse issues.

    Left - Right = Zero (still and forever)

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Nothing says honesty and integrity like changing your handle in order to hide, David, er, Mikey, er, Elilis.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies about who he is, doesn't see the irony.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    You got me. almost.. But I actually have 17 socks.
    EVERY identity on the entire board who does not slurp Trump's cock can ONLY be one person!
    Because the God that walks among us.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still mad that he's my bitch.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hihn, the ones who all spout the same bullshit and use the same writing styles and rants definitely are.

    Did you actually think you were being stealthy?

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Oh/

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    It's a pretty strange take. Mot really a Trump fan but he's surely less worse than the Hag (cut moar taxes and starve the Fedgov) and Brennan should be in fucking jail for his stint at CIA.

    On a practical basis you'd have to be retarded to give more ammo to a guy not just popping off on MSDNC but actively trying to undermine your agenda. It's not like their aren't a shit ton of spooks that aren't political hacks who have the same intel. Fuck Brennan with a rusty chain saw.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    "FUCK FREE SPEECH" snarls the authoritarian right.

  • BigT||

    Security clearance != free speech.

    Hihn - stupidity = 0

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Hihn - stupidity = 0"

    Winner winner, chicken dinner!

  • John Galt Jr||

    Umm, punishing somebody for speech is too complex for Trumpbeciles?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks security clearance = speech.

  • plowe70||

    Are you like a stalker?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If Brennan doesn't like it, he can start his own government.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    "FUCK FREE SPEECH" snarls the authoritarian right.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks security clearances = free speech.

  • David Nolan||

    Confused on what the issue is.
    Again

    Trumptards be tards

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano projects his stupidity again.

    Hihnsanos be Hinsane.

  • Homple||

    Here's an article about Brennan by Victor Davis Hanson in National Review.

    It begins, "Scarier than former CIA chief John Brennan losing his security clearance is the idea that he ever had one in the first place." Hanson proceeds to make a pretty good case why this is so.

    https://tinyurl.com/y8kfqcrv

  • John||

    Trump once again shows his brilliance in manipulating the media. He didn't have to do this. I doubt Brennen has any access to classified data and Brennen is so notorious I doubt he could ever be confirmed by any future Senate should the Democrats retake the White House. It is an entirely symbolic act. But it is an act that has caused Trump's opponents in the media to defend John Brennen.

    If there is a less sympathetic figure in public life than John Brennen I can't think of one. We now have an entire news cycle where the media, the Democrats, and the Never Trump Republicans are spending their credibility defending a guy who is a known liar and has one of the creepiest and deeply strange public personas I have ever seen. And they still can't figure out why Trump always wins.

  • JoeB||

    It was a bitch slap to Brennan for his loudmouthed BS about treason. Whose your daddy?

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    > I doubt Brennen has any access to classified data

    [Sp Brennan not Brennen.] You would be wrong. He has nearly as much access as he did while in office, via the Five Eyes program. He just waltzes over to London, Melbourne, Auckland or Toronto and asks their intel chief if he could pretty-please see all the info/data/phone calls/etc. on 'x', please and thank-you. Gets around all that pesky FISA/unmasking rule bullshit.

  • BYODB||


    Here's an article about Brennan by Victor Davis Hanson in National Review.

    It begins, "Scarier than former CIA chief John Brennan losing his security clearance is the idea that he ever had one in the first place." Hanson proceeds to make a pretty good case why this is so.

    Frankly, that's my opinion on the matter as well. It's staggering that Brennan survived in the Intel community as long as he did. I mean, it shouldn't surprise me yet it still manages to.

  • John||

    He also fucked up everything he ever touched. The guy was bureau chief in Ryhad when the Khobar Towers bombing occurred. Only in the US government could that not only not end your career but not prevent you from someday heading the intelligence agency that you work for.

    The fact that someone like Brennen rose to such a high position is pretty strong evidence of how sick and broken our government and especially the intel community is.

  • JesseAz||

    Umm.. it was proven true. Brennan told a Senate committee the CIA was not soying in Congress. An inspector report later came out showing they were.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Sorry to burst your tribal bubble, but it's also proven that Brennan publicly apologized for it. They spied on computers of Senate Intelligence Committee staffers. It was revealed by an internal CIA investigation.

    When will Trump apologize for 1000x more lies?

  • John||

    He spied on the Senate, lied about doing so under oath, And you think the fact that after he got caught he apologized for it somehow makes it all better?

    Ah no.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    (laughing) He was "caught" by his own internal investigation.
    I link to proof. You babble. Nothing changes.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hihn, you are a brainless idiot. You prove nothing other than to reinforce what we already said.

    Dummy.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    The link proves how sick you are

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The link proves what a waste of life Dumbfuck Hihnsano is

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Click it (sneer)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks Brennan was sincere. (sneer)

  • David Nolan||

    Called out as a psycho.
    Changes story

  • Fancylad||

    "CNN"
    "actual apology"
    Okay Mike.

  • David Nolan||

    Fancylad|8.18.18 @ 5:32PM
    "CNN"
    "actual apology"
    Okay Mike

    Here's MORE proof!
    96,000 search RESULTS for Brennan's apology.

    WHEN WILL TRUMP APOLOGIZE FOR HIS 1000X MORE LIES?

  • David Nolan||

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieking like a bitch again.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its all over. Brennan lost had his clearance revoked.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is so funny that Lefties who love the Deep State are getting all worked up, yet there is nothing they can do...again.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Goobers are going to be unhappy when House Democrats regain subpoena power. Some of the yahoos may even be surprised.

    I am content.

  • Nardz||

    "I am content."

    Pretty sure this is the biggest lie of your endless lying.
    You hate yourself for having amazingly mediocre intelligence. Even stupidity can be impressive, buy your lack of real intellect is nothing if not unimpressive.
    Allow yourself some enjoyment for once, kkklinger - end your existence.
    You'll be doing yourself a much better service than the repetitive humiliation of your posting here.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Things are great for me, rube.

    I live in America, and in a successful, accomplished community -- not one of the desolate backwaters of Outer Jesusland.

    I have had profitable, enjoyable careers, thanks to effort, education, skill, good fortune, and a reliance on reason. I don't need revival meetings, tobacco, cheap sixers, or a handful of sketchy street pills to get through another deplorable day.

    My children have earned advanced degrees and will benefit from the opportunity to compete economically with your children, just as I have been able to compete with half-educated, stale-thinking yahoos throughout my lifetime.

    American progress has been vindicating my preferences throughout my lifetime. That's why right-wingers are such bitter, whining malcontents and so many of them parade around in unconvincing libertarian drag.

    America seems positioned to continue to choose my preferences and to progress as its electorate becomes less backward, less rural, less white, less religious, and less bigoted on a daily basis.

    Life is good.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Just Say'n||

    "While Paul wants Trump to keep stripping security clearances, many former officials are making the opposite case. On Thursday, a dozen ex-intelligence officials blasted Trump's "attempt to stifle free speech."

    How can you not trust former heads of the intelligence community? Clearly Rand is in the wrong.

  • BYODB||

    They also fail to even make a basic case on how this could possibly, in any way shape or form, be considered a free speech issue. There is no interpretation whatsoever that leads to that conclusion. Period.

    It's almost as if these retards have no inkling of what the first amendment actually is, or what it says. They invoke it when they need it, even when they absolutely do not understand it and in fact actually loathe that it exists in the first place.

  • Just Say'n||

    Because there is no free speech basis for this argument. It's a nonsense argument trying to pretend like somehow this endangers national security (which is hilarious that they're basing their argument for defending the income of a former political appointee based on national security)

  • Just Say'n||

    Reason's Logic:

    Topic: Ben Shapiro Gets Barred from a College

    Response: Hem and haw about how problematic Shapiro is and then say while Leftists should be open to diversity of opinions Shapiro has no clear free speech right to publicly funded college campuses that masquerade as private enterprises

    Topic: John Brennan Has Security Clearance Revoked

    Response: Yeah, sure Brennan did bad things as the head of the CIA, but this violates his imagined free speech right to earn an income off of a privileged status with this clearance. How can he get booked on cable news if he has nothing to leak to reporters?

  • BYODB||

    That about sums it up, I can't say I see anything to disagree with you on today Say'n ^_^

    Of course, needless to say this whole 'covfefe' is going to launch Brennan into a career with some media outlet where he'll be free to call Trump a NAZI Russian Traitor all day long. (And yeah, I'm ignoring that the Russians probably killed more NAZI's than anyone.)

    That assumes that he doesn't find a better paying gig in the background somewhere else, say with Russia doing 'consulting' work? Lord knows he already voted for a communist backed by the Kremlin once. Literally. That's not even hyperbole, that is what he did.

  • Nuwanda||

    Hem and haw about how problematic Shapiro is and then say while Leftists should be open to diversity of opinions Shapiro has no clear free speech right to publicly funded college campuses that masquerade as private enterprises

    Indeed. Was just reading of the curious case of Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, and their recent speaking tour of Australia and New Zealand, in which their only engagement in Auckland was cancelled due to lack of venue.

    Well, not quite. They had booked and paid for, and sold tickets to, a city council owned venue, but following threats, the council cancelled the event on "security grounds". (Note: the mayor had previously expressed the opinion that their views were hateful and they should not be welcome in public facilities). The libertarians down there followed the Reason line that they had no right to speak at publicly owned venues. A more illustrative expression of useful idiotry you could not witness. It's almost as if the libertarians are in cahoots with the statists.

    But the story gets more interesting. The libs said they should use a private facility. So they dutifully booked a private facility, and lo and behold, the private facility received threats and cancelled the show an hour before it was due to go ahead.

    The lesson is pretty clear. Let the thugs win in the public sphere and you enable them to win even in the private sphere.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Bingo.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I'm one of those old fashioned fellows who thinks it's the government's job to protect citizens against criminal violence to silence them, not aid the criminals by silencing citizens for them.

    But I suppose when the government has just as much interest and will in silencing citizens, that's too much to expect.

    Governments around the western world are effectively collaborating with terrorism to silence views they dislike.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Governments around the western world are effectively collaborating with terrorism to silence views they dislike.

    I admire your candor on Trump's tyranny.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano suffers from the tyranny of incontinence.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yep, Just Say'n pretty much nailed it.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Because there is no free speech basis for this argument

    Closes eyes. Covers ears. "la la la la la la":

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    So. 'Splain to me, Lucy, how the revocation of Brennan's clearance prevents him from saying what he wants, when he wants, to whoever he wants. (The clearance revocation keeps him from GETTING info, not spreading it.)

    Bet you can't.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    You fell for that crazy question?
    He was punished for exercising his free speech

    Closes eyes. Covers ears. "la la la la la la":

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Removing a government privilege from the permanent ruling class is *punishment*"

  • John Galt Jr||

    Umm, Trump said it was punishment.
    "The permanent ruling class" reveals your psychoness

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano stands up for his bureaucrat besties.

  • Hugh Akston||

    On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders accused Brennan, who led the CIA for most of former President Barack Obama's second term, of "lying." Brennan's "recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary," Sanders said, "is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation's most closely held secrets."

    It's definitely a good policy not to give classified information to known liars who make bizarre and incoherent public statements.

  • Just Say'n||

    Agreed that is a stupid basis to remove his clearance, considering who is the president. But, last I checked one was elected to office, while the others are former political appointees.

  • ThomasD||

    Apparently Hugh does not care for that thing called the Constitution, or what it entails.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    How would you know? (sniff)

  • BigT||

    Are you suggesting Brennan has a right to security clearance? If so, why Brennan, and why not David Duke or some other shitbag, like Hihn?

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Are you suggesting Brennan has a right to security clearance?

    Are you a fucking moron? Let's see ....

    and why not David Duke

    Trumptard says David Duke had a security clearance!!! (OMFG)
    Too stupid to know how difficult it is to get one. Took Kushner over a year,

    Trump - Warren = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano standing up for his precious government bureaucrats.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's IQ = Zero.

  • BYODB||

    Yep, Rand pretty much echos my sentiments on the matter here. Or I echo him, whatever.


    I like how people are arguing over if this is Trump being a Big Meanie(TM) or if it's because of what the people have actually done. Well, is it coincidence that most of them have (at the very least) been accused of misconduct and in at least a few cases we know they abused their power? A few were even fired over their actions, and at least one is under active investigation for it.


    Honestly, revoking security clearances isn't enough. I don't care about their clearance. I think they should be publicly investigated with jail time on the table. Not because they might have used their positions against Trump specifically, but because it's even possible that their positions could be misused in this way at all.


    I would hope that Democrats would be interested in going along with this, because if they're not we can be reasonably confident that Trump will misuse these precedents himself during the next election. That said, my biggest fear is that our 'Intelligence Community' is so far gone that they're 'independent' enough to decide they want Trump gone, and use the security apparatus itself against the President. That will be the death of the Republic, full stop.

  • Cathy L||

    I like how people are arguing over if this is Trump being a Big Meanie(TM) or if it's because of what the people have actually done. Well, is it coincidence that most of them have (at the very least) been accused of misconduct and in at least a few cases we know they abused their power? A few were even fired over their actions, and at least one is under active investigation for it.

    Yes, it is a coincidence. You could say that about just about anyone who has worked for the CIA, or the federal government. Yet only the ones who pissed Trump off personally are being singled out.

    Honestly, revoking security clearances isn't enough. I don't care about their clearance. I think they should be publicly investigated with jail time on the table. Not because they might have used their positions against Trump specifically, but because it's even possible that their positions could be misused in this way at all.

    So we're going to do that for every fedgov employee, every CIA officer, or what?

  • John||

    Yes, it is a coincidence. You could say that about just about anyone who has worked for the CIA, or the federal government. Yet only the ones who pissed Trump off personally are being singled out.

    Sure. But understand people are allowed to keep their clearances after they leave government service for the convenience of the government. They no longer have a need for them except insofar as the government wants to either bring them back into government service or call on their expertise. So "Trump being pissed" at a former government is an entirely appropriate reason to take their clearance. The only reason they have it is so that it is easier for the government to call on their expertise, something that isn't going to happen if they are crossways with the administration.

    Taking his clearance is just Trump saying "this guy will never work for the government or be called upon for anything as long a I am in office", which is entirely appropriate. If and when a Democrat gets back into office and wants to hire Brennan, he can re-apply for a clearance and get a new one.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Yet only the ones who pissed Trump off personally are being singled out."

    Yes, that's true. Obviously Trump views the world as pro-Trump or anti-Trump. However, what is Brennan's need to have access to this clearance? Certainly not national security, as I highly doubt that Trump is going to request his input on matters of national security considering the animosity between the two.

    This is all about securing an income for these former political appointees. Revoking clearance is always a political question and so there really isn't any controversy here

  • Cathy L||

    So revoke them for all former employees. But he has no interest in doing that, as you know.

  • John||

    No you don't revoke them for all former employees. Some former employees you might want to bring back into government service or ask their advice. Just because they decided that will never happen with Brennen doesn't obligate them to revoke every former employee's clearance.

  • Just Say'n||

    Well, yes. But, this is ultimately a political question, no? Clearly, though, it would be preferable for all former political appointees to be stripped of clearance, but the executive gets to pick and choose, instead.

    I heard Kissinger still has clearance, which is insane. Since he literally runs a business based upon advising foreign leaders. He's literally just selling his clearance access. Which is very much what Brennan is doing as well.

  • John||

    Well, yes. But, this is ultimately a political question, no? Clearly, though, it would be preferable for all former political appointees to be stripped of clearance, but the executive gets to pick and choose, instead.

    Why? Not all former political appointees are treasons shitbags like Brennen. Some of them on both sides are actually decent, dedicated people. And there is nothing wrong with allowing some of them to keep their clearances on the off chance they can be of some service to the current administration.

  • Just Say'n||

    I don't think former political appointees need this clearance, unless the executive wants to grant it to them.

    This is a political question. We should just automatically revoke their clearance, unless the executive wants them to maintain such clearance

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "So revoke them for all former employees. But he has no interest in doing that, as you know."

    So? He doesn't have t todo that. What a ridiculous statement.

  • John||

    Revoking clearance is always a political question and so there really isn't any controversy here

    It is not always a political question. Sometimes people do things to justify losing them. But it certainly can be a political question. To say Brennen is somehow "owed" a security clearance is to say that he is "owed" access to government secrets even though he no longer works in government and has made clear his desire to undermine the present administration. That makes no sense. You can't complain when you lose something that you were never entitled to have in the first place. Brennen having that clearance was a completely discretonary act on the part of the government. He has no standing to complain if the government changes its mind.

    Notice, despite all of the screaming about how "illegal" this is and how it violates the 1st Amendment and security clearances shouldn't be taken away for political reasons and all of that, Brennen hasn't hired a lawyer and isn't suing over it.

  • Just Say'n||

    No one is owed anything and that is what makes all of this a political question. Meaning that the executive gets to decide who he wants to provide access to

    "Brennen hasn't hired a lawyer and isn't suing over it."

    As hilarious as it sounds, the ACLU has taken up his case while they are simultaneously suing him with regards to the drone program and the death of an American citizen.

  • John||

    No one is owed anything and that is what makes all of this a political question

    That is not true. We no longer have the spoils system. Government employment, outside of the political appointees is a property interest. The government fire civil service employees because it doesn't like their politics. The same goes for revoking their security clearances, which in most cases is effectively firing them.

    This is only a "political question" because Brennen was a political appointee and worked entirely at the pleasure of the President.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Government employment, outside of the political appointees is a property interest."

    I know that's what the courts think, but it's a lot of bullshit that ensures the expansion of an unaccountable bureacracy

    I have no sympathy for that argument

  • John||

    That is not what the courts think that is what the law says. If you want to go back to the pure spoils system, take it up with Congress. But the idea that you can't fire government employees over politics was created to end the spoils system.

    We can debate whether ending the spoils system was a good idea. But that doesn't change the fact that it does not exist anymore and the law restricts the government from firing people for political reasons. And that is the law passed by Congress not some judicial invention.

  • Just Say'n||

    We're not talking about firing people. We're talking about security clearance for former employees

  • BYODB||

    Gotta say I agree with Say'n here. The simple fact is that a policy of automatic revocation of credentials makes more sense than automatically keeping them. You should have to take positive action to keep a security clearance, especially once you leave a position that requires it.

  • John||

    Most of the time this applies to ordinary government employees BYODB. Remember it is a real pain in the ass to get someone a clearance when they don't already have one. So when someone leaves government service, it is not a bad idea to let their clearance lapse on its own. That way if they decide to come back in a year or two, their new job doesn't have to go through the process of getting them a new one. It saves the government money to do that.

    It makes sense. it also makes sense to yank clearances from people that you never want to see work in the government again.

  • BYODB||

    I'm fully aware, I just don't see any particular reason to give any special consideration to former heads of this or that beyond that which is granted to their juniors.

    I don't care if it makes the governments job 'harder' in regards to granting access. Fuck, it's not like they need to re-examine the entire life of whomever they're granting access to. You only really need to in-depth look at what they've done since they left.

    And if Brennan can be Director of the CIA after voting for a Communist at the height of the cold war, what the fuck are they even looking at anyway? I mean, honestly, if he got that far than I'd say they aren't really doing much of a job as is.

  • Nardz||

    "And if Brennan can be Director of the CIA after voting for a Communist at the height of the cold war, what the fuck are they even looking at anyway? I mean, honestly, if he got that far than I'd say they aren't really doing much of a job as is."

    This

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Seems like an expedited way to get clearance back makes more sense. Of course since it's the government they would fuck that up too.

  • JoeB||

    Maybe, but then there are those individuals who grossly abuse their clearance..like Brennan!

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Again, like watching chimpanzees discuss quantum physics.
    (yawn)

  • Nardz||

    Nobody wants to hear about your gross taste in porn, fakehihn

  • BigT||

    "like watching chimpanzees discuss quantum physics."

    I'll bet you learned a lot.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    "like watching chimpanzees discuss quantum physics."

    I'll bet you learned a lot.

    Just a lot of noise and yelping..
    Do you know what a chimpanzee is?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Do you know what a chimpanzee is?

    It's Dumbfuck Hihnsano ass-mad when his sock-puppets can't cover his stupidity.

  • Voize of Reazon||

    What is hilarious about it? The ACLU defends rights, not people. They don't choose whether to take up a case based on how much they like the guy.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If John Brennan ever got what he was "owed", he would be facing the business end of a firing squad. He is an actual communist, and has done tremendous damage to this country. he belongs in prison at a minimum.

  • ThomasD||

    "Yet only the ones who pissed Trump off personally are being singled out."

    Provably false.

    https://preview.tinyurl.com/y9oqsb27

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Trump views the world as pro-Trump or anti-Trump.""

    You would think someone that was in the intel business would know that, and the implications of it, and how to navigate it.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Do we believe over 75 security professionals, from across the political spectrum, or a tribe of alt-right loons?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano proselytizes his faith in the government bureaucracy.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    4-star Generals = government bureaucracy
    Bush's Secretary of State = government bureaucracy
    Senior political appointees (since Carter) = government bureaucracy

    Following ONLY Faux News and Bretifart is volunteering to be uninformed

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano white-knighting for government bureaucrats again, loves his appeals to authority.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Obviously, we (and by we, I mean you) believe the lying liars-caught-countless-times-lying called 'security professionals" because of your consistently demonstrated confirmation bias and love of the Deep State.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Non-responsive,
    Diversion
    Typical

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Manic
    Idiotic
    Typical

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    This is literally a billion times worse than revoking the clearance of a current government employee because he was critical of mommy.

  • John||

    He was just some deplorable not someone important like Brennen.

  • BYODB||

    Of course, if by 'pissed off' you mean acted unethically and potentially committed crimes...

    Never once have I claimed that Trump is acting out of some sort of principle, but so far the people put forward for having their clearance pulled are all people who have acted unethically with their clearance in one way or another.

    Maybe if you're going to go after the administration with wild and unsubstantiated claims on TV or if you're going to go full-bore Godwin, don't have a lot of skeletons in your closet that would justify removing you and/or your security clearance?

    Maybe that should be the moral of the story: don't throw stones in glass houses. Trump could almost certainly benefit from that advice himself.

  • JesseAz||

    Cathy... I know you revel in your ignorance based superiority... But people lose clearances daily for erratic behavior. If your average clearance holder was going out of town weekends calling the president a traitor, he'd be investigated for his competence and beliefs and have his status reviewed.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I think they should be publicly investigated with jail time on the table.

    Another authoritarian, bigoted, disaffected right-wing asswipe who is going to be shocked and angered by how things turn out for Hillary Clinton . . . and for Michael Flynn (and perhaps Michael Flynn Jr.), Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, Donald Trump Jr., Michael Cohen, etc. etc. etc.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Lot of big traitor talk from a high school dropout menial career minimum wage worker.

    Carry on comrade.

  • Fats of Fury||

    Has Hillary's security clearance been revoked? She should have been first.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    That certainly appears to be the sentiment among half-educated, bigoted, backwater-inhabiting, can't-keep-up right-wing yahoos.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Or among boilerplate spouting, self-loathing, bigoted, anxiety med-hoovering, anthill-inhabiting, desperate-to-keep-up left-wing hicklibs.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, how angry do you get when you head to the bus stop to go home from your entry level job of thirty years and your conservative boss leaves in his $100k luxury vehicle?

    Carry on comrade.

  • Sevo||

    "According to the officials: "Decisions on security clearances should be based on national security concerns and not political views.""

    Well, "political views" are sort of what separates the US from many other countries, so I think they need to qualify that.

  • BYODB||

    When one's 'political views' are 'call the President a NAZI who definitely conspired with the Russians to get rid of Hillary' you might have more cause than they claim to remove one's security clearance. That isn't just 'political commentary' it's unhinged insanity. You can critique an administration without going full godwin, after all.

    Not that I care that they say such things, not even in the least. But it's a bit crazy that someone that says things like that can retain their clearance.

  • John||

    Reason's sudden concern for security clearances and whistleblowers would have a lot more credibility if they had said boo about this

    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....ity-clear/

    Adam Lovinger, a 12-year strategist in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, complained to his bosses about Halper contracts in the fall of 2016, his attorney, Sean M. Bigley, told The Washington Times.

    On May 1, 2017, his superiors yanked his security clearance and relegated him to clerical chores.

    Mr. Bigley filed a complaint July 18 with the Pentagon's senior ethics official, charging that Mr. Lovinger's superiors misused the security clearance process to punish him. He said his client complained about excessive "sweetheart" deals for Mr. Halper and for a "best friend" of Chelsea Clinton.

    Here is a real case of someone having their security clearance yanked for pointing out malfeasance in the government. And reason has never said a single word about it, because it is different when Obama does it I guess.

  • Cathy L||

    On May 1, 2017, his superiors yanked his security clearance and relegated him to clerical chores.

    it is different when Obama does it I guess.

    I have some bad news for you about who was president in May 2017.

  • John||

    For all of five months. Sure. and Trump or at least Sesssions was guilty of negligence for allowing that to happen. That, however, doesn't alter the larger point that if Reason's concern over this was anything but raw partisanship, they would have been concerned about that case.

  • Cathy L||

    Trump's Pentagon retaliate against a guy, and Reason doesn't cover it because they're partisan against Trump. Give me a break dude.

  • John||

    Yes, Trump didn't revoke his clearance and the reasons for it being revoked are because he offended his Obama superiors. Trump did revoke Brenenes. So reason is suddenly concerned.

    You surely are smart enough not to try and die on this hill.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You misspelled "Obama appointee." Or are you suddenly of the opinion that ppl like Sally Yates were actually following trump directives?

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Trump shouldn't strip former officials of their security clearances just because he doesn't agree with their political viewpoints. But in this case, it appears that that is Trump's primary motivation.

    False. I have yet to see a single substantive argument as to why these individuals should be allowed to keep their clearances when they no longer hold high-ranking intelligence positions. It's all just HERPADERP TRUMP IS A BIG MEAN JERK FIRST AMENDMENT!!

  • Cathy L||

    Your handle is appropriate.

  • John||

    Cathy you haven't made a single argument in Brennen's defense other than "taint fair". You haven't even tried to answer why Brennen has any entitlement to a security clearance. You just assume he is and then say Trump couldn't take it from him for political reasons. The reasons only matter if Brennen has some level of right to the clearance. He doesn't and you have yet to give a single reason why he does.

  • Nardz||

    John, Cathy never has an argument or a point.
    She's basically a less verbose kkkirkland

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Your handle is appropriate.

    And your comment illustrates my point that about the lack of substantive arguments for keeping yew clearance.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Nobody said anything about giving the yews clearance.

  • General_Tso||

    Some of my best friends are yews.

  • Nardz||

    My best friend, too, is a yew

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Your handle is appropriate.

    And your comment illustrates my point that about the lack of substantive arguments for keeping yew clearance.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    Your handle is appropriate.

    And your comment illustrates my point that about the lack of substantive arguments for keeping yew clearance.

  • Derp-o-Matic 6000||

    See! Even the squirrels agree with me!

  • General_Tso||

    The squirrels in the yews?

    I'm confyewsed.

  • Nardz||

    Who do you think give the squirrels their orders, if not the yews?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I have yet to see a single substantive argument as to why these individuals should be allowed to keep their clearances when they no longer hold high-ranking intelligence positions

    Mostly it's to make it easier for them to get a job either in the private sector or back in "the swamp" after they leave their current positions. It's no different for any other person who works at a job that requires a security clearance and then leaves for another job that doesn't. The clearance is still active for 2 years after leaving so that if, in that time, you come back to your old job or take a new job that requires the same clearance level they can hire you and simply reactivate your clearance. Also, within another 5 years (IIRC) after your last investigation, your clearance becomes "inactive" and they can re-activate it with a minimal amount of paperwork and only a minor re-investigation into the last few years instead of having to re-do the full investigation. Last I hear the lead time for getting a new TS/SCI was 3-4 years. That's a long time to wait around.

    So, the real question is did Brennan say/ do something that would have gotten a normal person's clearance revoked like reveal classified info? If so, then by all means, revoke his clearance and more. But if not, then I don't think it would be appropriate to revoke his clearance for light and partisan reasons anymore than it would be appropriate to revoke anyone else's for daring to criticize the president.

  • JesseAz||

    Your clearance isn't active, your investigation can be. It depends. New rules under Obama ask for yearly audits of clearance holders, so the 2 year gap isn't even set in stone anymore. Ex military get longer benefits than contractors.

  • JesseAz||

    Also.... The president or another authorizing authority can rush a clearance investigation if it is critical. Stop citing the average time as justification for outrage. It's just silly. The president can even immediately grant temporary access if he so needs.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I don't mind the change in practices and policies . . . because I will enjoy the Democrats' use of subpoena power in a few months and the ruthless purge of right-wingers in a few years.

  • John||

    Trump pay about as much attention to those subpoenas as Obama did. And you are unlikely to get that power anyway. Do you ever get tired of being a dumb hillbilly?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    John, I hope the democrats become as shrill and violent as Arty here.

    Then we can say we were........provoked.

  • Eric||

    Oh cupcake...Words are violence aren't they? You poor, poor little man.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Oh, snowflake ....

    Right-wing snowflakes. Authoritarian group-think, like left-wing snowflakes,

    Aggression The action or an act of attacking without provocation

    Verbal Aggressiveness ...A personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication ... Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication

    Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

    The authoritarian mentality is expressed by state force, physical abuse or verbal abuse, all unprovoked. It's the mind that's sick, and which then causes all the rest.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano projects his neuroses.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Trump shouldn't strip former officials of their security clearances just because he doesn't agree with their political viewpoints. But in this case, it appears that that is Trump's primary motivation.

    The question I have, that I haven't been able to determine - because it would probably require doing some actual investigation, which I don't think anyone reporting on this story from any angle is inclined to do - is did Brennan reveal any classified information in the course of his criticism of Trump? If he did, then he absolutely should have had clearance revoked, and probably a lot more.

    But, if Trump had his clearance revoked just because Brennan said "mean things" about him, then that's a different matter entirely. Security clearances shouldn't be revoked over partisan bickering.

  • John||

    Security clearances of current employees and officials should not be revoked over partisan bickering. Once you are out of the government, you have no right to the clearance anymore and the government can take it for whatever reasons it likes. Moreover, the only reason former government officials and employees are allowed to keep their clearances at all is for the convenience of the government should the government ever decide to bring those employees back into government service or seek their advice. Since he only had the clearance for the government's convenience in the first place, the government is free to revoke that clearance if it decides him having it no longer suits its interest. And partisan differences or the President hating you is a perfectly fine reason for deciding that.

  • Tony||

    Imagine it was Obama doing it. How many 9/11s would you be accusing him of?

  • John||

    That isn't even a sensible response. Take your meds or try and calm down and cut paste the daily talking points on this.

  • Tony||

    There's still time to take the dinghy and flee SS Trump. I'll remember your shame, but probably most people might not.

  • John||

    Trump has every right to revoke Brennen's clearance and can do so for political reasons. How Trump exercising his lawful power as President makes him the SS is something that is known only to the voices in your head.

  • Tony||

    He has the lawful right to watch Russian hookers piss on each other (I think?), but does that make it behavior becoming a president?

  • John||

    Tony I really don't know what your pornographic fantasies have to do with Brennen losing his security clearance.

  • Tony||

    Name something Trump could do that you wouldn't defend.

  • John||

    I am not the one having pornographic fantasies about him Tony. It feels like you have some real unresolved issues here Tony.

  • Tony||

    I'll take that as an "I can't."

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Name something Obama did that you didn't.

  • Tony||

    I was critical of his entire political stance for, let's say, 6 years. You know, that time he thought he could convince Republicans to see reason.

  • John||

    I was critical of his entire political stance for, let's say, 6 years.

    I am not sure which is funnier; that you believe that or that you think anyone else would.

  • Tony||

    I've never been in his cult, if there was one, and will gladly list his shortcomings. But all things considered the recent competition isn't exactly Lincolnesque.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Being a Lefty is being in a cult.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Name something Trump could do that you wouldn't defend.

    Sex with Hillary?

  • BigT||

    Tariffs

  • JesseAz||

    Obama did order the reduction of clearance holders.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Says the psycho

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano projecting his Hihnsanity.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Once you are out of the government, you have no right to the clearance anymore and the government can take it for whatever reasons it likes.

    True, you have no "right" to a clearance and the government does have the legal authority to revoke a clearance for any reason they choose, however the government generally doesn't make a habit of revoking clearances unless they have a good reason, and while I'm no fan of John Brennan, I don't think he should be treated any differently than you or I would wrt his clearance. It's not clear to me if they had a good reason to revoke his clearance or not. If they did, fine. But if they didn't, I just don't think presidents having former administration officials' clearances revoked for nothing more than criticizing the new president is a good precedent to set.

    So I disagree with your last sentence. I don't think "partisan differences or the President hating you" is a good enough reason. But that's just my opinion. I have no interest in arguing the point any further. It would probably be pointless to do so anyway.

  • Longtobefree||

    Right. They should, however, be revoked the instant you no longer work for the feds. Something about need to know and all that jazz. This just another case of bureaucratic laziness turning around and biting someone in the ass. They let "high ranking" officials keep a clearance "just in case they need to consult in the future". Because they are too lazy to go through the investigation again to re-instate a clearance. Well, the reality is that all clearances should be revoked as you go out the door, and if you are really, really needed again, go through the process.
    That keeps the Russians out, you know - - - - - - - - - -
    I had my badge and clearance taken the first thing on my last day of a DOD contract. Then all the stuff about still being bound by secrecy, then the actual payment of my last invoice and a nice stroll out the door. (If I ever need it back, they only have to investigate from that day, not all the way back to my conception.)

  • Cynical Asshole||

    They let "high ranking" officials keep a clearance "just in case they need to consult in the future". Because they are too lazy to go through the investigation again to re-instate a clearance.

    Actually it's not just high ranking officials that keep their clearance, it's everyone who has a clearance. Years ago I worked as a nobody engineer on a classified program w/ a TS/SCI clearance. When I left, my clearance was active for another 2 years, which meant that I could go back to that program or another one that required the same clearance without having to fill out paperwork or have a new investigation done or anything. And up 5 more years ago after that, it would only require a partial "delta" investigation to reactivate it.

    It's not done out of laziness, believe it or not they're actually trying to be somewhat efficient (I know, I'm as shocked as anyone). Those investigations, especially for TS/SCI are a bitch. I've heard they're running 3-4 YEARS wait time right now (when I had mine initially done it only ~3 months, not sure where things have gone of the rails since then), which is why no one will touch someone who doesn't already have the clearance for classified work anymore.

  • JesseAz||

    This isn't true. Just stop with the misinformation.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Although it occurs to me you could be saying that high ranking officials keep their clearance for life, and if that's the case then yeah, that's bullshit. It makes the clearance into some kind of gov. "indulgence" granted to "our betters." They should be treated the same as anyone else when they leave.

  • Just Say'n||

    Why does it matter?

    Security clearance is a political question and is given to people so that they may better help advise the president. The president can extend security clearance to anyone (so long as they pass the appropriate background check). Why would this suddenly be different for former political appointees?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Why would this suddenly be different for former political appointees?

    It shouldn't be. I'm just questioning whether "criticizing the president" is really a valid reason to revoke someone's clearance. Whether that person is professional asshat John Brennan or anyone else.

    That and I don't think revoking clearances just for being critical of the president is a good precedent to set. What Trump does today, his predecessors could do later.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Then revoke all Trump administration people after Trump leaves office in 2025.

    This is a win-win-win for America.

  • Tony||

    Rand Paul's transition from idiot to useful idiot has been touching to behold.

  • Longtobefree||

    To quote Andy Capp, "No man ever becomes so useless he cannot serve as a bad example".

  • Just Say'n||

    Rand Paul hasn't changed his position on anything, which can't be said of you Joe McCarthy

  • Tony||

    I think much like Trump he went to Russia, someone said his hairdo was awesome, and having heard that for the first time in his life, he's now an agent of Putin.

  • JesseAz||

    Which proves how fucking dumb you are.

  • Tony||

    What explains the most libertarian-brand senator being the biggest Trump cumchuggler? Libertarians are supposed to be gadflies, not lapdogs.

  • Nardz||

    "What explains the most libertarian-brand senator being the biggest Trump cumchuggler? Libertarians are supposed to be gadflies, not lapdogs."

    I love the assumption here, and it's something that applies to a lot of commenters here. That assumption being: Trump bad!

    What explains the most libertarian-brand senator being the biggest Trump cumchuggler?
    Food for thought, maybe?
    No, no - narrative and dogma is what true libertarians stick to...

  • Tony||

    What on god's green fuck is libertarian about Donald Trump?

  • afk05||

    He makes liberals cry, and he removed a few regulations (none of which removes cronyism/corporatism or drains any swamp). That's about it. Conservatives love him because tribalism, and they hate leftists. He has only increased spending, and hasn't reduced the scope of the government (he's quite authoritarian), so any claim that conservatives have about fiscal responsibility is out the window.

    It's like people can't dislike the left AND be critical of Trump in any way. It's a false dichotomy. Liberty and freedom are not a concern of most in this country, it's hating the other side that counts.

  • afk05||

    Brennan is not one worth defending, but there are better ways of handling things than what Trump does. Now he is threatening to pull security clearances of others, likely out of spite or to retaliate against those he does not like. He fires anyone that criticizes them, degrades and belittles them, and is purposely dividing the country. It's sad that the libertarian party doesn't have a chance of becoming a true third party, and that we are stuck with this mess of right/left nonsense.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony is having a bad day. Hes been jumping straight to insults.

    Manafort was not convicted, so him and other Lefties are very upset.

  • Tony||

    I love it that you're so deep into right-wing crap that you don't even know that the jury is still deliberating. Who's pushing this particular lie? I'm so interested.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    What lie? Manafort is not convicted. What part of deliberating don't you understand Stupid Tony?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Sen. McCarthy was a good man doing God's work.

    Tony is a pederast traitor who makes the world a worse place to live with every breath he takes.

  • BYODB||

    Given that you can't recognize the useful idiot in the mirror, I have doubts that you could recognize one anywhere else.

  • Tony||

    I'm just happy to be useful.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I would be happier if yo drank your Drano, Stupid Tony.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    All I ask is that approval for security clearances be handled CONSISTENTLY on SOME rational basis.

    If the basis is "they worked for Obama", then fine - then strip security clearances from all of the former regime's employees.

    If the basis is "they no longer need them", then fine - then strip security clearances from all 'inactive' holders of them.

    But singling out Brennan - who absolutely deserves to have his security clearance taken away - makes it look like Trump is just singling him out because Brennan said mean things about him.

    For once, could Trump, or anyone in his orbit, make a clear, rational, coherent case for some action that he is going to do?

  • John||

    All I ask is that approval for security clearances be handled CONSISTENTLY on SOME rational basis.

    We don't like you and will never have any need for your advice or services, therefore, you having a clearance is no longer in the interests of the government is a rational reason. You just don't like it.

    As usual, you don't understand the nature of your own argument. For the taking of Brennen's clearance to have been in any way unfair or unjust, Brennen would have had to have some just claim to have it in the first place. And Brennen has no such claim. The only reason former employees and officials keep their clearances after they leave government service is because it makes it easier if they are ever rehired. And that is entirely for the benefit of the government. If the government doesn't see Bennen having a clearance being to its benefit, it can take it away from him. You are operating under the delusion that the clearance is some kind of property interest that Brennen owns. It is not. It is nothing but a pass that is given to people because doing so suits some governmental purpose.

  • jcw||

    We don't like you and will never have any need for your advice or services, therefore, you having a clearance is no longer in the interests of the government is a rational reason. You just don't like it.

    Are you arguing that trump will never have any need for his advice or services, or that the government will never in the future possibly use Brennan for whatever inane reason governments use assholes like him?

    Isn't there lots of people who fit into that rational reason you defined that have NOT had their security clearance invoked?

  • jcw||

    *revoked*

  • John||

    Are you arguing that trump will never have any need for his advice or services, or that the government will never in the future possibly use Brennan for whatever inane reason governments use assholes like him?

    That Trump will never need his services is enough. Trump is the President. He has the authority to act in what he feels in the the government's best interests. He doesn't have to try and anticipate that some future administration might see it differently. He can but he doesn't have to.

    Isn't there lots of people who fit into that rational reason you defined that have NOT had their security clearance invoked?

    Sure. And Trump can revoke their clearances too if he likes. He doesn't have to do so, however, just because he did here. Much like Jeff, you keep assuming that Brennen has some entitlement to the clearance when he doesn't. The reasons for taking his clearence only matter if Brennen has some kind of claim to keep it. And he doesn't. The clearance isn't his possession. It is analogous to a house key to a home he no longer owns. Can the new owner let him keep a key on the off chance that he might one day need him to us it? Sure. But he doesn't have to do so and he doesn't have to explain why he isn't, since Brennen has no claim to it in the first place.

  • BruceMajors||

    No one needs the services of a liar who seems rather stupid who tampered with elections and voted for the pro-Soviet Communist Party USA.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    By the way, John, I am with you that Brennan's security clearance should have been taken away.

    You are operating under the delusion that the clearance is some kind of property interest that Brennen owns.

    Wow, I have no idea where you got that from.

    I would like there to be some consistent, rational basis for making these decisions not because of some Fourth Amendment claim about some supposed property interest which I never claimed existed. I would like there to be some consistent, rational basis for making these decisions because I think government decisions ought to be made generally on a consistent, rational basis.

  • John||

    "We don't like you and don't want you to ever work for the government again" is a rational basis. It may not be a correct or wise basis depending on the circumstances, but it is a rational one. Not everything has to have a uniform set of rules. Some things can be left to discretion.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    wow. you can't hold a coherent thought together for a single sentence can you.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    But singling out Brennan - who absolutely deserves to have his security clearance taken away

    Just curious, what did he actually do? Pretty much all the media coverage of this makes it sound like the ONLY reason Trump revoked his clearance is because he committed Lese Majeste, basically. It sounds like you're saying he actually did something else in addition to insulting the king. It sure would be nice if some reporter would actually report all the facts instead of just saying "Trump's a big poopy-head"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Alrighty then.

  • JesseAz||

    Lying to Congress is a big one.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Congress swears people in. Lying to Congress is one thing but not illegal.

    Lying under oath is perjury.

  • JesseAz||

    Anyone who goes on television and acuses the democratically elected president guilty of treason due to interactions with an entity we are not at war with (a prerequisite of treason) shall have their clearances revoked. Savvy?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Sure, I guess. But this standard sure makes it look like a person's security clearance is contingent on not badmouthing the president.

    Also, treason doesn't require an actual declaration of war.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Basically the same rules as 501c3 status then.

  • Dizzle||

    I dont think he's singling him out, lots of folks clearances are under review. Brennan just got tanked first

  • BruceMajors||

    No one cares what you ask.

    This is like arguing that tax relief or civil liberties protections should not be enacted if they don't apply to everyone in the most rational way designable.

    Else we just have to stick to statism.

    F*ck you and f@ck that.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No, it is like arguing that tax policy shouldn't be created based on irrational whims.

    I am not a big "ends justify the means" kind of guy.

    Do you really disagree that approval for security clearances should be handled consistently on some rational basis?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Fuck the communist John Brennan, and also fuck you, you little junior grade Obama momma whose balls just dropped like two weeks ago.

  • BruceMajors||

    I agree, although I do now feel all tingly.

    Are you seeing anyone?

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Never in my life have I ever worked anywhere that allowed me to keep my access credentials after I left. And rightfully so. Trump shouldn't have had to yank his clearance. That should have been automatic as soon as he left government employ.

  • Jgalt1975||

    Except that Trump isn't making it automatic for everyone. He's literally made it explicitly clear that he's targeting people he doesn't like in this process, not creating some sort of general rule of neutral applicability.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MAGA!

  • BruceMajors||

    That's a lie, but since it is one that farted out the a-holes of MSNBC and CNN puppets it is one I'd expect to see snowballed at reason.

    He's revoking the clearance of someone who used government resources to pay for fabricated documents used as fake evidence in FISA courts to get warrants to violate people's 4th Amendment rights and tamper with an election.

    It should just be the first of many, but the only other candidates for being first are Clapper and Comey.

  • Jerryskids||

    I still would like to know what Brennan (and other former employees) were doing with their security clearances such that yanking their security clearances is somehow a punishment. I understand the argument that letting high-level employees keep their security clearances allows them to be called back in an advisory role should the need arise, but was Brennan getting called back in? And who was calling him back in and for what? From the tenor of some of the arguments about Brennan being "punished", it seems as though a security clearance is some sort of key card, that when Brennan would get bored with hanging around the house or his wife started nagging him about cleaning the gutters he could just slip off down to the CIA and start hanging out, shooting the shit with the guys, talk about what they were up to, catch up on the latest news and gossip, browse through the latest secret reports to see if there's some juicy new spy stuff going on, and it's all cool because he's got a security clearance, he's a member of the club. Is this really how the CIA operates, that one of the perks of the job is that even after you retire you can still hang out and read and talk about and keep current on secret CIA stuff? And then go on CNN and talk about the latest juicy secret spy stuff? Really? Because I thought most of this stuff was on a need-to-know basis and what the hell does Brennan need to know?

  • Bearded Spock||

    I never thought I'd see the day libertarians would go to bat for ex-CIA operatives with a history of lying, but there it is.

    There is no question Brennan is a lying sack of shit who should be kept as far away from classified information as possible, but all New Woke Reason can muster is weak concern-trolling about security clearances.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Spock squeezes in two rightwing buzz phrases, woke and concern-trolling, but couldn't figure out how to include virtue-signalling

    If you hate lying so much, you'd be calling for a firing squad on Trump. If fair is fair.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • John||

    WAAAAAAAAA

    Sorry dude but posting bullshit talking points on a dead thread won't convince anyone of anything.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    We KNOW John is psycho ... now he says a thread is "dead" ... LESS THAN AN HOUR AFTER IT WAS POSTED!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately trying to get in the last word.

  • Bearded Spock||

    I wasn't aware "woke" and "concern-trolling" were exclusively Right-Wing phrases, but apparently the Vast Conspiracy is everywhere, controlling everything. Hillary certainly called that one.

    We already know Reason hates Trump. But its more than a little disgusting to see them treating a corrupt DC Insider like Brennan - a man they would normally despise - as if he were a responsible civil servant unfairly targeted by Der Drumpfenfuhrer (there's a Left Wing buzzword for you).

    Even Shack couldn't help mitigating his criticism of Brennan in his column yesterday. All because Brennan opposes Trump.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano calls people liars, uses his semi-dormant sockpuppets to lie about who he is.

    *This message brought to you by Red Rocks White Privilege, the ONLY HnR commenter to be named twice on Dumbfuck Hihnsano's Enemies List*

  • Nardz||

    Bullshit.
    Hihn told me fakehimself that I was on there 4 times!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    He's got numbers by the names, so that's probably what he's referring to.

    Needless to say, I'm not only listed two times (because I trigger him twice as hard), I outrank all you bitches.

  • Nardz||

    Fair enough, sir - I concede and congratulate you.
    Your dedication really is inspiring.
    I just have one question: why Hihnsano?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Because Hihntard got old.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's also an allusion to the "Captain Insano" character from The Waterboy.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    There is no "Enemies List," psycho.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he's not an insecure little bitch.

    *This message brought to you by Red Rocks White Privilege, the ONLY HnR commenter to be named twice on Dumbfuck Hihnsano's Enemies List*

  • John Galt Jr||

    You;re there 19 times, counting all your socks. 11 names are listed 2 or more times. It's not an enemies list.

    This page shows that "Hihnsano" must be on your enemies list, since 27 personal attacks.
    Your life must be so empty.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms I'm his public enemy #1, projects his sockpuppetry.

  • BruceMajors||

    They're not libertarians, they are reason writers.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Old Tired Libertarian Take: Long-serving government officials are not to be trusted and any presumption on their part of an entitlement to power should be quashed immediately.

    Hot New Reason Libertarian Take: Taking the prerogatives of power away from the national security bureaucracy after they're out of office is a violation of free speech and limited government principles. (Or should that be principals?)

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""According to the Kentucky Republican, Clapper lied before the Senate Intelligence Committee when he was asked in March 2013 by Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) if U.S. intelligence was spying on American citizens. "When he was asked by Sen. Wyden if the NSA was collecting information on Americans, private information, he said no and that was a lie," Paul said. "Later, Edward Snowden revealed that they were collecting all Americans' phone information.""'

    Haha. According to the Kentucky Republican? How about according to Clapper himself when he came back to Congress, was asked about it and replied, "I gave the least untruthful answer". Clapper admitted to lying. To their face.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I agree with Rand, Trump should revoke the security clearances of the current sitting CIA director.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Wait, you want to revoke the security clearance of Madam Torture? Do you hate America or something?

  • David Nolan||

    Watching Rand has become embarrassing, as his nose keeps sliding ever deeper up Trump's ass.
    The reason is obvious. The alt-right, launched by his father, is the core base for both Rand and the Donald.
    How to destroy both conservatism and libertarianism. The anti-gummint mentality is not pro-liberty.

  • John||

    Tell us more about the glories of the CIA and the deep state.

    Loser.

  • Tony||

    It's wonderful how you accidentally fall into a consistent anti-government position but only because the government is investigating Trump.

  • David Nolan||

    MOAR diversion

    John|8.17.18 @ 4:50PM
    Tell us more about the glories of the CIA and the deep state.

    (yawn)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano standing up for government bureaucrats.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    HI MIKE!

    Is there a reason you need so many socks?

    David Nolan - Elilis Wyatt = 0.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I think he periodically loses them in the dryer.

  • Dizzle||

    The alt-right is a made up term to disparage people espousing very conservative values. And the idiots who use it are too stupid to realize the socialist ideas and censorship they support are what would give a group like the neo nazis the power they crave, as history has repeatedly taught us. And the neonazis are too stupid to realize they aren't right wing, but left wing. Because in order to enact the policies they desire it would require government control of nearly every aspect of business. Really both sides are socialist douches, they're just both too stupid to know it.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    The alt-right is a made up term to disparage people espousing very conservative values

    Umm, that's what they call themselves, Sluggo.. http://AltRight.com
    For even greater stupidity, nazis are right-wing, and you're a total retard.
    Racism, hatred and bigotry are not conservative values. Stop disgracing conservatism,

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MAGA!

  • Jgalt1975||

    It's utterly embarrassing the number of people around here who either are too dumb to understand the difference between creating a neutral rule of general application (security clearances shall automatically terminate for all personnel when leaving government employment) or a neutral rule of specific application based on reasonably objective criteria (security clearances shall be terminated for personnel determined to have lied to Congress), and something that looks pretty strongly like an abuse of discretion (terminating security clearances for specific individuals expressly because the President doesn't like them -- Trump didn't claim he was revoking Brennan's clearance due to Brennan lying to Congress, he said it was because of Brennan's involvement in the "rigged witch hunt" against him), or who are intellectually dishonest little shits screeching "whaddaboutism" in between fellating Trump more vigorously than the cast of "Where the Girls Aren't, Vol. 69"!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If Brennan doesn't like it, he can start his own government.

  • John||

    It is utterly fucking embarrassing how you can't seem to understand what the word "discretion" means. I am embarrassed that there are people in the world as dumb as you appear to be.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    On Thursday, a dozen ex-intelligence officials blasted Trump's "attempt to stifle free speech."

    It wasn't stifled, he was merely de-platformed.

  • Nardz||

    F yea, Rand Paul!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Isn't Randal Paul one of those Republicans who voted to confirm Jefferson Beauregard Sessions as Attorney-General to prosecute prohibitionism?

  • Nardz||

    Aren't you late for your mother's abortion?

  • BruceMajors||

    Reason is defending John Brennan. I am gagging.

    Why not just crawl up the DNC's ass?

  • BruceMajors||

    Revoking clearances?

    What about a woodchipper in Langley or Lafayette Park?

  • Rock Lobster||

    I don't give a damn what Trump's motivation is. It is a terrible idea for ex-intelligence officials to parlay their former positions into media gigs under any circumstances. Those who insist on doing so should absolutely be summarily stripped of their clearances. It doesn't matter who it is, in what administration they served, and what their political preferences are.

    That Brennan and Clapper are both odious pieces of shit merely belabors the point. Trump is right on this, and he shouldn't stop with those two.

  • Tony||

    But isn't Trump setting himself up to be the only one around to blame whenever he gets his first large-scale intelligence fuckup?

  • Rock Lobster||

    It wouldn't make any difference to the coverage, and even an idiot like you you knows that.

  • Tony||

    Yrs, Trump's coverage is so unfair. Especially considering what an agile statesman he is.

  • Rock Lobster||

    I will type this slowly, so that you might have a better chance at understanding:

    It doesn't matter who it is.

    It doesn't matter in what administration they worked.

    It doesn't matter whether they are a Republican, a Democrat, or Other.

    The fact that Trump occupies all the formerly empty space in your head, and the media coverage of his every tweet, is irrelevant to the issue. The fact that you suffer vicarious butthurt on Brennan's behalf is even more so, you power worshipping, statist moron.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Oh no, what will the CIA do now that Griphook won't be able to waltz in to Langley anymore?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Speaking of intelligence fuckups, Brennan was CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers were bombed. He was deputy executive director of the agency on 9/11. He was CIA chief of staff during the Iraq WMD debacle. And he ran the CIA when it spied on Congress (which he lied about under oath).

    Maybe revoking the guy's clearance might actually prevent a terrorist attack, since so many happened under his watch.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Well gosh Stupid Tony, he will be in the clear as he will clearly learn of it by reading about it in the newspaper along with the rest of us.

    Just like The Lightbringer.

  • The Critics' Critic||

    So much for Paul as the big time libertarian. He's becoming a friendly polyp in the president's colon.

  • Nardz||

    Just a thought:
    Most here seem pretty agreed that Trump sucks, even those that defend his actions.
    Why?
    Because he's dishonest?
    Because he says stupid shit?
    Because he self-promotes?
    Because he's vulgar?
    Because he's authoritarian?
    Because he's immoral?
    Because he's inconsistent/unprincipled?
    None of those are my real questions; they're rhetorical.
    The real question: how is Reason, particularly or in whole, any better than Trump?
    Reason, its writers, is a fucking joke - no better and in many ways worse than Trump themselves

  • Tony||

    Nobody's suggesting putting them in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal.

  • Nardz||

    Russia has a larger nuclear arsenal than the US, though that's in terms of quantity of weapons - not sure about yield.
    Makes you think - what if the 2 nations controlling 90+% of the world's nuclear weapons were allied to one another?
    Could be good.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If you think Reason sucks so bad, why are you here?

  • Nardz||

    For the comments, of course

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Trump is awesome. All the right people completely fucking hate him.

    Always a good sign.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Just look at who defends Trump. (lol)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Just look who defends government bureaucrats (lol)

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Directors are not bureaucrats, chump-who-also-says-4-star-generals- and-Secretaries-of-State-are-bureaucrats!

    Typical Trumptard.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano white-knighting for his government boos.

    Typical Hihnsano.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Directors are not bureaucrats, chump-who-also-says-4-star-generals- and-Secretaries-of-State-are-bureaucrats!

    Typical Trumptard.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano white-knighting for his government boos.

    Typical Hihnsano.

    *This message brought to you by Red Rocks White Privilege, the ONLY HnR commenter to be named twice on Dumbfuck Hihnsano's Enemies List

  • John Galt Jr||

    You're there 19 times, counting all your socks. 11 names are listed 2 or more times. It's not an enemies list.

    This page shows that "Hihnsano" must be on your enemies list, since 27 personal attacks.
    Your life must be so empty. To be pitied.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms I'm his public enemy #1, projects his sockpuppetry as he slips further into senility and will die alone and unloved.

  • Hank Phillips||

    See? Even counterfeit Beauregard-confirming "libertarians" can muster enough clout to change policy by speaking up with a clear and unequivocal message. Your vote could count for at least six and as many as 4000 votes (measured in terms of law-changing clout). All you have to do is punch the straight-ticket option labeled LIB. Remember that on election day instead of wasting a watered-down single vote on grinning looter politicians.

  • Nardz||

    Well done, Hank.
    That dead horse isn't going to abort itself.

  • Stilgar||

    The current system is obviously flawed as is Trump's use of the clearance as a political cookie. Probably should be an automatic sunset over some time period, say six months, with ability to temporarily reinstate on a case by case basis if necessary.

    On thing that does irk me in all the reporting on this subject - the near uniform description of people like Clapper and Hayden as 'Obama' staffers. Clapper goes back to Bush Daddy and Hayden to the end of Clintholio. They both worked for presidents of both parties, in Clappers case, twice.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    As has been well-reported (NOT by Fox, Bretbart, Infowars, WND, Stormfront) former Directors and Deputy Directors retain their clearance so they can be asked about prior actions under their watch.

    They cannot reinstate without the entire process again.

  • Rock Lobster||

    "They cannot reinstate without the entire process again." I think you are mistaken about that.

    This is from Andrew McCarthy's article today at NRO:

    As my own experience attests, this should not be a big deal. Because I worked on national-security cases in the Justice Department, I had a high security clearance. When I left, it lapsed — which was fine: They didn't need me to have it anymore. Months later, I was asked to be a consultant regarding some war-on-terror legal issues confronting the Defense Department. To do the job, I needed my clearance back . . . and it took them just a few days to restore it. This was sensible: I had been subjected to searching background checks to get and maintain the clearance while I was a prosecutor, so it was not like they had to start from scratch; yet, before renewing my access, the government had an opportunity to assess whether I had previously adhered to the rules for handling classified information and whether any red flags had arisen since I left the Justice Department.

    (Bold type is mine, but you know all about bold type, don't you, Hihn?)

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    RED LOBSTER -- ANOTHER TRUMPTARD PSYCHO -- LIES ABOUT WHAT I SAID!!

    Me:
    former Directors and Deputy Directors
    Psycho bullshit
    I worked on national-security cases in the Justice Department,

    How did Lobster miss THIS at HIS source?

    Like David and many other analysts, though, I think it's a big mistake to politicize the revocation of security clearances.

    How long had his clearance been lapsed?

    Months later, I was asked to be a consultant

    They're all as full of shit as Trump.
    It's the raging hatred

    Successful mass movements need not believe in a god, but they must believe in a devil. Hatred unifies the true believers"
    -Eric Hoffer, "The True Believers" (1951)
  • Rock Lobster||

    Shorter Hihn:

    REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    (yawn)

    Rock Lobster
    Shorter Hihn:
    REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

    1) REEEEEEEEEEEEEE = Proved him a liar on what I said.

    2) Proof of his lie from NRO

    *shrug*

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies while calling others liars.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Link to proof

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks his link means more than the diahrrea squeezing out his Depends.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano loves his government apparatchiks!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    HIhn is not even pretending anymore. Back to bold nonsense.

  • Rock Lobster||

    That's a reasonable proposition. I believe that that's pretty close to the way it works currently for the great majority of comparatively lower level government employees, although I might be mistaken.

    Access to classified information is usually based on what one needs to know to do his job within, or as a consultant to, the government. Taking a job with a title resembling "Media Talking Head formerly known as X" squarely places anyone well outside any reasonable "need to know."

    Security clearances should be retained only as a matter of necessity, not as a courtesy, and certainly not as some kind of entitlement to former official grandees.

  • Duelles||

    And yet, Brennan has exemplified a person who is dishonest with Little unparalleled integrity. If all such people were vanquished from DC it would be a great day for a Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  • Winthrop||

    How did this article possibly make the cut? I don't foresee Joey boy writing too many more articles for Reason if this is the best he's got to offer.

  • SIV||

    Joe used to go by Jolene. "He's" Reason's transgender diversity hire.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I haven't the foggiest clue how y'all managed 300 comments for a matter of course, but I'm impressed.

    I hereby nominate this thread for the Inanity Awards. I am open to a more appropriate title.*

    * Cochino. Knock it off.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Trump shouldn't strip former officials of their security clearances just because he doesn't agree with their political viewpoints. But in this case, it appears that that is Trump's primary motivation."

    a) Trump should strip their clearances because *former* officials no longer have a need to know as justified by the People's needs. Allowing them continued access is another indication that the Deep State is a *permanent* ruling class.

    b) "Curtailing Deep State power and privilege is bad m'kay, because Trump." From a "libertarian" publication. Reason has become a bad joke.

  • AlmightyJB||

    So according to Reason having a security clearance is a "right" that you should never lose once you have one even if the reason for having one is gone. WTF. Are you daft?

  • John Galt Jr||

    So according to Reason having a security clearance is a "right"

    Are all Trumpsters so fucking psycho? Or just the ones commenting here?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano cries for his gubmint bureaucrats.

  • Rock Lobster||

    THIS... is CNN!!!

    You should audition. Your fits would be a great fit.

  • onebornfree||

    Is there anyone here actually dumb enough to seriously believe that revoking a few security clearances for a few of these crooks will actually achieve anything worthwhile?

    Fact: the CIA is an unconstitutional [ if that even matters anymore] , criminal organization. As is the FBI. As is the CIA. As is the FDA, NSA, EPA and on and on and on ad infinitum.

    Revoking a few security clearances, outside of inducing a few "good riddance" belly laughs, achieves _nothing_ except give the false appearance of doing something [ i.e. its just more "smoke and mirrors"].

    Trump- stop pissing around- at the very least, close _all_ of these wholly criminal, disgusting orgs. down _now_ and put all of these disgusting people [ Brennen, Clapper, Comey Stroek etc. etc. etc. et. etc. x 1,00000000] out of "business", fer cryin' out loud!

    "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams, which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature. Government simply does not, will not, has not and cannot, work." http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/

    Regards, onebornfree.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Fact: the CIA is an unconstitutional [ if that even matters anymore] ,

    Only to wackos who know nothing about our beloved Constitution.

    criminal organization. As is the FBI. As is the CIA. ....

    .Or less than nothing.

  • onebornfree||

    "Only to wackos who know nothing about our beloved Constitution."

    "John Galt" ? Yeah, right :-)

    You are no Galt. You are either a complete cretin, or a plant [like the author of this article , and various other Reason contributors].

    No regards, onebornfree.

  • John Galt Jr||

    The CIA is a crucial element of our national defense, goober.
    So is the FBI.
    (sneer)

  • onebornfree||

    [Fake] John Galt said: "The CIA is a crucial element of our national defense, goober. So is the FBI."

    Hah! National defense, my a$$, you mindless, state-apologist, drooling nincompoop!!

    The CIA and the FBI are nothing less than 100% criminal organizations; that is, they are "mere" criminal subsets of a 100% criminal, federal government.

    "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams, which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature. Government simply does not, will not, has not and cannot, work." http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/

    onebornfree

  • John Galt Jr||

    Even crazier than I thought. Cites a psycho blog as a source. Thus a troll.

  • John Galt Jr||

    oneBORNfree ... then shits on freedom,

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks a lifelong career of fucking up intel = freedom.

  • aajax||

    I don't understand Rand's deal here. Sure, Brennan, Comey, and Clapper are not a libertarian's ideal of public servants, but are they any worse than the guys in their place now? If information has to be restricted at all (also not a libertarian ideal), is it a good idea for access to information about the workings of government be confined to people loyal to one political faction? Rand Paul should rethink this or give better reasons.

  • John Galt Jr||

    THIS

  • Michael Cook||

    Secrets have to be restricted to persons currently serving in office. Former officials do not need current top secret info in order to testify about what they did in the past.

    The true value to a former official in retaining their security clearance is that it vastly increases their value when they market themselves to the world as a lobbyist/analyst.

    If Brennan files a lawsuit, it will allege wrongful taking of income. This opens the door for the discovery process. Conceivably, this could probe deeply into what type of insider info Brennan traffics in. If his defenders say "NONE" then what is the basis for the tort?

    Now for the Trump admin to be consistent, the first clearance to be revoked should have been Hillary C.'s. After all, she blatantly violated all kinds of rules, regs, and laws in order to co-mingle her private and public business on a throwaway server. Potential FOIA requests and public records requirements evaporated at her whim.

    Hillary made her bones by surviving the appearance of impropriety on everything she ever did. She would defend herself against my statement by saying that no one can prove anything against her. Absent the 33,000 emails, she is technically correct. No quid pro quos can be proven regarding the sale of access at State. She is as pure and innocent as O.J. Simpson. The glove didn't fit, the files were acid washed and all devices destroyed with hammers. America is such a great country in which to be a celebrity criminal.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Secrets have to be restricted to persons currently serving in office. Former officials do not need current top secret info in order to testify about what they did in the past.

    You went off the rails on "testify." That's not what happens. They DIALOG about current issues, which can be classified -- and likely are if his actual experience or knowledge is what's needed.

    The true value to a former official in retaining their security clearance is that it vastly increases their value when they market themselves to the world as a lobbyist/analyst.

    One of the bat-shit craziest claims by Trumpsters. How does Brennan have any less credibility now than "former Director of the CIA?" Is he invited because he had a security clearance, which 90% of viewers never knew, or for his experience?
    And how can this be rocket science?

  • Michael Cook||

    If it were necessary for a former official to be briefed on a particular topic so that he or she could DIALOG with current officials, that could be done. I will not back down from my point of this security clearance mainly being a selling point for the networks when they choose to hire someone like Brennan as a talking head.

    BTW, talk radio was abuzz today with a report from a Washington Post article from 2014? 2015? that was sharply critical of Brennan for competency reasons, not ideology. It seems Brennan was first and foremost a political appointee and not any type of an expert on intelligence or national security matters.

    Who needs to DIALOG with someone like that?

  • David Nolan||

    Evasion

    How does Brennan have any less credibility now than "former Director of the CIA?" Is he invited because he had a security clearance, which 90% of viewers never knew, or for his experience?
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano ass-mad because his CPUSA boo had his clearance revoked.

  • Rich Dobbs||

    Reason used to be a libertarian magazine. Too bad that era has passed:

    "Trump shouldn't strip former officials of their security clearances just because he doesn't agree with their political viewpoints. But in this case, it appears that that is Trump's primary motivation."

    In what world is the concept of a security clearance for a republican government an acceptable libertarian concept?

  • Wise Old Fool||

    There isn't a narrow band of what a libertarian is. Not all of want to establish a completely open market and no government like Somalia did.

  • David Nolan||

    Libertarians don't punish people for exercising free speech. It's a thing we like to call individual liberty.
    Unlike yourself, who says fundamental rights are limited by tribal affiliation.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's multiple personalities offer up their hot takes in defense of government bureaucrats.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    I don't mind seeing it happen. I just wish it was someone like Rand doing it for a valid reason rather than the Cheeto in Chief doing it

  • vek||

    Jeebus. The TDS just keeps getting worse. A former official, who has been abusing his clearance, shouldn't have it revoked? Should Kissinger still have his security clearance?

    I can understand the rationale that you may want to consult with retired experts in certain fields, but giving temporary and limited clearance to such people if and when you want their advice seems to make a lot more sense... Some retired schmuck doesn't need to be seeing every bit of classified info that the current government is receiving. Again, does Kissinger need to know about secret operations we have going on in Iraq right now??? Obviously not.

  • John Galt Jr||

    The TDS excuse is SO lame, And you shot yourself in the foot! That's not the rationale. Trump punished someone for what they said, again. That's tyranny. He's punished or attacked nearly 500 people. That's a thug.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lurves his lifelong government bureaucrats!

  • vek||

    So elected officials aren't allowed to criticize people any more? If so, you better tell all those Democrats to stop saying mean things about Republicans!

    The president is free to shit talk whoever he wants. He's an American citizen with 1st amendment rights too!

    As far as punishing someone... This tool has been suspected of leaking classified info to the press which he thought would be damaging... And whether or not he did directly leak stuff or not, he has been using classified information that he has to push for a certain political agenda, which is against the current administration... Frankly I don't think ANY former heads of WTF ever departments need to retain their security clearance permanently... I especially don't think a new administration is obligated to keep feeding classified info to a hostile political appointee of a previous administration.

    Frankly, cutting off previous appointees should be standard practice, not an anomaly.

  • Sandyfeet101||

    It does not violate free speech to strip clearances from FORMER government employees. They aren't supposed to disclose classified information anyway. They are angry for their clout being stripped, feeling it's harder to get gigs post employment and losing some of their social status; however after proving to be dishonest to the American people and congress, undermining the POTUS and the elections by using their security clearance information to sway voters, it seems quite justified as they are no longer employed.
    How many company servers & networks do we have access to after we leave a job?

  • John Galt Jr||

    He was punished for his speech. Trump said so.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If he doesn't like it, he can start a new government.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Or wait for Trump to be jailed.

  • vek||

    He was cut off from a PRIVILEGE that he has no special right to retain. He's not the only person ever to lose clearance after out of office, it happens to most lower level people immediately. To say that Trump should extend this privilege to an openly hostile apparatchik is as ridiculous as demanding Trump send him a REALLY nice Christmas present every year because he once held a government office... It's BS.

  • mobilelegends||

    Thanks For sharing this information. It's Nice..!!!
    free pc games

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online