Posted on 07/25/2018 9:02:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
Republican Sen. Rand Paul sent the media into another meltdown on July 23 when he called on President Trump to revoke the security clearance of former President Obama's CIA Director John Brennan. He charged that Brennan is "monetizing" his privileges by becoming an on-air analyst for NBC News and MSNBC. That doesn't even count Brennan's speaking fees.
Brennan's spouting inanities about treason that make a mockery of his former position is a disgraceful spectacle.
When John Gizzi of Newsmax asked White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders about Sen. Paul's request, she said yes, and not just about Brennan's clearance but that of other Obama appointees like former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former national security adviser Susan Rice. "The president is exploring the mechanisms to remove security clearance because they politicize and, in some cases, monetize their public service and security clearances," she said.
Not surprisingly, the Trump-hating networks wailed and screamed -- especially the ones paying Brennan (NBC and MSNBC) and Clapper (CNN). When these men come on television, they are treated as national treasures, described as nonpartisans and asked softball questions. Clapper's toughest interrogator -- the only one reminding viewers he lied to Congress -- has been Meghan McCain on ABC's "The View." How is that not pertinent to his credibility?
Removing their clearances could be painted as petty, but it would also remove some insider glamor and any remaining shred of nonpartisanship -- if you're not paying attention to their wild talk on TV and Twitter about Trump's "treasonous" actions and other assorted evils.
CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer even desperately claimed, "If you remove security clearances from a James Clapper, for example ... that's a potential national security threat." Because no one upholds national security like ... CNN? The network that falsely accused the U.S. military of gassing Laotians during the Vietnam War? The network that channeled Iraqi propaganda about America bombing baby-formula factories? The network that couldn't show enough Abu Ghraib photos worldwide as it explained how each image was a terrorist recruitment poster?
On NBC, chief White House correspondent Hallie Jackson tried to claim that people like Brennan and Clapper are somehow bipartisan, a most laughable proposition. "Most of the officials worked for both Democrats and Republicans and have been tough on President Trump publicly," she said. If you call Trump treasonous, NBC calls that "tough." If you suggest these former Obama aides are greedy partisans, NBC suggests that's "authoritarian."
What's comical is reporters like Jackson accusing Trump of "politicizing" this fracas ... when these Obama intelligence officials were spying on the Trump campaign in 2016, unmasking identities in a search for dirt to bury him. As top FBI officials probed the Russia ties of Trump aides, they were trading texts about how Trump had to be stopped. Even now, getting paid by highly ideological CNN and MSNBC to offer regular Trump-bashing analysis is politicizing intelligence. When in the last 50 years have we seen our intelligence officials so wildly exploit their power and moral authority (such as it is) to get a president removed from office?
The networks have always politicized intelligence, back to the Vietnam War days. The FBI and the CIA were under fervent leftist attack in the 1970s. They seemed to be filled with villains every time the Republicans were in office -- with former President Nixon and Watergate, former President Reagan and the Iran-contra affair, and former President George W. Bush and the Iraq War. But when they're scheming alongside Obama to help Hillary Clinton win, well, that's somehow patriotic activity.
The outraged journalists are not seriously addressing their own self-interest here: how they may have used these Obama officials as anonymous sources to ruin Trump since 2015. We may never know how useful they were, but the media ardor on behalf of these "nonpartisans" should color everyone's view of this kerfuffle.
After 2 years your clearance expires (becomes ‘inactive’) anyway, if you don’t use it.
And being a CNN reporter is not a valid ‘use’ of it.
The wailing for Obama being out and Hellary being kaput is deafening.
It’s just their mental anguish and demented psychosis that we have to suffer through.
The media wail is never ending. They must wear mouth guards to keep themselves from grinding their teeth down to their gums - On CBS this morning NorDUH O’Donnell was in a lather trying to convince Ricki Klaymen their expert attorney that the new tape is criminal and Trump should be arrested - they have lost their marbles.
An ignoranus. Stupid and an a**hole.
I like argument that tradition and practicality demand that they keep their Clearances because they might be called on to help with emergent problems.
They ain’t interested in helping the current Administration in any way. It’s the opposite. Yank those security badges off them like you’re starting a lawn mower.
According to IC people I saw on tv last night, it is automatically renewed every so many years, unless active measures are taken to remove it. And being a media consultant, believe it or not, is considered a legitimate use of one’s clearance. MSM is screaming, because Brennan, et al, won’t be privy to classified information any more, if they remove their clearance. As if it were okay for retired IC personnel to disseminate it!
That's not a credible argument, it was media cover and excuse. Pretty sure everyone not living under a rock know Trump or anyone in his administration would ask unhinged Clapper or commie Brennan for their input.
If someone is trying to kill you, it’s not against the law to shoot back.
Gasbag propagandist brennan should have been relieved of his security clearance as soon as he was booted from government service. Proven liar clapper as well. susan rice, cya artist, clearance should have been revoked immediately.
That is NOT correct.
I have had a clearance twice.
Both times it became inactive automagically after two years
It would be very bad to ‘auto renew’ it- and whoever said so on TV does not know what they are talking about
Yeah, and so they still have their clearances. Another, “Talk No Walk”.
Yes. I should have worded it so the sarcasm came out more clearly. I like the desperation of the argument. If that’s their best or second-best argument (”but if he can’t bring us new Classified leaks, he’s out of a job!” is also either #1 or #2), then they have nothing.
“After 2 years your clearance expires (becomes ‘inactive’) anyway, if you don’t use it.”
Security clearances are issued on the basis of “need to know.” When you leave government service ( or a government contractor as was my case) your need to know no longer exists. When mine was taken, I had to sign a paper indicating that I understood that I had an obligation, under the law, to keep secret what I left my employer knowing anything about. All security clearances should be revoked when no longer actively needed. No two year extension. That’s bull$hit!
Not surprisingly, the Trump-hating networks wailed and screamed.
But not when he exposed our double agent guess what side the media is on.
Those old Roman’s would have had a blast watching their demise live on video, as we do here in new Rome.
Agreed. Clearances need a they
themselves cleared sponsor.
I believe for a secret and above,
a clearance can be inactive for
5 years before it expires. A public
trust level clearance can be inactive
for two years before it expires.
Any clearance when active, is
up for review after 10 years,
to check for any violations
which my lead to revocation.
I can’t see any case where a
news outlet or one of their
representatives would need
access to ‘need to know’ info
when it comes to national security.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.