Posted on 08/20/2018 10:11:29 AM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
The establishment media did not care when the Obama administration called for the aggressive scrubbing of security clearances back in 2013.
According to our media today, revoking security clearances of those who are no longer in government is the stuff of banana republics, of dictators, and a full-blown assault against the First Amendment.
But when President Obama sought to do the exact same on a massive scale, the media hardly blinked and the news only earned dutiful coverage.
“W.H. Looks to Scrub Clearance List,” was the November 21, 2013, headline at the far-left Politico.
In a directive obtained by POLITICO, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper questioned the booming rolls of security-clearance holders. At last count, more than 4.9 million people held clearances, of whom over 1.4 million were cleared for access at the “Top Secret” level.
“I write to express my concern about threats to national security resulting from the increasing number of people with eligibility for access to classified national security information, particularly Top Secret (TS) and Top Secret/Secure Compartmented Information (TS/SCI),” [then Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper wrote in a three-page memo, dated Oct. 31 and cited at a Senate hearing Wednesday.
Clapper asked agencies to perform a top-to-bottom scrub of the teeming rolls of people authorized to access classified information and to remove anyone deemed not to have a so-called need to know.
What’s more, Clapper specified his concern about contractors: “Agencies should debrief all government and contractor personnel who no longer require such access and update the appropriate national security database or repository.”
Obviously, Clapper and the Obama administration singling out contractors would result in job and income losses for all those former G-Men.
So where was the media uproar?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
IIRC, Obama also outed one of our top spies.
Did they actually do it though? I don’t remember.
Because they love bammy who loves the iranians who hate us.
The rules are ALWAYS different for democrats. No matter what. No matter when.
No matter why.
Great post - thanks.
Media only has one side to any story it’s who no sane person trusts them.
He was worried about this happening - it already has.
Well, we should admit that Obama did it in a smarter way. He purged the security clearances for many officers of former administrations by applying a blanker “need to know” sandard, without picking out any specific names publicly. I can’t stand Obama, but that is how Trump should have had Brennan others lose their clearances. Frankly I would say anyone with a clearance taking a job in the media should get am immediate revocation of their security clearances, as well as any former federal employee from any level who has proved to be am “anonymous” source to the media should immediately lose their clearance. Why? If the media knows any “secrets” then you can bet our foreign opponents will soon know it, if they don’t already by other means.
The WH press secretary should start every press conference stating this.
The Ministry of Propaganda aided him in usurping the office knowing he was ineligible.
They spent the next eight years covering up the myriad crimes committed during the Kenaynesian Usurpation.
“Somebody should update Anthony Scaramucci.”
bkmk
I wondered if Anthony Scaramucci was pretending to be worried about such a minor item in order to get invited to Foxnews. Everything else I heard him say was pro-Trump and well done.
Could it be a scheme to get a pro-Trumper back on Foxnews?
Bookmark Security Clearance info
bttt
Always disingenous. No longer even worth the time to debate them on any subject.
Potus should take the original, add his signature to it, and implement it with a current date.
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.