Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 08/17/2018 View Thu 08/16/2018 View Wed 08/15/2018 View Tue 08/14/2018 View Mon 08/13/2018 View Sun 08/12/2018 View Sat 08/11/2018
2018-08-17 Home Front: Politix
Yes, Revoking John Brennan’s Security Clearance Raises Constitutional Concerns
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2018-08-17 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [6462 views ]  Top

#1 David French is, to be charitable, a clown.
Posted by Rob Crawford 2018-08-17 03:21||   2018-08-17 03:21|| Front Page Top

#2 Remind me, which article of your constitution covers security clearances?
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2018-08-17 03:26||   2018-08-17 03:26|| Front Page Top

#3 Revoke a few more clearances, you'll start getting some people's attention inside the beltway I assure you.
Posted by Besoeker 2018-08-17 03:37||   2018-08-17 03:37|| Front Page Top

#4 Too bad for poor terrorist loving democrat and his terrorist living media pals.

For a traitor like that I may have had at the gallows before 9 AM. Who allows Barry Soretto to become President at all unless you are a piece of shit clinton stoogie and a mega moslem lover? And his pops, who can forget his pops?

Lovers of peeps all, no?

So, Barak Obama is essentially what they Replaced GOD with? And stuck with it?

No Clinton is your fish hook. The corruption is far to great.
Posted by newc 2018-08-17 04:18||   2018-08-17 04:18|| Front Page Top

#5 Good start to end the lobbyist merry-go-round in the Swamp. You leave, you also automatically lose any government clearance. Let the lobbying firm pay for one. You want to mine, lumber, drill on federal lands, you pay for it. You want access, you pay for a clearance process.
Posted by Procopius2k 2018-08-17 07:14||   2018-08-17 07:14|| Front Page Top

#6 You know, I quit reading National Review a number of years back.
This kind of "don't harsh our cocktail party friends" crap was most of the reason. That and the jesuitical logic twists.
Posted by ed in texas 2018-08-17 08:19||   2018-08-17 08:19|| Front Page Top

#7 I didn't realize a security clearance was needed to make up lies and throw tantrums.
Posted by AlmostAnonymous5839 2018-08-17 08:55||   2018-08-17 08:55|| Front Page Top

#8 The Real Point is that people that have and want to maintain their own TS Clearance don't have 'plausible deniability' when leaking to Brennan in the future. "Ooops! Brennan has a TS so it was kinda-sorta okay to leak to him all that dirt, right, Right?"
Posted by magpie 2018-08-17 09:40||   2018-08-17 09:40|| Front Page Top

#9 Defamation of clowns is a crime in Venezuela
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2018-08-17 09:40||   2018-08-17 09:40|| Front Page Top

#10 Number 8 nailed it !
Posted by Besoeker 2018-08-17 09:47||   2018-08-17 09:47|| Front Page Top

#11 In 2014 . . . he denied to Congress that CIA officials under his supervision had improperly accessed the computer files of congressional staffers. He told the Council of Foreign Relations that the CIA would never do such a thing. The CIA’s Inspector General, however, contradicted Mr. Brennan directly, concluding unequivocally that agency officials had indeed improperly accessed congressional staffers’ files.

Conclusion: He's broke the law and lied about it.
Posted by JohnQC 2018-08-17 09:49||   2018-08-17 09:49|| Front Page Top

#12 To be honest they should have to renew security clearances when a new administration takes over, and get day clearance if they are ever called in.

This entire thing is faux unrest.
Posted by rjschwarz 2018-08-17 09:51||   2018-08-17 09:51|| Front Page Top

#13 Ditto RJ. BTW, there is no 'constitutional concern.'
Posted by Besoeker 2018-08-17 09:57||   2018-08-17 09:57|| Front Page Top

#14 Article II of the United States Constitution grants the president broad authority to defend the nation as commander in chief of its armed forces. Second, that authority is not so broad as to always override individual constitutional rights whenever the president deems the two to be in conflict.

I get the first. Where, in the Constitution does it guarantee a right of a security clearance for clowns?

What if the person with the security clearance is convicted of obstruction of justice, conspiracy, sedition and treason, domestic spying, and perjury before Congress?
Posted by JohnQC 2018-08-17 10:29||   2018-08-17 10:29|| Front Page Top

#15 Pulling his clearance was clearly deserved and authorized by POTUS
Posted by Frank G 2018-08-17 10:48||   2018-08-17 10:48|| Front Page Top

#16 If the president has any reason at all not to trust the guy then the smart thing to do is err on the side of safety by revoking his security clearance. You don't take chances with national security just because you're afraid you might hurt somebody's feelings.
Posted by Abu Uluque 2018-08-17 11:21||   2018-08-17 11:21|| Front Page Top

#17 I looked at the title of this column and correctly guessed who the author was. Screw him.
Posted by Raj 2018-08-17 11:31||   2018-08-17 11:31|| Front Page Top

#18 Apparently, never losing a security clearance (if you were high enough in the govt.) is some sort of "penumbral emanation" in the First Amendment. Just another example of self-marginalization from the Never-Trump crowd.
Posted by PBMcL 2018-08-17 12:23||   2018-08-17 12:23|| Front Page Top

#19 Author is a eGOP lover and Never Trump masturbater.
Posted by DarthVader 2018-08-17 12:43||   2018-08-17 12:43|| Front Page Top

#20 The CIA charter is to work for and under the authority of the president, not against him. He should have lost it years ago on ethics violations...
Posted by 49 Pan 2018-08-17 13:17||   2018-08-17 13:17|| Front Page Top

#21 The CIA took GWB and the entire US on a long ride that has us still mucking around in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because Poppy Bush was ex CIA it didn't occur to anyone the agency would hang Dubya out to dry with bad intel. I wonder how different things might have been if Dubya had cleaned house upon being sworn in?

And you'd think it would be a huge lesson to any incoming president, but, sadly, no.
Posted by M. Murcek 2018-08-17 13:38||   2018-08-17 13:38|| Front Page Top

#22 Just who do all these Inferior Officers think they are?
POTUS outranks you all.
Posted by newc 2018-08-17 13:42||   2018-08-17 13:42|| Front Page Top

#23 Special ops shoot down Brennan and his defenders: 'You put your politics before us'
Posted by Skidmark 2018-08-17 13:57||   2018-08-17 13:57|| Front Page Top

#24 I still think whomever gave him the clearance in the first place, knowing he voted for the communist party during the cold war, should have their own clearance revoked.
Posted by rjschwarz 2018-08-17 15:36||   2018-08-17 15:36|| Front Page Top

#25 Real men aren't named French.
Posted by Woodrow 2018-08-17 20:38||   2018-08-17 20:38|| Front Page Top

#26 WIDTH=100

The face you wear is the face you earn.
Posted by JohnQC 2018-08-17 23:22||   2018-08-17 23:22|| Front Page Top

23:30 ruprecht
23:22 JohnQC
22:52 trailing wife
22:52 trailing wife
22:13 Whiskey Mike
21:57 DooDahMan
20:50 Woodrow
20:44 Woodrow
20:39 CrazyFool
20:38 Woodrow
20:37 CrazyFool
20:35 Woodrow
20:10 trailing wife
20:00 AlanC
19:26 rammer
19:19 JohnQC
19:09 Alaska Paul
19:04 Alaska Paul
19:00 3dc
18:55 swksvolFF
17:45 3dc
17:33 Zenobia Floger6220
17:07 Airandee
17:06 49 Pan

Search WWW Search