His Long History Of Lies Entirely Justifies Yanking John Brennan’s Security Clearance

The Federalist ^ | August 21, 2018 | Jon Omidi

[detective]

Former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan has a long history of deceiving the American people and making absurd, propagandist claims. Recall that as President Obama’s CIA director, Brennan repeatedly lied about the administration’s use of drone strikes, asserting that he and the president only carried out strikes when they had a “near-certainty of no collateral damage.” In March 2016, The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf called this claim “easily disproved propaganda.” And that’s what it was.

For instance, The Guardian reported in 2014 that in an attempted strike on 41 targeted men, the United States killed 1,147 people. That’s a lot of collateral. But, as Friedersdorf wrote, Brennan continued to “claim adherence to a lofty, admirable standard that U.S. drone strikes don’t, in fact, meet, unless one defines ‘no collateral damage’ so narrowly that it has no meaning.” Friedersdorf then noted, “This isn’t the first time that Brennan has made fantastical, widely debunked claims,” citing a 2011 New York Times piece that disputed the CIA’s assertions of “zero collateral deaths.”

[detective]

Brennan did not merely “criticize” Trump. He erroneously and deliriously accused him of treason, multiple times, and did so by committing the same abuses of language that have characterized his public career. A “combatant” is any male we happen to kill, an “imminent threat” is any hypothetical or imaginary risk, “no collateral damage” means thousands of dead civilians, and being too deferential to the president of a somewhat hostile nation is providing “aid and comfort” to an “enemy.”

[Cobra64]

All this yakking about who, what, and why.

The real issue is why is ANYONE allowed to keep security rights to an organization that you are no longer a part of?

In the private sector, you lose those rights the minute you are terminated.

[Terabitten]

Former high ranking govt players are sometimes called in at a moments notice on current issues, with no time to renew a clearance.

Example: Say there’s a CIA station chief who has worked on Country X his entire life. He retires. There’s a flare up, and though his replacement is good, he doesn’t have a lifetime of connections and contacts. You call the old guy in to help out. If the FROG (friendly retired old guy) has kept his clearance, you can spin him up instantly. Getting a new clearance takes months.

[xrmusn]

Getting a new clearance takes months.
= = = = = = =

True BUT when we got transferred we ‘lost’ our clearance and when reporting to new duty station were given an interim clearance while they made sure you were still ‘pure’.

Security clearances were ‘always’ on a NEED TO KNOW basis, and I guess these guys may be right, it costs them if it gets pulled but WHY should a ‘former’ anything be allowed access to materials so he can dispense them over the air?

Even if they DON’T ‘use’ it, it is there and prospective employers can think it is at your fingertips.

[Cobra64]

Why would anyone want a traitor messing with secure data? As for revoking security as a matter of policy, does the FROG lose his marbles when not in possession of super secret documents? Finally, how often are these guys called back and need top security clearance. It’s a bunch of BS as far as I am concerned. IMOHO

[YogicCowboy]

Leaving Federal position justifies.

Immediately. Permanently.