Politico: Trump pulls security clearance of ex-CIA Director Brennan
President Donald Trump on Wednesday revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, who has become a harsh critic of the president, and appeared to be targeting others who have disagreed with the administration.
“Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets and facilities, the very aim of our adversaries which is to sow division and chaos,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said while briefing reporters on Wednesday.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I do not understand how former U.S. officials can maintain access to a nation’s most sensitive secrets long after their time in government has ended. Once you are out of office .... and after a transition period .... your clearance should be revoked.
11 comments:
I note that in such anti-something or other matters, it is usually Fox that is cited. For serious stuff, CNN, Reuters, NY Times
For Trump to call him a liar is funny in light of Trump's lying every day (this is on record, Wash. Post).
My guess is that he did not have security clearance any longer and Trump is just showboating. I recall one former CIA or NSA leader saying on tv that he was to be possibly denied clearance but that he no longer had it.
another example of poor leadership:
CNN: Trump intel chief not consulted before decision to revoke Brennan's clearance
If this is correct, and it is, then POTUS would not have needed to consult with the intel chief. In the private sector, one loses all access to company data upon the time that they leave employment with the company. If they are hostile to the organization as Mr. Brenan was/is including but not limited to his absolutely vicious and unwarranted personal assault on POTUS impugning his patriotism on VERY specious grounds. Then he tops it off by essentially calling on Republicans and other leaders to essentially mount an overt coup against a duly elected POTUS. Such a person shouldn't be allowed anywhere near classified documents.
HOW DARE HE MEET WITH A MAJOR WORLD LEADER?!!? HOW DARE HE TRY AND ADVANCE AMERICAN INTERESTS IN TRYING TO ESTABLISH A RAPORT WITH THIS IMPORTANT WORLD LEADER?!?
To expound upon this essentially what Mr. Brenan and his cohorts are espousing is that we take Cold War 2 that we are already essentially in, douse it with gasoline, and light a match to it. This is dangerous in and of itself. To add to the problem they haven't given us a good reason to do this other than to say "trust us" or "because we said so." This would be a hard sell, if they had a good track record. They don't. They are going to need to do better than this before the course of actions they suggest can reasonably be agreed to.
In such a situation, to have not revoked this man's security clearance would have been poor leadership and for the leader to have actually asked one of his team members if it was okay would not exactly inspire confidence in the leader as it would imply the leader cannot make even the most basic of decisions. As such, from my own experience in leadership which is quite extensive as a small business owner and manager poor leadership would have been to actually "run this by" or "consult" with the other team members on what should be done here. The other team members knowing what had happened would have expected this course of action and to not do it would suggest incompetence on the part of the leader.
In other words, doing this is not poor leadership. Now is it good leadership? As this is not a particularly difficult decision and to do anything else would have been poor leadership, we can't say based upon this particular decision. It would be sort of like saying a person who does not jump out of a three story window head first onto the concrete below is "smart." Given how obvious it is to most that such a behavior would be destructive we could not conclude that they are "smart" based upon the fact that they refrained from jumping.
In summary, in my considered opinion based upon years of experience in leadership of a successful small business to have actually consulted with Mr. Coates or anyone else in this situation would have been bad leadership as the deed had to be done, to delay creates problems in and of itself, and to ask Mr. Coates suggests to most team members a weak willed leader without a moral compass.
Mr. coats points at Trump came from outside the system. This pretty much says it all. Those from inside the system had made a God awful mess of things. As such, naturally we should expect changes to be made and different ways of doing things. As to whom the leaders informs of certain developments, this is admittedly a judgment call. I suspect had President Obama chosen not to inform a team member about certain details of a meeting with an important foreign leader this would not have been a problem as the duly elected POTUS is expected to use his or her judgment on certain matters as any leader would be. As far as I am aware, Mr. Coats was not elected to any public office. As such, it seems POTUS would be under no obligation to inform him of anything except on what the leader deems a "need to know" basis.
I'm sure Congress can find out, if they have not already. They could always subpoena the translator. I suspect they already know the important parts of what was discussed and nothing was given up that would undermine American interests. While a judgment call, I suspect had such decisions been made the translator already would have been subpoenaed to testify before Congress in public.
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps they would pass up such an obvious opportunity to destroy the president they loathe. That just doesn't seem likely based upon prior actions. So, given the fact, that they haven't already done this, the conclusion that they already know this will not bear fruit for them seems reasonable.
Clapper next.
"Clapper next." Agreed.
Actually, a major problem is that it took this long. If there is poor leadership here, it is not in a failure to ask Mr. Coats if it was okay. The failure would be in taking so long. For now, I am assuming the reasons for taking so long have to do with legalities specific to the government, as in the private sector taking such a step would have been expected to be done almost instantly.
Fred
No. Completely and utterly wrong. I do not post FOX exclusively on stories like this.
Today .... FOX was the first to post the story, and that is why it headlined this post. The other news services posted an hour later, but by then I had moved on to other stories.
If your not in service of the government, you should immediately loose your clearance. This crap about allowing these guys to have the clearance is all about them being able to make lots of money. F that!!!
The WAPO record of Trump lies is extensive. Unfortunately all we have to go on is so says the WAPO and their sources. Tracking down each one to confirm or refute would take more time than I have frankly.
In the face of incomplete information, we can apply common sense. DJT is the most scrutinized person on the planet. Much of this scrutiny is hostile. The notion that he could lie serially and get away with it stretches credibility to the breaking point. Furthermore his "base" consists to a large degree business personnel whose integrity is vital for their survival. Were he a serial liar they as well as all of his team members would have abandoned him long ago. Add to this the sometimes distorted coverage POTUS receives of which the WAPO would be included. As such, the WAPO lacks credibility here.
You're just embarrassing yourself on a daily basis now, Fred. Just stop your ideologically driven nonsense. Sorry, Fred. Maybe some naive 20 year old socialists in Starbucks will listen to your theories of how CNN and NYT are the only serious outlets.
Fred just imagining things to justify his world view
Post a Comment