Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 47

Thread: I stand with you Admiral

  1. #16
    Join Date
    10-20-03
    Posts
    15,885
    As for the list, all former CIA and to tell you the truth they are some of the problem. They did not see that Muslim extremists were starting to get stronger. These former CIA employees were in office during some of the biggest failures in the Country's history including, 1993 WTC bombing, 9/11 attacks, Iraq, Afghanistan, Benghazi (where we lost an Ambassador while the admin sat on their hands) the NSA fiasco, where they got caught illegally recording American citizens......must I go on? These same "heroes" as you seem to think they are, were running the show and/or part of the admin(s) that got Americans and their allies killed.


    Like I pointed out, Brennan himself was a major player in taking away the "free speech" game. He is as crooked and deviant as they come and a man that has held positions of power like he did, should be more reserved and respectful of the American people and the laws of our great nation. And on a final note, he was the one that fell for the "fake dossier" and was a major actor in pushing that phony crap. If that is what you or any other critic are forgetting and saying that Brennan is a man of impeccable actions, you might want to rethink your whole philosophy on what really makes a good person.



    This sudden hatred of Trump by members of Congress and the inner workings of the govt should act more like adults and be respectful of the position of the POTUS. It only goes to show the sad state of the leadership we have had in the past. WHen Trump came into office all of the history and problems before he took the oath belonged to them and them alone. What problems have we had where Americans were killed during Trumps watch? Has he withheld any support from Americas military or tried to hamstring them in any way?


    Trump acted under the rules of his position, he fired Comey who has since been outed as being corrupt and probably will face some charges for his actions. He should fire the heads of the DOJ and the FBI for their actions, which according to our laws, was very corrupt and illegal as well as unethical. All that he has done was to fix a system that these so-called "old time patriots" had let lapse into a swamp. Our system became corrupt and unworkable because of most of the men that are complaining allowed the system to fall into corruption under their care. Bitch all you want, it does not change the facts.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    10-22-01
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    38,316
    it does not change the facts
    The facts IAW the cult
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
    "Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
    “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis

  3. #18
    Join Date
    10-14-01
    Location
    TEXAS!
    Posts
    14,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Grubb View Post
    Because they can be (and often are) consulted on current developments, especially in the intelligence fields.

    It is hard to argue this is anything but punitive in nature when you single out one person without "cause". This is king trump----and we are not a monarchy.
    If all they are is retired or no longer contracted to do business with the government that requires a security clearance, it seems to me the clearance should be revoked. If the time comes that the government wishes to consult or do some other business with such a person, the clearance can be granted for the duration of the relationship.

    I agree it is punitive in the case of Brennan.
    The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible - Arthur C. Clarke

  4. #19
    Join Date
    04-29-17
    Posts
    7,549
    Mike this is a copy and paste from my reply in another thread.

    Actually many government employees retain their security clearances when they leave the government service. It is really a little know "perk". For instance employees that have top secret clearance upon leaving government service are highly sought after by government contractors who are required to have employees with security clearances . In many cases they are given large bonuses and a higher pay grade. Many former military officers take advantage of this along with former CIA and others civilians who have clearances. It is NOT a right, it is a "perk". It can be taken away as fast as it was issued. Clearances are revoked ALL the time for various reasons. Personally, whether true or not if an individual with the highest of clearance accuses the President of treason I think that is ample reason to remove the clearance. If persons are actively working to undermine the President of the United States I think that is also ample reason to remove a clearance. Before you go busting my chops on this issue please be objective and think what any other President may have done in similar circumstance.
    OPINION....a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    10-14-01
    Location
    TEXAS!
    Posts
    14,577
    That seems like a really bad way to run a country. It leaves far too many folks "in the know" that don't need to "know".
    The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible - Arthur C. Clarke

  6. #21
    Join Date
    10-21-01
    Location
    San Antonio, Tx.
    Posts
    18,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Grubb View Post
    The free speech issue is not based on anything classified, it is based on the obvious fact that this is "punishment" from Trump on speaking out against him.

    This brings back thoughts of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
    What on earth have you been eating?
    ...............
    “You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” — Too fundamental to have an attribution


  7. #22
    Join Date
    10-20-03
    Posts
    15,885
    I seem to recall the uproar from the left about Jared Kuschner not having his, yet I have not seen him in front of every camera in striking distance running down the POTUS. The scary thing about Brenner and others who do not respect the JOB enough to sit down and shut up, is what lengths they would go to to try and embarrass or even try and undermine him. Brennan should have more restraint and respect and quit playing these little preschool games and act like a respectable adult with boatloads of top secret knowledge about the inner workings of the United States of America. He is dangerous in that fashion as he has publicly let it be known that he is ready to go against Trump, and who knows if selling himself to the highest bidder would not be beneath him. Brennan and others are loose cannons and should be sat down and warned about the consequences of their actions, since they seem to be ignorant of what they are doing, which is helping the Russians and others spread their chaos.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    10-22-01
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    38,316
    With a third star-studded letter, more than 175 additional alumni of top national security jobs are joining the bipartisan outcry against President Trump's stripping of former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance.

    Who's in ... An organizer tells me: "This third statement includes career officials — from Nick Rasmussen, former Director of NCTC, to Bill Burns, former Deputy Secretary of State, to Doug Wise, former Deputy Director of DIA, to political folks from both sides of the aisle — including Tony Lake, former National Security Advisor and Sean O’Keefe, former Secretary of the Navy and NASA Administrator as well as more than 10 former U.S. Ambassadors and more than 20 former U.S. Attorneys."

    Michael Morell — former CIA acting director, and host of the CBS News "Intelligence Matters" podcast — tells me Trump's approach has backfired:

    "People are essentially saying to the president: 'We will not be intimidated by you. For those of us who have been speaking up, we will continue to. And if we haven't been, we’re going to start speaking up.'"
    "This is a great example of democracy — exactly what all these folks who signed the letters spent their lives defending."


    For the full article, poke here.
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
    "Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
    “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis

  9. #24
    Join Date
    10-21-01
    Location
    San Antonio, Tx.
    Posts
    18,387
    Why wouldn’t the beneficiaries of continued insider info be opposed to stopping it?
    ...............
    “You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” — Too fundamental to have an attribution


  10. #25
    Join Date
    10-22-01
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    38,316
    You are missing a core component of the security process. First you have to have the requisite clearance (level). Secondly, you have to have a need to know---without the second component you have no access to any information.

    In simple terms, without a need to know retired people have no access to classified material.

    This has little to do with access to classified material---it has a lot to do with the right of free speech.
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
    "Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
    “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis

  11. #26
    Join Date
    02-02-04
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    16,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    Question:

    Why should anyone who is no longer in government service need security clearances?
    I believe it is because the threats don't change with the administration and that there are 2 things specific to why they hold clearance. 1. To act as counsel and share their opinions from their experience. and 2. because they can be called for testimony in cases that might be either from their time or related to them.

    bumpersticker by NT Candy, on Flickr

  12. #27
    Join Date
    10-21-01
    Location
    San Antonio, Tx.
    Posts
    18,387
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Grubb View Post
    - - -it has a lot to do with the right of free speech.
    Try as I may, I cannot connect some phantom right to collect secret data with free speech. “Speech” is to utter, not listen, see or read. They are the exact opposite of each other. Now we are asked to transmogrify the meaning of words to grant rights which do not exist to protect the likes of a John Brennan!
    ...............
    “You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out.” — Too fundamental to have an attribution


  13. #28
    Join Date
    10-22-01
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    38,316
    Quote Originally Posted by wacojoe View Post
    Try as I may, I cannot connect some phantom right to collect secret data with free speech. “Speech” is to utter, not listen, see or read. They are the exact opposite of each other. Now we are asked to transmogrify the meaning of words to grant rights which do not exist to protect the likes of a John Brennan!
    Well---I do see it as a free speech issue. Brennan didn't speak nicely about Trump and so the NYC thug will show him----purely punitive because he pissed him off. Of course now the thug is out of more convenient options. It is clear in the letters of protest that those that are signatory see this as a free speech issue.

    The letters are also careful in saying that the signers are not indicating agreement with what Brennan has said.
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty” ---Sir Winston Churchill
    "Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all." ---John W. Gardner
    “You can’t go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.” ---C. S. Lewis

  14. #29
    Join Date
    10-20-03
    Posts
    15,885
    Then can you explaing how Brennan was the butt of the Dems when it was found out he and his folks were spying on American Senators and recording their communications. Back in the early days the Dems were wanting Brennan crucified, and then lied about it. I'll also point of the paper of reference, so there is no confusion about the source. After you read the whole article, go back and substitute FBI in every spot that you see CIA, and compare what happened back then under Obama and what is happening now under Trump. Pretty damn close if you ask me. Oh and Brennan should have been prosecuted for lying to Congress, as that is exactly what he did. I think Brennan is doing all of this now because ha got a "pass" from the Dems in the Senate as well as Obama's admin in the WH.



    WASHINGTON — An internal investigation by the C.I.A. has found that its officers penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program.



    The report by the agency’s inspector general also found that C.I.A. officers read the emails of the Senate investigators and sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department based on false information, according to a summary of findings made public on Thursday. One official with knowledge of the report’s conclusions said the investigation also discovered that the officers created a false online identity to gain access on more than one occasion to computers used by the committee staff.


    The inspector general’s account of how the C.I.A. secretly monitored a congressional committee charged with supervising its activities touched off angry criticism from members of the Senate and amounted to vindication for Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee’s Democratic chairwoman, who excoriated the C.I.A. in March when the agency’s monitoring of committee investigators became public.
    A statement issued Thursday morning by a C.I.A. spokesman said that John O. Brennan, the agency’s director, had apologized to Ms. Feinstein and the committee’s ranking Republican, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and would set up an internal accountability board to review the issue. The statement said that the board, which will be led by a former Democratic senator, Evan Bayh of Indiana, could recommend “potential disciplinary measures” and “steps to address systemic issues.”



    But anger among lawmakers grew throughout the day. Leaving a nearly three-hour briefing about the report in a Senate conference room, members of both parties called for the C.I.A. officers to be held accountable, and some said they had lost confidence in Mr. Brennan’s leadership. “This is a serious situation and there are serious violations,” said Mr. Chambliss, generally a staunch ally of the intelligence community. He called for the C.I.A. employees to be “dealt with very harshly.”


    Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado and another member of the Intelligence Committee, demanded Mr. Brennan’s resignation. “The C.I.A. unconstitutionally spied on Congress by hacking into the Senate Intelligence Committee computers,” he said in a written statement. “This grave misconduct not only is illegal but it violates the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of separation of powers.


    The C.I.A. officials penetrated the computer network when they came to suspect that the committee’s staff had gained unauthorized access to an internal C.I.A. review of the detention program that the spy agency never intended to give to Congress. A C.I.A. lawyer then referred the agency’s suspicions to the Justice Department to determine whether the committee staff broke the law when it obtained that document. The inspector general report said that there was no “factual basis” for this referral, which the Justice Department has declined to investigate, because the lawyer had been provided inaccurate information. The report said that the three information technology officers “demonstrated a lack of candor about their activities” during interviews with the inspector general.



    The dispute brought relations between the spy agency and lawmakers to a new low, as the two sides traded a host of accusations — from computer hacking to violating constitutional principles of separation of powers.



    At a tense meeting earlier this week in which Ms. Feinstein and Mr. Chambliss were briefed by Mr. Brennan on the report, Ms. Feinstein confronted Mr. Brennan over his past public statements on the issue, in which he defended the agency’s actions, and his implicit criticism of her.


    When the C.I.A.’s monitoring of the committee became public in March, after months of private meetings and growing bitterness, Ms. Feinstein took to the Senate floor to deliver a blistering speech accusing the agency of infringing on the committee’s role as overseer.


    Calling it a “defining moment” in the committee’s history, Ms. Feinstein said that how the matter was resolved “will show whether the Intelligence Committee can be effective in monitoring and investigating our nation’s intelligence activities, or whether our work can be thwarted by those we oversee.”



    Hours later, Mr. Brennan was publicly questioned about the dispute and said that “when the facts come out on this, I think a lot of people who are claiming that there has been this tremendous sort of spying and monitoring and hacking will be proved wrong.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/w...on-report.html



  15. #30
    Join Date
    10-20-03
    Posts
    15,885
    Not to mention the other guy making the most noise also lied to Congress, under oath. I'm just gonna put this out there, Clapper and Brennan should be sitting in a corner somewhere with their mouths closed and their ears shut. They got away with something they are demanding that others be burned at the stake about, and they are making other good men stand in line to be mad fools of. If Clapper had any sense he shpuld thank his lucky stars that he is not sitting in a cell somewhere, instead of shooting off his ignorant mouth. Same goes for Brennan and a few others.



    Some lawmakers reacted to the long-expected resignation announcement from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Thursday by wishing him an eventful retirement, featuring prosecution and possible prison time.



    The passage of more than three years hasn’t cooled the insistence in certain quarters that Clapper face charges for an admittedly false statement to Congress in March 2013, when he responded, “No, sir" and "not wittingly” to a question about whether the National Security Agency was collecting “any type of data at all” on millions of Americans.



    About three months after making that claim, documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the answer was untruthful and that the NSA was in fact collecting in bulk domestic call records, along with various internet communications.



    To his critics, Clapper lied under oath, a crime that threatens effective oversight of the executive branch. In an apology letter to lawmakers, however, Clapper said he gave the “clearly erroneous” answer because he “simply didn’t think of” the call-record collection.



    Clapper later told MSNBC he considered the question akin to asking, “When did you stop beating your wife?” and so gave the “least untruthful” answer.

    Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who asked the question, rehashed the controversy in a statement Thursday, saying Clapper had presided over a “deception spree regarding mass surveillance” and that Clapper's office had been given the question in advance and then was asked, without success, to correct the record after the hearing.


    “Regardless of what was going through the director’s head when he testified, failing to correct the record was a deliberate decision to lie to the American people about what their government was doing,” Wyden said.



    No charges were filed against Clapper, but his critics say the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump could change that. Trump frequently railed against a “rigged system” on the campaign trail, alleging powerful people such as Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival, avoid criminal charges thanks to a corrupt legal system.



    https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...erjury-charges


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •