Senator Rand Paul Discusses Effort to Remove Security Clearances From Former Intelligence Officials…

Earlier today Senator Rand Paul met with President Trump to request consideration for the removal of security clearances from former intelligence officials engaged in corrupt and partisan behavior.   Senator Paul discusses the issues and concerns during a follow-up interview:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Stupid Government, CIA, Decepticons, Deep State, Dept Of Justice, DHS, FBI, IG Report FISA Abuse, media bias, NSA, President Trump, Spygate, Spying, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

179 Responses to Senator Rand Paul Discusses Effort to Remove Security Clearances From Former Intelligence Officials…

  1. Martin says:

    Fantastic! And frankly, it’s about time. Who among us lets former employees keep keys to the building? So to speak…

    Liked by 50 people

    • daizeez says:

      That’s right. And former employees have their computer access terminated before they walk out the back door.

      Liked by 35 people

      • amwick says:

        Give em enough rope and they will hang themselves time.. especially if they are prone to leaking…
        hmmmmm

        Liked by 13 people

      • Carrie2 says:

        daizeez, and many are walked to the door and no keys or codes allowed ever again. That is logical, reasonable, and SAFE!

        Liked by 8 people

        • WSB says:

          The same thing should happen when Senate/ Congress vermin announce their ‘retirement’:

          1. There should be no such thing as retirement

          2. If anyon decides to quit or forced to step down, it should be immediate. And special elections scheduled.

          Liked by 4 people

          • sat0422 says:

            When a seemingly staunch Republican appoints a turncoat Democrat to a long held Republican seat, it certifies that your comment, WSB, is on target. Let the people decide.
            We are dealing with such a situation in Mississippi now.
            Our sitting senator is now running for the seat she has only held about six months and is reported to be accepting money from sugar daddy Democrats. She voted for Hillary.
            What happened to our strong Republican governor? Talk about strange inheritance…

            Liked by 2 people

      • Kenji says:

        Guess what!? Peter Strzok was transferred to the HR Dept. … where he could ENSURE these Deep State RATS continue to probe MY President and his supporters for “dirt”. via their security clearances.

        This Peter Strzok creep insinuates himself into every activity possible to FRAME … OUR President. Unbelievable.

        Yeah, these creeps should have been escorted out of their respective buildings and handed a cardboard box with their personal possessions (- anything and everything related to our National Security). That Brennan LOON should be in a mental institution … not tapping into our Secret Networks.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Carrie2 says:

      Martin, exactly. When you leave a job, you should not have any reason to be able to still get information or whatever. This is absurd! I understand that ex-presidents are still doing this as well and that, too, needs to stop. You are no longer an employee, so no connection of any kind, thank you. This definitely means leakages and, as Paul said, makes big money with fake news or whatever to talk. President Trump should push to have a policy or regulation that no more of this garbage. What we have seen is more sedition and treason and dangerous to America, its citizen, and definitely against our President now or in the future. Just close down both the FBI and CIA and also the NSA and start fresh with real patriots with real skills and not the bought and paid by Clintons/Soros or whoever. Why so many attorneys is a concern to our country as well. I understand there are thousands. WHY? Too many of anything leads to dangerous happenings.

      Liked by 15 people

      • Critical Mass says:

        Well spotted, Carrie2.

        Like

      • Imo, as soon as a person leaves an organization, their security clearance should automatically be revoked.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Mongoose says:

        I agree with you. Upon termination, for whatever reason, you cease to have a “need to know” and are therefore out of the loop. That goes for everyone! You turn in your badges, keys, phones, computers, accounts …. everything you used for your government “service” should be locked down and access prohibited. If you want to write a book, well, you should have kept a diary of non-classified info. No going back to the well to “refresh” your memories or get more goodies to sell or use for extortion.

        This, to me, is one of those glaring loopholes set up by the Deep State, to keep their fingers in the pie messing things up. They have people on the inside, and on the outside, acting as malevolent agents in our country and this needs to stop. If the President or someone wants to hire them as “consultants” for their expertise, then that should have it’s own screening and reporting mechanisms, but should be done transparently.

        And as I thought the President declared, there is a ban, isn’t there, on government employees being able to be hired as consultants/lobbyists for some period of time, five years I believe?

        Like

        • ThingsWeTakeForGranted says:

          “Upon termination, for whatever reason, you cease to have a “need to know” and are therefore out of the loop. That goes for everyone! You turn in your badges, keys, phones, computers, accounts …. everything you used for your government “service” should be locked down and access prohibited.”

          When you are terminated or retire, you are cleared before you leave. All access is removed from systems and facility. You receive an outbriefing which warrens you what you can or cannot discuss when you leave. Personally, I do not and will not discuss anything ever because I’m loyal to my country.

          Liked by 2 people

      • sat0422 says:

        One of the martest sounding things George W Bush ever said is that a sitting president doesn’t need to have a former President to contend with and no criticism should occur. Well, he honored his statement with Obama but both he and Obama can’t seem to keep their mouth shut about Trump. Obama is the more guilty while Bush speaks with his actions and smirky looks.

        Like

        • Clarissa says:

          And both send their wives out to speak against the current president, and thus to have these former First Ladies serve as human shields to catch or deflect public outrage resulting from such unfair and unseemly criticism.

          Liked by 1 person

    • MTeresa says:

      It’s frankly outrageous that this hasn’t been done before.

      Liked by 14 people

      • amwick says:

        I pretty much felt the same way.. but not any more.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cattastrophe says:

        Have to say I’m glad to see someone as articulate as Rand Paul talking about it and happy also he hasn’t let it go. I agree it should be an across the boards law for everyone in government who has security clearance. It seems to be that only people who aren’t in government have the common sense to see how this should be. The stupidity and in many cases duplicity of government seems never ending.

        Liked by 1 person

    • vincentcuomo says:

      I agree with you; it is this simple; once you leave the government, you lose what ever security clearance you have no matter what office you hold. NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Joemama says:

      Comey indicated that he does not have a security clearance. That he was debriefed when he was fired and his clearance was taken away at that point.

      It is my understanding that everybody loses their clearance, when they leave a position, unless they are immediately transitioning to a new position which requires the same clearance.

      Even if you do have a clearance, it doesn’t mean that you have access to classified materials in general.

      Am I missing something here. Are clearances for people in DC different? This doesn’t make any sense.

      Like

      • Martin says:

        The Tweet from his pal at LawFare would seem to indicate that, but JC said “read out,” which based on what I’ve read pertains to specific matters, not his general clearance.

        IMHO, all clearances should expire when someone leaves our employment, and they reexamined if they return. I’m terribly sorry for their inconvenience.

        Like

      • Kintbury says:

        Hillary Clinton still has a security clearance.

        Like

    • tellthetruth2016 says:

      Martha sounded like a DemoRat speaking head …….I wish Rand Paul had of told her so …

      Like

      • gman says:

        Of course she did-FOX is just as bad as CNN save Tucker and Laura

        Like

      • sat0422 says:

        Martha has seemed like an anti-Trump talking head to me for a long time. I dislike her show very much and never watch. She could move to the same station as Brennan and I would care less.

        Like

      • Mark McQueen says:

        Or…she clearly stated the opposition’s specific arguments and gave Sen. Paul an opportunity to reply directly, with clarity.

        Like

    • Finbar O'Shaunnessey says:

      It’s just another perk granted to the elite that keeps them ahead of, and insulated from, the hoi polloi.

      Like

    • Theresa Keys says:

      What if it’s a sting? Strork goes to hr. He’s already in the crapper with his past actions but is given the chance to become a cooperating witness but due to his arrogance immediately continues his treachery. Sessions and PT. Are aware of his character. While he’s in hr every move he makes ,every keystroke, every meeting is recorded. He leads them to all the other rats with crimes committed after the election and his “plea deal”. He’s like Typhoid Mary. And he’s screwed up his immunity so he’s going down. This is casting a wide net to get all the rats.

      Like

  2. Rick says:

    Why do they retain their security clearances after they leave Government service?

    Liked by 8 people

    • cplogics says:

      The question is so simple even a caveman could understand it.

      Liked by 12 people

      • Mongoose says:

        Yes, the answer is very simple, but here we are and there they are STILL with their clearances and ability to do things under the cover of “national security.” Does no one even screen a request for information and determine a “need to know?”

        Like

    • There is always a possibility that the new IC person needs to discuss an on-going situation with the former IC person. (s)he can’t do that if the former no longer has security clearance.
      e.g. John Kerry needs to ask Hillary about a situation in Outer Mongolia from 4 years ago. He can’t discuss this with her if she doesn’t have clearance.
      Personally I think this is very flimsy. In those rare events, the former can be given temporary clearance, so long as (s)he hasn’t been compromised (like, say….now working for the media like Clapper is).

      Liked by 2 people

      • David A says:

        Limited special access. Simple.

        Like

      • Mongoose says:

        Why would either of them need government info on Mongolia? With the Clinton Crime Syndicate, I’m sure they have everything they need. If they need anything, it would be someone on the inside doing them “favors.” Clearances be damned!

        Liked by 1 person

      • cattastrophe says:

        They are out, what they need to know or discuss has no bearing on the present government. Tough bananas if they don’t have the information. I see no valid reason for anyone who isn’t presently in government to have security clearance for any reason.

        I’ve read that some who apply for private company jobs need to prove they had security clearance as a government worker for the new job. Fine. Give them a paper stating what their clearance level was, whether it was valid or had been revoked for any reason other than leaving.

        Like

      • G. Combs says:

        THAT is what a transition period is for. To bring the incoming people up to speed.

        Like

  3. Hoosier_Friend? says:

    The libel, I mean liberal legacy “media” are saying this is a 1st Amendment issue. I don’t even know what to say about that except they’re upset that they won’t be fed classified info that they can use to manipulate the populace. Frickin’ bastards.

    Liked by 30 people

    • Minnie says:

      Succinctly stated 👍

      Liked by 7 people

    • Binkser1 says:

      So that means I should be able to go back to my old employer and be able to access Their computers because first amendment and all. Right? And what the living freak does security clearance have to do with the first amendment?

      Liked by 12 people

    • Cuppa Covfefe says:

      I think they’re unclear on the concept(s), as usual.

      Classified, Secret, Top Secret, Compartmentalized (or however it’s termed) “speech” (I assume they mean information they could sleep for release for fun and profit, IS NOT FREE. And release of some or part of it could be fatal, or injure or endanger national security (of course, they don’t care: so much the better, if it bleeds, it leads – two for the price of one)…

      Hence the serious (and expensive) vetting that takes (or should take) place before allowing people the clearance and access to said information.

      Maybe they should learn a little more about the concept of privacy. And, as extra credit, they can learn about a baby’s right to privacy and well-being. Seems they hate children as well as MAGA…

      Liked by 5 people

    • Critical Mass says:

      Great points, Hoosier Friend? If they are claiming their right to classified information as a First Amendment issue, then why shouldn’t all 327.7M citizens of the USA (the counted ones anyway) have access as well?

      It’s about time conservatives get a case of the smarts. Instead of getting shafted and outraged by these weasels, you have to think 10 steps ahead and call them out on their self-serving fallacies.

      Liked by 1 person

    • vincentcuomo says:

      The First Amendment has nothing to do with security clearance; Brennan is free out of himself on CNN or any where else for that matter; however; the government is under no obligation to provide him with top secret information because he NO LONGER works for the government; it is just that simple.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Mongoose says:

      They are upset they might actually have to get off their butts and do some real gum shoe investigating. You know, real work!

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Mr Paul is growing into his job.I have hope for him yet.

    Liked by 21 people

    • wheatietoo says:

      The threats on his life seem to have had a profound effect on him.

      It’s nice to see him become an ally of our President.

      Liked by 20 people

      • Daniel. M. Camac says:

        Wheatie, total agreement here. Our VSGPDJT has very few R’s supporting him and I haven’t given the RNC a dime until they ALL get onboard or jump ship (or train). Although I may have to toss a few dimes their way if only to kick Democrats sphincters in the midterms. Kudos for Mr. Ryan. As an aside, I saw Howie putting up some nice pix and comments so it’s nice to see him back in action.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Sharon says:

        Rand Paul is the same man like he has always been! His views are the same as they were years ago and the same today! He didn’t like the government spying on citizens years ago and he hasn’t changed today! And he never was a warmonger and didn’t want to give money and aid to countries who burn our flag and who hate us and say death to America! The recent attacks on him have not changed his views!

        Liked by 8 people

        • wheatietoo says:

          Not saying that his views have changed.
          Rand is displaying a new level of Pragmatism, though…which I see as a good thing.

          Liked by 6 people

          • Mongoose says:

            Your observations are spot on Wheatie. Same as mine. There has been a noticeable change in “attitude” of late which I find quite refreshing. A little less standing in the wings and a little more boldness and front-and-center action! I like it.

            Liked by 1 person

    • cattastrophe says:

      I never supported Senator Paul as presidential material however I think he’s always done an excellent job as Senator speaking out about what he believes.and certainly spying on Americans has always been one of his pet peeves. That he sees an ally in President Trump is not a surprise except to enforce (so far) his correct allegiance to the Constitution instead of his fellow Senators and government.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. RedBallExpress says:

    The same group that wants open borders has no problem with felons having security clearances. Just don’t let the U.S. electorate see stuff.

    Liked by 9 people

  6. Minnie says:

    Senator Rand Paul is right.

    No need to name names, make it a blanket, universal policy.

    It needs to be done, now.

    Surprising to learn it isn’t already in place – as if by design 😐

    Do it 👍

    Liked by 27 people

    • daizeez says:

      I agree, but it needs to be expanded. Definitely non-elected officials should have clearances revoked, but I don’t think ANY of elected officials should retain clearances.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Iamcat says:

        I don’t feel safe at all with Ovomit having too secret clearance. I never felt like an ex President would actually feed our enemies info to destroy us, but I do now.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Mongoose says:

        I’m sure many good people need and should have clearances. If only we could count on a rigorous background check to protect us. But once their job is done, so is the clearance and ability to trade on the hot-warm info they garnered while in service. Hence the ban on being hired as consultant’s and lobbyists by private concerns for a period of time.

        As for B. Hussein, why would he need a clearance? Maybe he wants to find out where all the guns and ammo he bought via his Cabinet Departments are currently residing? He is still and enemy of America and is working toward his goal of fundamentally changing this country. He needs to be cut out of the loop, IMMEDIATELY!

        Like

    • Rex says:

      In this case, it may be good to name a few names. (See amwick’s post a little below this)
      Doing it this way allows time for John Q. Public to gradually associate these names with criminal activity.

      Liked by 3 people

    • GB Bari says:

      But that liberal shill McCallum insisted he address the specific named individuals who were mentioned by SHS in the presser. I cannot stand her. No ability to adjust with the guest – just keep pushing the pre-established narrative.
      GRRRR.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. LBB says:

    I believe the general population would be on board with a simple policy. You no longer work for gov’t , you no longer have “active” clearance. This will not impact any of these individuals US freedoms.

    Liked by 13 people

    • Convert says:

      Abso-damn–lutely. I have learned so much stuff that I didn’t know and would have never guessed about the extremely stupid things our government does and the asinine policies and procedures they have operated under.

      Liked by 12 people

      • Carrie2 says:

        Convert, and even worse is that in many cases we have elected/hired them so it truly is up to us to take back the reins to our Republic and keep a close eye/guard on this garbage.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Cuppa Covfefe says:

          Yep. Get rid of the bloat, graft, evil, and corruption that is part and parcel of life in Washington D.C., including ALL of the lobbyists and the Chamber of Commies (Chamber of Whorors?) and the cost (literally and figuratively) of government would go down immensely.

          What the heck are the congresscritters doing up there???

          They don’t need lobbyists, they need to get and keep in touch with their constituents (i.e. THEIR management), and occasionally get competent advice from external, IMPARTIAL, experts who have NO financial interest in the outcome/use of their advice.

          Maybe place a limit of staff size per congresscritter. If you need, say, 100 (SWAG here) people to run your congressional office, maybe you’d be better off somewhere else. And your constituents would be better off, too…

          Liked by 4 people

    • Hap Hazard says:

      It really is a simple policy, one, I might add, is precisely the policy currently in place for armed forces personnel. I was in the Army many years ago, and help a top secret clearance. When I “ETS’d” and left the Army at the end of my enlistment, my top secret and secret clearances was revoked by operation of law.

      Liked by 7 people

      • cattastrophe says:

        That seems to simply a answer even for some on our side.

        Your work for government, you get security clearance for your job. You leave your government job, you no longer need security clearance because you are no longer in that job. Security clearance revoked because you are now a private citizen. End of story.

        Like

  8. daizeez says:

    Extend this to congressmen and women and ex-presidents. What reason do they have for access to top secret info after they leave? Million dollar book deals, speeches and cable news analysis? No way.

    Liked by 12 people

  9. amwick says:

    Twitter pundit,,, Stealth Jeff, (Brian Cates) has speculated that these security clearances were left in place as part of a giant Leak investigation. He has a storm on this, but here:

    So, it was a sting… And they got the goods on these bad guys, so it is time for the security clearances to be eliminated… Obviously this is just more speculation, but I like it.

    Liked by 20 people

  10. Bone Fish says:

    Least we forget,

    Order followers and their supporters are the true destroyers of our world. The cult of Statism, of government authority is an illusion; it does not exist in nature, regardless of what anyone believes.

    Authority is an illusion existing only within a diseased psyche, based entirely in violence and built upon the erroneous and dogmatic belief that some people are masters who have the moral right to issue commands, while others are slaves who have a moral obligation to obey the masters.

    Order followers erroneously believe that they possess rights that others do not because they believe that government is God. Due to their cult indoctrination, they refuse to accept the truth that everyone has the exact same rights and that no one has more or less rights than anyone else. The Cult Of Order followers believe that human beings can decide what rights people have or do not have based upon their own whims. They also believe that human beings are actually capable of delegating rights which do not exist or revoking rights which do exist.

    Liked by 4 people

    • wheatietoo says:

      “…government authority is an illusion; it does not exist in nature, regardless of what anyone believes.”
      ____

      What about the ‘Alpha Wolf’ in a pack of wolves?
      Or the lead Stallion in a band of wild horses.
      Or the patriarch Lion in a pride of lions.

      So I would say that ‘authority’…or leadership…does exist in nature, but only in the species who band together for survival.

      In our Republic we have “the consent of the governed”, whereby we the people elect our own government and then give that government our consent to govern us.
      That is the theory, anyway.

      I know what you’re saying though.

      When our government takes on a life of it’s own…and acts against the best interest of the people or abuses the power that we give it…then the ‘consent of the governed’ must be withdrawn.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Bone Fish says:

        Wheatietoo power resides where men believe it resides. It’s a trick, a shadow on the wall. And, a very small man can cast a very large shadow. However, if you think you’re just too small to have an impact, try going to bed with a mosquito in the room ツ

        Liked by 2 people

  11. PS says:

    Easy. All past federal employees lose secret and above access within 3 months of severance, historical access can be reactivated up to 2 years after termination after evidence of federal employment (up to 3 months in the future to allow for transitions). If you are terminated for cause, all systems must acknowledge access removal with documentary evidence within 48 hours. If you are not a current active employee of the federal government, evidence must be shown that all accounts are disabled and archived within 48 hours.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Curry Worsham says:

    Brennan gave an Underwear Bomber brief?😀

    Liked by 7 people

  13. Palafox says:

    Great. There goes my date with Ali.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. rumpole2 says:

    Seems sensible to me… when leaving their Gov. job, nobody should have clearance as the general rule.

    It should be the EXCEPTION that people retain security clearance, and even if that exemption is granted (for a good reason)….. THAT should be a a secret.

    Frankly it would NOT be an issue if Obama had not hired such crap/ corrupt people

    Liked by 5 people

    • WSB says:

      Use clearances only. Like Use Immunity. Only for litigation or Presidential need tor National Security.

      Otherwise, one must be regired in full. No contractors, no nothing.

      Liked by 1 person

    • cattastrophe says:

      Still an issue, corruption didn’t start or end with the Obama administration. There is no valid need for anyone outside of government offices to have government security clearance.

      Like

  15. Disgusted says:

    Cannot bear to suffer through listening to news talking people voices any longer. Cable cut right after the election and no more of these vapid individuals need to apply! Wish there was a way to just let the interviewee tell the camera what we want to hear without the other one! If it will ever be Greta again I might let her be involved.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Daniel. M. Camac says:

      Disgusted, I cut cable 25 years ago and never missed a beat. Better late than never for you I say. I actually did it because of the commercials at that time but now after seeing clips of “news from MSM” I feel a special joy. I realize how much propaganda was, is and will still be thrown at the American public to push an agenda that We no longer believe, want and totally reject.

      Liked by 4 people

  16. dissonant1 says:

    Briefing room audibly gasped when @PressSec said POTUS is looking into pulling the security clearances of Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Hayden, Rice, and McCabe – Saagar Enjeti @esaager

    All their sources, gone! What will these political operatives do when they actually have to do their own “research” (digging dirt on Trump)? First question for all of them: “Is Fusion GPS still up and running?”

    Liked by 11 people

  17. SalixVeridi says:

    God bless Senator Rand and his family. It took some guts to come forward; not like all these weasels in the Republican party who know the crimes that were committed but are staying in the shadows. Gutless Congress!

    Brennan and company, should be joined by Hillary and Bill, and all the other criminals still lurking among the corridors.

    After the clearances are removed, then indictments and then jail time. Our country must NEVER allow this type of trespass against our liberties ever again.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Uncle Al says:

      Nothing against Rand Paul, whom I like, admire, and respect, but I think it is more likely that DJT gave him a call and said, in effect, “It’s time. Tell the reporters you’re going to recommend that I pull Brennan’s security clearance and then come over to the WH for a photo op. l’ll run with it from there.”

      Liked by 1 person

  18. paulraven1 says:

    My God, reporters are stupid. This woman interviewing Rand Paul is plain stupid.

    Liked by 4 people

  19. LBB says:

    There are various executive orders (EO’s) involved with the clearance guidelines. #12968 written by Clinton seems to be a main one. The latest National Security guideline I could find was written by Clapper Dec 2016 and went into effect June 2017.

    http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/SEAD4_20170608.pdf

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Trent Telenko says:

    These are some of the consequences I’ve been expecting for the Deep State from Pres. Trump as a part of the “Big Ugly.”

    The Deep State derives its power and money from it’s on-going access to national intelligence.

    Any President has the power to revoke that power, money and privilege by removing their security clearance access, if sufficiently motivated.

    And they have motivated Pres. Trump…

    …with the really nice cover of Sen. Rand Paul giving Trump “Institutional-Legislative request” as well as a very obvious revenge sub-plot aimed at the unhinged Left’s on-going hate speech campaign aimed at Republicans.

    Sen Rand Paul here is playing the “Steel Dossier” role that Sen John McCain did in helping the Deep State getting the FISA surveillance warrant on the Trump campaign. Except this time the Deep State conspiracy are in the role of victim. And the mainstream media got the full message as intended —

    Saagar Enjeti

    @esaagar

    Briefing room audibly gasped when @PressSec said POTUS is looking into pulling the security clearances of Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Hayden, Rice, and McCabe
    2:02 PM – Jul 23, 2018
    3,196
    1,738 people are talking about this

    Liked by 4 people

  21. My esteem for Rand has increased tenfold over the last few months. He’s had a grueling year. Go Rand. Terminating Brennan’s gravy train is totalitarianism lol.

    Liked by 3 people

  22. NJF says:

    Calling out the money angle. And it’s true.

    I also just had a lightbulb moment. If these people get their clearances pulled can they still be a witness for Mueller. *Insert evil laugh*

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Cowwow says:

    Cold anger as we learned from someone today that Fox has now gone back to the dark anti Trump side not allowing in depth investigative reporting…I remember the shock on little Chrissy’s face last winter when he was told that reporting on leaked classified material was NOT covered by the First Amendment …

    Wish I could see their shocked faces, too-especially the producers- now.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. NJF says:

    Hannitys hair is literally on fire right now. Lol. I don’t blame him though when I consider where we are. It’s time.

    The release of the redacted FISA is a big win for our side.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. America First says:

    Speaking of Brennan’s transgressions, wasn’t he the one that stole Ozero related material from the State Department? I always assumed that that had something to do with the fact that Zero’s stepfather Soetero adopted him and he became an Indonesian citizen, and even during the 2008 campaign the State Department actually came out and acknowledged that they had no record of his citizenship being changed back to American (if it ever had been).

    Brennan’s desperation to steal and hide away material seemed very suspicious to me.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Critical Mass says:

      After time, and now that the weasels are losing their grip (in more ways than one), all these stories are bound to come out. It is amazing the amount of amateur sleuths on the internet and social media. Some of them are a bit wacky, but most of them are sincere.

      The human instinct for truth can never be suppressed.

      Liked by 2 people

  26. Cat Lady says:

    This thread pertains to this security clearance story and should be read by ALL of the trolls and others that think Sessions isn’t doing anything!!

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1021523277091627008.html?utm_source=email&utm_medium=alert&utm_campaign=internal

    Liked by 2 people

  27. Critical Mass says:

    Rand Paul is such a decent and honorable man. Great to see him join the ranks of Nunes, Jordan, DeSantis, Gaetz, Meadows and others in remaining true to their congressional duty to support the duly elected President. And it hasn’t been easy for any of them. They have been resolute in enduring the threats and harassment they have had to face. After time, many others will gather to this dedicated group, when it becomes clear that honesty is its own reward. It’s about time too. President Trump, champion and all that he is, cannot do it all on his own.

    Was the humor inadvertent in Rand Paul’s words when he linked “Underwear Bomber”, “briefed”, and “leaks”, in one of his responses?

    Can we look forward to “Calendar Conspiracy” and “kept up to date”? “Knitting Coup” and “in the loop”? “Graveyard Shooter” and “filled in”?

    Liked by 2 people

  28. PotP says:

    Hmmm, what other agency needs to have more thorough background checks…

    Liked by 4 people

  29. Hannibal Smith says:

    As a former DOD contractor with a top secret clearance, I think something needs to be clarified here.

    Just because you have a security clearance does not mean you have access to any sensitive information. The clearance only says that you are trustworthy. It does not mean you have carte blanche to look at anything you want, or anything at all, for that matter.

    In my case, I was never actually “read into” a program that would allow me to see anything interesting. I installed stuff in places that handled classified documents – usually before anything classified was brought in. Other times, all sensitive documents were locked up and my crew was escorted at all times by people who did have appropriate access. Even though I had an active clearance, the mountains of paperwork to allow me to work alone cost far more than providing a baby sitter for my entire shift.

    Getting a clearance requires months of investigation. Contractors normally obtain them for as many employees as possible so that they will be instantly ready to go if and when needed.

    When you are no longer needed on a contract, you no longer have access to that information, but you retain your clearance, so you will be ready for the next contract. You normally retain your clearance even if you quit and go to work for another company. It’s a normal and not sinister practice. Generally, you only lose your clearance when it both expires (10 years, IIRC?) and you are no longer employed in the business.

    All that said, these people have obviously been shown not to be trustworthy, and should not be allowed future employment handling classified information. I do not know if they retain some sort of VIP access that would not normally be granted to a mere peon such as myself. I have no reason to believe that they do, but they certainly seem to act like it sometimes.

    Liked by 2 people

    • David A says:

      Hanibol says, The clearance only says that you are trustworthy. ”

      Good information; and as the deep staters lusted are anything but trustworthy, then their clearance must be pulled, and bravo for the untrustworthy label that goes with it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • railer says:

      McCabe has been referred for prosecution, and Clapper is a self-admitted albeit unindicted perjurer. The rest are proven leakers, which can also be construed as a crime. They should not have any clearance beyond what any other citizen has.

      Like

  30. bayrat65 says:

    Mr. Paul seems to be the only one with a pair of stones!! Go MAGA!!

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Olpainless says:

    This has to be the biggest ‘NO BRAINER’ I’ve ever heard of. Only in the swamp does this happen!

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Brian Baker says:

    It’s time for all of these former Obama officials to get their intelligence the same way Obama did when he was in office, by seeing it in the news.

    Liked by 4 people

  33. Pingback: Senator Paul Discusses Effort to Remove Security Clearances From Former Intelligence Officials – IOTW Report

  34. PVCDroid says:

    We better get another rightish cable news network soon. It seems FOX is going further anti-Trump by the day and riding the conspiracy and hysteria along with MSM. They didn’t used to and would avoid rumors and ridiculousness in the past but not anymore. I believe FOX is not discussing these revelations and putting it all together like they should. For Brennan, this is a truly reasonable and logical thing to do for now…..until he’s indicted hopefully. And any other high level former administration members that are clearly partisan and talking crap about the current administration.

    Like

    • cattastrophe says:

      With FOX it depend on which show your watching. They employ some of the stupidest biased hacks known to man but they also have some of the most truthful reporters. They will never go full patriotic truth, their the media. I think we’d better be grateful there is at least some positive reporting somewhere on TV news.

      Like

  35. covfefe999 says:

    Has anyone seen Rand Paul’s opinion, or any other supporting the security clearance termination, on any of the Dem propaganda networks? I haven’t. All I’ve seen so far is that this is Trump’s idea and it’s “controversial”. What a pathetic situation we find ourselves in, where 90% of the media (and I’m talking about local as well as national), forms the propaganda division of the Democratic Party.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. SSI01 says:

    It has become a tradition – nothing required by law – that senior officials retiring from or leaving govt service are allowed to keep their security clearances – and in many cases are never “read out” of programs they were “read into” during their tenure – so they can constitute a sort of massive “knowledge base” the sitting POTUS can consult should a genuine crisis ever confront the country. The theory is the more experience and educated opinon that is brought to bear against a crisis or problem, the better a chance there is of solving it to the country’s advantage. For this reason Henry Kissinger, although in his 90s, still has connections around the world and is probably updated on certain events or personalities frequently by the intel community so he can contribute his opinions or expertise should he be asked.

    In an ideal world, that’s how it’s supposed to work. Unfortunately we live in a far from ideal world populated by opportunists, traitors, and people who think they are protean geniuses and who believe they alone are blessed with the power and intelligence to know who is the best person to be POTUS – and that over 50 million Americans have no intelligence at all.

    I frankly do not see the need to allow these people to retain their clearances and access for at least two reasons.

    First, from 2008 to 2016 we were treated to a continual parade of individuals supposedly in responsible positions in government who looked like they’d stepped out of their college fraternity or sorority houses. I don’t think I saw anyone over the age of 30 serving in these positions. Opinions proffered by those who had a lifetime of hard-bought experience were apparently never sought, or were ignored if they were provided. After all, youth knows it all and shows we have a dynamic, progressive administration! We’re not rooted in the old way of doing things! The same thing occurred in the administrations of Bush the Younger, and Slick Willie. What’s the point of having these old heads around if no one listens to them?

    Second, that access to classified information leads to too much temptation on the part of these people to use it for either partisan or financial gain. They may be retired from the govt intelligence business but many if not most wind up quickly working for various corporations that collect intelligence that is sold to commercial ventures or foreign governments. There’s a whopping temptation to purvey what they still have access to into gold in their pockets.

    Something to consider is the intelligence level of those most involved in intelligence. Clapper, Comey, all the others involved in this coup d’etat allowed Brennan to talk or browbeat them into accepting this nonsense in the “dossier” as gospel fact. That’s one thing. But to get them to fall for carrying on with their own various intelligence efforts in pursuit of derailing Trump’s presidency, using the dossier as the basis for a FISA warrant among other things, while Brennan’s connections to the document were blurred or obfuscated in various ways, was something else. They’re the equivalent to those guys in the ranks who are asked to step forward if they did something particularly stupid that could ruin things for the entire company; Brennan leans forward just like they do, but he fails to take that step out while the rest of them do. They’re left holding the bag while he manages to stay in the background. And they couldn’t figure out there was at least an even chance this would happen.

    No wonder our overseas intelligence operations and sources get uncovered. Those guys were played by Brennan in this situation. If they’re so smart they should never have fallen for a trap like this, they should have had an ironclad commitment by Brennan he would stand up with them and tell everyone CIA and other foreign government agencies were the ultimate source of this document – after the initial info for it was provided by the Clinton campaign.

    If they fell for this it’s no wonder whatever we do overseas seems to be exposed and destroyed.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. boutis says:

    Senator Paul is also a board certified physician. He is politely suggesting that Brennan is nuts without openly saying it. I happen to agree with him.

    Like

  38. 6x47 says:

    I think the key here is if President Trump yanks their security clearance, it will have 2 primary ramifications:

    1. It will taint all of these former “officials” as untrustworthy, diminishing their stature with reasonable people (although enhancing it with “The Resistance”).
    2. It will make it more risky for current officials to leak classified information to them, which is the REAL problem here.

    Like

  39. ATheoK says:

    My understanding, from Federal employment is that regular security clearance requires verification every five or three years.
    While the highest levels of security clearance require verification every year.

    All it takes to compromise a Federal employee is bad debts, inconvenient pictures, videos or witnesses to improper actions, participation in criminal activity or collusion with a foreign agent.. Hence the demand that top security clearances get verified frequently.

    Security clearances are a measure of trust.
    Any loss of trust or evidence that security clearance is misused immediately revokes an employee’s right to that security clearance; until a full security clearance is performed.

    Revoke their clearances immediately! Any use of their alleged security clearances for personal profit or gain is proof that a person’s trust is prejudiced.

    Like

  40. oldarmyblog says:

    While I don’t claim to be an expert in this area, my understanding is that when you leave a position that requires a security clearance, your clearance becomes inactive and your access is terminated. There a thing called need to know. No matter what your clearance is, you are only authorized to see information necessary to do the job you are in. If you have TS clearance you can’t have access to all TS info, only the stuff that is necessary to do the job you are in. Once you leave the government, you access is terminated and your clearance becomes inactive. If anyone is still accessing classified information from government sources after they have left their government position, then someone needs to go to jail. Defense contractors like to hire people who have had security clearances as it makes it easier to vet new employees and saves money since all the background checks have already been done. Yes every five years you have to update your information, but not yearly even if you have TS. I had a TS for twenty out of twenty three years of service and only had to update every five years. Worked for a defense contractor for another 20 years in a position that require a TS and it was the same. Companies like to hire retired flag officers and move them into upper management immediately with very cushy salaries. This called buying influence, which has been going on since the beginning of time.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s