• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The US Presidency 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.

kkwd

Sr. Member
Reaction score
40
Points
460
FJAG said:
When you are at the level that these folks are, it is routine that they keep their security clearances so that the next administration can consult with them on new and ongoing issues. By having current clearances such consultations can happen rapidly without having to go through the vetting process needed to issue or reinstate a clearance. This is especially handy in crisis situations. All in all it's primarily to help the new administration rapidly access corporate memory to assist them in making sound and informed decisions.

:cheers:

To be honest would you want to bring in this man to consult with him? Seeing all the far out things he has said the past while. He is openly hostile.
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
70
Points
530
Addition to the above post, Secretary Mattis himself on the MSNBC report of a $92M parade cost:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5ISXJPZEQU&rel=0&modestbranding=1&controls=0
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
70
Points
530
FJAG:
When you are at the level that these folks are, it is routine that they keep their security clearances so that the next administration can consult with them on new and ongoing issues. By having current clearances such consultations can happen rapidly without having to go through the vetting process needed to issue or reinstate a clearance. This is especially handy in crisis situations. All in all it's primarily to help the new administration rapidly access corporate memory to assist them in making sound and informed decisions.


kkwd:
To be honest would you want to bring in this man to consult with him? Seeing all the far out things he has said the past while. He is openly hostile.

The Director of the CIA is a non partisan position. As soon as he leaves the position, he starts bashing the new administration and POTUS. He recently said to the TV audience, picked up by other media, that Trump had committed treason (punishable by death), but offered no proof. He said in the last several days that losing his security clearance is a violation of his First Amendment rights. He said that on TV, on Twitter, etc then wrote on op-ed. Seems like he doesn't comprehend what the First Amendment says.

On TV, a host stated, second hand, that without a security clearance, he can't go back to check files for his book. Everyone in Washington writes a book. ;D

 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
What's wrong with a parade ? It wont include anything heavy as it might damage the streets.
As to the issue of security clearances you don't own it like a car its on a need to know basis. These former Obama administration types should not rquire one. If they get another top level job in another administration they should be able to pass the background check unless they are advocating the overthrow of the government.

http://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Security-Clearance-Introduction.pdf
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,222
Points
1,060
tomahawk6 said:
What's wrong with a parade ? It wont include anything heavy as it might damage the streets.
As to the issue of security clearances you don't own it like a car its on a need to know basis. These former Obama administration types should not rquire one. If they get another top level job in another administration they should be able to pass the background check unless they are advocating the overthrow of the government.

http://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Security-Clearance-Introduction.pdf

To be honest nothing.  I assume that there are already veteran's day parades in the US.  This year does mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the 1st world war as well.

I'm curious how much our own commemoration parades will cost this year.  We'll have a contingent in Belgium and various cities across Canada not to mention this year's remembrance day ceremonies as well as an army contingent at Buckingham palace at that time. 
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
738
Points
1,060
tomahawk6 said:
As to the issue of security clearances you don't own it like a car its on a need to know basis. These former Obama administration types should not rquire one. If they get another top level job in another administration they should be able to pass the background check unless they are advocating the overthrow of the government.

http://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Security-Clearance-Introduction.pdf

See, now that's what I thought. Given FJAG's reply, I would have to assume that the current administration feels that they would have no need to consult. Therefore, no need for them to retain the clearance.

I've seen people, in the CAF, wear their clearance like some sort of status symbol. Perhaps that's the case here? I don't know. It makes sense though. He won't be able to have lunch with colleagues, if they decide to talk government or agency business. I think the animosity shown by the previous administration warrants a move like this. Who wants to let the fox back into the hen house?
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,222
Points
1,060
let's not try and make this about a simple administrative thing.  This is clearly a tit for tat thing with a very specific list of people that the president feels slighted by. 

If it was something as simple as them not feeling they need to consult then a lot more people would be on that list.

All that said though, it is well within his right and purview to do this.  But don't expect people to not be offended by this. 

But if a guy like Admiral McCraven takes issue with this then maybe some people should listen. 
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
70
Points
530
You should read this and compare names the with
a very specific list of people that the president feels slighted by. 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/strzok-joins-list-of-25-top-fbi-doj-officials-who-have-been-recently-fired-demoted-or-resigned_2624607.html

List of 25 Top FBI, DOJ Officials Who Have Been Recently Fired, Demoted, or Resigned
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
911
Points
940
tomahawk6 said:
These former Obama administration types should not rquire one.
Which ignores former-Reagan and Bushx2 administration types retaining clearances. 


ps - various Canadian government department 'types' (including retired-CAF) have also retained security clearances, by the way.  Not everything is a politicized conspiracy.  :boring:
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,222
Points
1,060
Rifleman62 said:
You should read this and compare names the with
https://www.theepochtimes.com/strzok-joins-list-of-25-top-fbi-doj-officials-who-have-been-recently-fired-demoted-or-resigned_2624607.html

List of 25 Top FBI, DOJ Officials Who Have Been Recently Fired, Demoted, or Resigned

A few do belong on that list.  But not all.

This is politically motivated. 
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
70
Points
530
Probably to some degree.

This house of cards wrt the investigation is unravelling fast based on the now public emails of the instigators.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,222
Points
1,060
The simple solution going forward is to just revoke all security clearances once a job or position is done. 
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
Some civilian defense contractors need a security clearance hence the need by industry to hire retired officers.Trump has canceled the parade due to cost but he left the door open for maybe next year.
 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-cancels-military-parade-blames-dc-officials-for-high-cost/ar-BBM36aO?ocid=spartandhp
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,541
Points
1,010
Everything McRaven wrote about Brennan can be true, and it can still be true that Brennan deserved to have his clearance revoked.  Whatever his alleged integrity, Brennan was caught in several high-profile lies and obfuscations (regarding: the CIA's illegal access of Senate computers, the CIA's illegal acquisition of other protected communications, the allegation of zero drone strike collateral casualties, denial of knowledge of the Steele dossier).

In the previous administration, Brennan (Dir CIA), Comey (Dir FBI), and Clapper (Dir NI) were significant players in the US defense/security establishment responsible for preventing things like foreign interference with US elections.  It has been established beyond doubt that the Obama administration knew about the (Russian) attempts but did not pursue the matter as aggressively as it might have.  Whether the directors' hands were tied in their respective areas of authority by the administration is almost beside the point; the customary principle is that if you can't get behind a policy, you should resign.  So presumably they "got behind" the policy.  Nevertheless, there was a failure on "their watch".  If they have useful advice to offer, it is the sort of thing done quietly through established channels.  Carping openly serves no agenda but destabilizing the new administration.  If they wish to be critics or to pin blame, they surely have a right to do so - but they do not necessarily deserve special access.

Here is what revoking the clearance really does: prevents anyone from sharing (leaking) classified material with Brennan without risk of committing a felony.  It discourages leakers inside from using Brennan as a delivery conduit.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,949
Points
1,040
Brad Sallows said:
Everything McRaven wrote about Brennan can be true, and it can still be true that Brennan deserved to have his clearance revoked.  Whatever his alleged integrity, Brennan was caught in several high-profile lies and obfuscations (regarding: the CIA's illegal access of Senate computers, the CIA's illegal acquisition of other protected communications, the allegation of zero drone strike collateral casualties, denial of knowledge of the Steele dossier).

In the previous administration, Brennan (Dir CIA), Comey (Dir FBI), and Clapper (Dir NI) were significant players in the US defense/security establishment responsible for preventing things like foreign interference with US elections.  It has been established beyond doubt that the Obama administration knew about the (Russian) attempts but did not pursue the matter as aggressively as it might have.  Whether the directors' hands were tied in their respective areas of authority by the administration is almost beside the point; the customary principle is that if you can't get behind a policy, you should resign.  So presumably they "got behind" the policy.  Nevertheless, there was a failure on "their watch".  If they have useful advice to offer, it is the sort of thing done quietly through established channels.  Carping openly serves no agenda but destabilizing the new administration.  If they wish to be critics or to pin blame, they surely have a right to do so - but they do not necessarily deserve special access.

Here is what revoking the clearance really does: prevents anyone from sharing (leaking) classified material with Brennan without risk of committing a felony.  It discourages leakers inside from using Brennan as a delivery conduit.

Care to back up some of your bald-faced allegations with some legitimate sources?

:waiting:
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,222
Points
1,060
tomahawk6 said:
Wasn't Brennan responsible for the Ben Gazi coverup ?

There were 10 investigations including 6 republican led ones.  Which one exactly discovered a cover up?
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
986
Points
1,060
Brad Sallows said:
. . .
Here is what revoking the clearance really does: prevents anyone from sharing (leaking) classified material with Brennan without risk of committing a felony.  It discourages leakers inside from using Brennan as a delivery conduit.

Unless something is vastly different in security procedures between us and the USA, that simple phrase "need to know" covers any such eventuality.  Oh yes, the Yanks use the same thing as in this definition from the primary directive for "Access to Classified Information" (Executive Order 12968)

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ic-legal-reference-book/executive-order-12968
(h) “Need-to-know” means a determination made by an authorized holder of classified information that a prospective recipient requires access to specific classified information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function.

. . .

Sec. 1.2. Access to Classified Information.

(a) No employee shall be granted access to classified information unless that employee has been determined to be eligible in accordance with this order and to possess a need-to-know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top