Deep insight from the former CIA director John Brennan in "John Brennan: President Trump’s Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash/That’s why the president revoked my security clearance: to try to silence anyone who would dare challenge him." (NYT).
We were amused by the repeated use of the word "hogwash." Presumably, he's just backing off from the less fit to print "bullshit."
You may be interested to know that the first recorded use of "hogwash" in the figurative sense (as opposed to the literal stuff fed to hogs) was from Mark Twain:
1870 ‘M. Twain’ in Galaxy June 862/2 I will remark, in the way of general information, that in California, that land of felicitous nomenclature, the literary name of this sort of stuff is ‘hogwash’.Twain wasn't inventing the usage but reporting on it. Apparently, it came from California.
It's just a way to say "nonsense." The use of the word "bullshit" for nonsense only goes back to 1915, from Wyndom Lewis (writing to Ezra Pound). Apparently, "Bullshit" was a T.S. Eliot poem that never got published though it was an excellent bits of scholarly ribaldry (click image to enlarge and read and gain deep insight):
ADDED: Or did Eliot publish "Bullshit"? I'm seeing "The Triumph of Bullshit" and especially enjoyed the second verse:
Ladies, who find my intentions ridiculousNice rhymes — horribly gauche with unbaked brioche and that whole ridiculous meticulous versiculous isiculous string.
Awkward, insipid and horribly gauche
Pompous, pretentious, ineptly meticulous
Dull as the heart of an unbaked brioche
Floundering versicles freely versiculous
Often attenuate, frequently crass
Attempts at emotion that turn isiculous,
For Christ's sake stick it up your ass.
IN THE COMMENTS: Meade quotes the NYT byline for Brennan — "Mr. Brennan was director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2013 to 2017" — and says:
Coincidentally, immediately after his boss, Mr. Obama, gained more... "flexibility".
Posts
323 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 323 of 323It's already been demonstrated that there's no penalty for compromising classified matter.
Ask Kristian Saucier.
Kristian Saucier, of Arlington, Vermont, appeared in federal court in Bridgeport, where a judge also ordered him to serve six months of home confinement with electronic monitoring during a three-year period of supervised release after the prison time. He pleaded guilty in May to unauthorized detention of defense information and had faced five to six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.
Only the really serious breaches of top secret are unpunished.
Hillary, Brennan, the New York Times.
(eaglebeak)
I don't get it--Brennan is still talking, and writing. How are his First Amendment rights interfered wth?
On top of being venal, conniving, vicious, backstabbing, and practically treasonous, these guys are so stupid
"Only the really serious breaches of top secret are unpunished."
-- Maybe it is like with banks. Like, "If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem?"
I have actually enjoyed each and every one of Brennan's unhinged tweets since last year as it confirms Trump is over the target and this turd ball is pissing his pants in fear.
I was struck how much this clown reminds me of Valerie Plame and how the left lauded her and her dipshit husband. The only difference is Trump isn't cowed by the left and will actively take measures against avowed enemies of his administration.
CWJ said...
BTW, I saw a version of this story on the MSN home page yesterday. Headline said that masterpiece cake was suing Colorado "again." WTF?
I think this is correct. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission (along with an administrative law judge) ruled against him. He then turned around and sued the state for violating his religions freedom.
So Colorado started it, but he did in fact sue Colorado.
Ignorance,
The article's headline should have indicated that the cake shop owner had been targeted again by Colorado- it puts things in the proper order of cause and effect. The headline, though, misleads on this by only mentioning that he was suing again. It is a lie of omission, and the writer of the headline knew exactly what they were doing, too.
Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire,
Next time you write “strict” when you mean “violating the civil rights of American citizens” I will continue to give you no benefit of any doubt. Try adopting a conservative position before you are called out for framing the issue precisely as the Leftist Collectivists do.
Quit taking the position that best protects the Leftist Collectivists. But only every time.
Brennan is just another case, one instance, of a horde of these characters, being as they are all bureaucratic timeservers and players of the various place-seeking and revolving-door games.
Check out any of their biographies and you will see what I mean.
I wouldn't place any weight on the often cited voting for Gus Hall. Brennan and all the other ousted characters are all members of the same caste that operates the government structure for their own benefit. That which they have in common is the relevant point.
As for the alleged benefits of professionalism, while Brennan was CIA chief a British 15-year old broke his private security (cloud storage and email) and obtained restricted government documents from these, and gave them to Wikileaks - not mentioned in publicly available information as to what security level these documents were at, nor what else Brennan had on his insecure private systems. I don't think there was an investigation into this, do you? And this was the Director of the CIA for heavens sake. A man with decades of service in "security".
The whole thing is a sham, "security theater". They huff and puff but they really are useless.
The real conflict is between the system, all the horde of obviously incompetent (in their official roles), corrupt game-players, and the public revulsion against them.
Not one comment addresses the substance of the editorial. whether or not intended it is self-evident It will deter others from speaking out against the president. Many former govrnmnt employee need their clearance for their income--they work for govrnmnt contractor on top secret program They are gong to speak in public against trump ad put their livelihood at risk? Unlikely.
Trump didn't consult the cia and dod before his decision. Outrageous.
Baloney #fauxoutrage
I still think Colorado Cake was a set up.
I was struck how much this clown reminds me of Valerie Plame and how the left lauded her and her dipshit husband.
Yes, it fits a pattern that goes back to the Rosenbergs. The sons write a couple of books out trying to prove their parents were innocent.
There was a TV movie back before the Venona files conformed their guilt.
Another movie tried to establish innocence, again before Venona.
The old left had the Rosenbergs as heroes.
The new left has Brennan.
That British boy who embarassed Brennan was sentenced to prison this year.
I think he deserved, instead, a medal, or a commendation, for public service as an unpaid "penetration tester", who found critical holes in US security.
The legal theory about the 1st Amdt is that revoking Brennan’s clearance was retaliatory. Which, standing alone, might be almost plausible. But the Administration made clear two other things. First he was a whack job. That would normally prevent someone from getting a clearance. But more importantly, and more objective, he has repeatedly lied to Congress and the American people. That, itself is more than sufficient grounds to yank or deny a clearance, regardless of who is involved. He doesn’t get the “retaliatory” pass on his clearance being yanked due to lying, just because he criticized the President. Otherwise, anyone who faced getting their security clearance pulled for good cause would just criticize the President, and then keep it.
Most of the others on the list being looked at for similar treatment also lied to Congress or govt officials., which is grounds for pulling security clearances. Not sure though about three of them. Lisa Page’s testimony is what got DD McCabe fired. The IG found her credible and him not. This may have happened again with her and Peter Strzok, when she testified in closed session the day after he testified In open session. The Republicans there seemed to have been impressed by her testimony. So far as far as I can tell, she may have crossed the line a bit in bringing politics to her job as DD McCabe’s attorney, but I haven’t seen anything yet to indicate that she actually lied to the FBI, OIG, or Congress, or even really violated any laws. Don’t know enough about Hayden. And, Ohr, while very likely violating the Hatch Act, hasn’t had a chance really to lie to Congress yet - which, I think is coming up later this month. And, we don’t know what he said to the OIG, which has interviewed him on numerous occasions, and is likely still useful to them, since he is still employed, as none of the others on the list are.
The browser opened up at the bottom of the page of 200 comments. The first line that struck my eye was this;
"I truly don't understand your weird obsessive attack on me on this issue."
"Must be Chuck", I thought. Nor was I mistaken.
The Gus Hall vote is an indicator of his judgement.
John Deutch was fired for having secret material at home.
Maybe he was not a team player or maybe the CIA had not been fully incorporated in the Clinton Crime Family at the time.
If you want to have more fun with conspiracy theories, this is via Rantburg:
https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2018/03/17/the-mechanics-of-deception/
"Not one comment addresses the substance of the editorial."
There is NO FUCKING substance to the editorial, as I stated before. Just the same old vague, wild accusation unsupported by any specific evidence.
Having a clearance is NOT a free speech issue. No one has a right to a clearance, especially someone no longer employed by the Federal Government. Brennan's right to criticized the POTUS is unimpeded.
Brennan lied before Congress, he never should have been confirmed.
I haven’t seen anything yet to indicate that she actually lied to the FBI, OIG, or Congress, or even really violated any laws.
Nothing like a woman scorned.
I was talking to a former prison guard yesterday who was joining the Army.
We talked about female prison guards in male prisons. He said there was a real problem with female guards getting involved (he said falling in love but I'm not sure that is what it is) with prisoners.
Then, if they try to end the relationship, the prisoner rats them out.
Reminds me of Brennan.
Basically, if you've committed perjury in front of Congress, or broken the law by leaking classified information, or been fired by your intelligence agency for misconduct, you shouldn't have a clearance.
Seeing Red: "Not one comment addresses the substance of the editorial."
LOL
"Substance f the editorial"
More fun from Rantburg:
James Fetzer - Dec 20-12, 2016] There is a reason why Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan has done everything possible to interfere with President-elect Donald Trump taking the reins of the presidency on January 20, 2017. As a mole for the Saudi royal family and a convert to Wahhabist Islam, Brennan has no desire to see certain individuals, who are well aware of his Islamist beliefs, ascend to positions of power in the U.S. intelligence community. The greatest threat to Brennan comes from retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, tapped by Trump to become the National Security Adviser.
BRENNAN THE SAUDI MOLE
High-level moles are the bane of every intelligence agency. There is still a reason to believe that the American spy for Israel, Jonathan Pollard, reported to a higher-level Israeli intelligence mole within the Reagan administration. Britain's MI-5 Security Service remains plagued to this day over evidence that its Cold War-era director, Roger Hollis, was the "Fifth Man" in the "Cambridge Five" Soviet spy ring.
It matters not that the Cold War is over when suspecting there are senior level intelligence moles in American espionage agencies. Brennan, in almost every counter-intelligence sense, fits the bill as a mole.
In 2014, Flynn was fired as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) by President Obama. Obama was advised by Brennan to dump Flynn because the DIA director was producing intelligence policy documents showing that it was a mistake and against U.S. security interests to support Syrian jihadists who were trying to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. For Brennan's Saudi and Wahhabist controllers, this was tantamount to blasphemy.
Blogger Seeing Red said...
I still think Colorado Cake was a set up.
Of course it was a setup.
So was the pizza parlor in Indiana that was asked by a TV newsbabe if they would host a gay wedding.
Who has a wedding in a Pizza parlor? It did make the news and closed the pizza place.
Since when does the right to free speech include a right to access classified information? We all have free speach rights. Security clearances, not so much.
Wasn't this guy CIA chief or something? I feel like he could have done something about this when it was happening...
Flynn also supported a female FBI agent who accused McCabe of sexual harassment.
See how that goes ?
McCabe finally got a chance to take Flynn down. Revenge. Metoo not interested.
The existence of a mass of private businesses (consultancies, or even academic departments) living off government contracts while employing ex-government functionaries - this is a critical interface in the system of corruption.
There is an enormous series of industries attached to the government, ancillaries or perhaps better imagined as encrustations, that expand the reach and numbers far beyond naive counts of government employees.
Also via Rantburg. Did this really happen Saturday?
If it weren’t for President Obama we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set up a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today including Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation," Clapper said, as reported by The Gateway Pundit. "President Obama is responsible for that. It was he who tasked us to do that intelligence community assessment in the first place."
How much collusion did Russia get from Clinton's 500.000 dollar 2010 Moscow speaker fee?
ref: 'When Bill Clinton Was Paid $500,000 to Speak in Russia, Hillary Opposed State Dept. Sanctions (article from July 18, 2017)'
Quote: "The State Department under Hillary Clinton denied requests to sanction Russia in 2010, and weeks later Bill Clinton went to Moscow to deliver his $500,000 speech. Bloomberg was set to report on this timeline five years later as Hillary Clinton was getting her campaign started, but her campaign intervened and prevented it from publishing the story."
Another reason to fire Brennan and pull his clearance.
Kane Gamble pleaded guilty Friday to eight charges of attempting to "secure unauthorized access" to computers and two charges of unauthorized modification of computer material.
Prosecutors say that in 2015-16, Gamble, now 18, targeted the computers of officials including then-FBI director Mark Giuliano, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and John Brennan, then head of the CIA.
Reports at the time said a British teenager, part of a group of hackers called "Crackas With Attitude," had infiltrated Brennan's personal email account and posted details online.
Sounds like what Brennan did himself.
Ignorance is Bliss,
Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't the case that went to the USSC an appeal of the Colorado Comission's ruling? If so, what was the first lawsuit initiated by Masterpiece Cake before this current one.
“
Questions for John Brennan, former CIA Director:
* Who told Joseph Mifsud to meet with George Papadopoulos?
* Who told Alexander Downer to meet with Papadopoulos?
* Who told Stefan Halper to meet with Carter Page?”
What is frustrating is that we just don’t know enough. This very much looks like a CIA operation. It is how they work, and the types of agents they recruit and control. BUT their connections to Christopher Steele, Glenn Simpson, and Fusion GPS have fairly recently surfaced and apparently documented.
My money though is still on that having been a CIA operation designed to give the FBI a legal basis for spying on the Trump campaign. If the FBI were the agency creating the legal predicates for surveillance, awkward questions would be asked. Not the case if the information came from a CIA operation funneled through the Australians, the British, and the State Dept.
The height of absurd political bias is Brennan calling Trump treasonous for a press conference with Putin.
Bruce Hayden: "What is frustrating is that we just don’t know enough. This very much looks like a CIA operation"
Most actual CIA operations do...
"The idiotic lefties and their captive LLR pets"
What is an LLR???
What is an LLR???
Life Long Republican. When Chuckles was called to account for his Trump derangement, part of his defense was that he was a "life long Republican", like that means anything.
"If it weren’t for President Obama we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set up a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today including Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation"
Hilarious that is like saying "We should really credit Richard Nixon's administration for probing the security of the Watergate hotel." LOL
The only evidence Brennan cites is this:
"The already challenging work of the American intelligence and law enforcement communities was made more difficult in late July 2016, however, when Mr. Trump, then a presidential candidate, publicly called upon Russia to find the missing emails of Mrs. Clinton. By issuing such a statement, Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent."
Is there an honest person anywhere who thinks that this is an accurate reflection of reality?
I don't think Brennan believes it either. I don't know what his game is. Maybe one day we'll find out.
Skippy,
An LLR is a person who claims to object to all things Trump while being a lifelong Republican.
Strangely, this is very similar to a Moby or a seminar caller to a radio show.
Trained to deceive in hopes of persuading people at the margin.
A LLiaR.
what was the first lawsuit initiated by Masterpiece Cake before this current one.
I don't know if the USSC case was an appeal or a lawsuit. Kennedy made the decision a wimpy one so, of course, the gay mafia went right back.
We need to do something about Lawyers in this county. Basically, they can come out with Legal Bullshit argument to justify ANYTHING.
We saw that in the Travel Ban. And every day same wacko Federal Judge decides he doesn't like something Trump and finds it "Unconstitutional"
I don't have the slightest doubt there's some crazy Federal Judge who would declare Brennan has a constitutional right to a security clearance.
We have to do something about this judicial over reach.
Meanwhile, Colorado is thumbing its nose at the SCOTUS, and nothing is being done.
Incredible.
An LLR is a person who claims to object to all things Trump while being a lifelong Republican.
Have you read the analysis of Bill Kristol and Fusion GPS ?
It all ties together.
Continetti is the 36-year-old editor-in-chief. He started the website with Michael Goldfarb after marrying the daughter of Never-Trumper Bill Kristol. Goldfarb previously worked for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
[lz_third_party includes=https://twitter.com/continetti/status/924048824078950401]
The letter signed by Continetti starts off by saying that the Free Beacon has regularly retained “third-party firms” to conduct research since its founding in 2012 — a declaration that most people working in journalism would find odd, even bewildering, given that research is at the core of what journalists do and so is not normally contracted out, and given the cost of such outsourcing. Fusion GPS was reportedly paid $9 million for the opposition research on Trump that it produced in the general election for the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Skippy: "What is an LLR???"
A "lifelong republican" is one who today is often seen calling for complete democrat victories at all levels while advancing every single lefty talking point and narrative in perfect alignment with the dems and is all too happy to reverse and criticize the very policies and results they had claimed they've wanted for decades all the while defending dems and attacking republicans who are too tough on the dems.
You will often see them adopt the very illogic and counter-intuitive analysis tactics of the left.
Case in point on this blog is "LLR Chuck"
These hilarious frauds also spend a significant amount of time trying to explain why they are the "true conservatives" or "TruCons"!
Bruce Hayden: "What is frustrating is that we just don’t know enough. This very much looks like a CIA operation"
Most actual CIA operations do...
They aren't supposed to. That's why the history of the CIA is titled, "Legacy of Ashes."
Long time reader, first time posting. I spent 12 years in the Navy and during that time held a secret clearance because of my job. A secret clearance can be granted by doing a national agency check to see if there is any disqualifying event\events in ones past. Things like too many traffic tickets, arrests and convictions, etc. For any clearance above secret, one has to go through things like an FBI check where - depending on level above secret - they actually go and interview folks who knew you in the past. These can go back to your early childhood and are actually fairly expensive to conduct.
Also -be aware that there are something like 32 levels above top secret clearance, some of which are held by like 4 or 5 people at any time. I know this as I was the training officer at fleet raining group western pacific for two years and arranged the top secret crypto training that was conducted in Japan by an individual that came out from the continental US to do the training and we had some discussions about some aspects of the training and clearances in general. I could not sit in the class as I did not have a top secret clearance (and did not want one).
Now in the military, once you are no longer doing the specific job that you got your above top secret clearance for, the clearance would expire fairly quickly.
I am not sure of how the feds handle this, but I think in general they do the same - except for senior officials, who they let keep their clearance for courtesy.
But there is no reason for any of these people to keep a clearance if they are not doing the job any more. Also, maybe if they lost their clearance after the new administration came in - say six months max - there would be a lot less leaking and pontification in general from folks.
The already challenging work of the American intelligence and law enforcement communities was made more difficult in late July 2016, however, when Mr. Trump, then a presidential candidate, publicly called upon Russia to find the missing emails of Mrs. Clinton.
We KNOW the Russians had Hillary’s Email traffic. The then head of the Russian SVR retired on schedule with a chest full of medals, instead of perishing in office with a 9mm headache.
Michael K: "They aren't supposed to."
I realize, but this is the CIA we have now and have had for a long time.
A CIA that has missed or actively screwed up every major international assessment and been politicized beyond effectiveness now for probably 70 years.
rcocean: Ponder for a moment how many Democrat presidential and vice presidential candidates of the last 40 years have been lawyers.
And if you think, well, maybe being a lawyer is a prerequisite for politics, count how many Republicans were lawyers.
This explains about 40% of everything going on today.
Blogger Seeing Red said...
Not one comment addresses the substance of the editorial. whether or not intended it is self-evident It will deter others from speaking out against the president. Many former govrnmnt employee need their clearance for their income--they work for govrnmnt contractor on top secret program They are gong to speak in public against trump ad put their livelihood at risk?
-----------------------------------------------
Yeah, lets preserve their right to double-dip. That's paramount.
Michael K at 11:56 AM
Have you read the analysis of Bill Kristol and Fusion GPS? It all ties together.
See my comment at 8:58 AM.
Blogger Michael K said...
...I was talking to a former prison guard yesterday who was joining the Army.
We talked about female prison guards in male prisons. He said there was a real problem with female guards getting involved (he said falling in love but I'm not sure that is what it is) with prisoners.
Oh, he's right, that's what it is. Inmates are con artists. All of them. They have nothing but time on their hands which they can use to plan how to manipulate guards. A female guard, regardless of appearance, becomes a target of constant manipulative behavior. "Gee, your looking good today!" being heard daily. Inmates listen to everything. Find any weakness, emotional or otherwise, a guard might have. And go to work on it. There's book- Games Inmates Play that describes examples from real life of compromised prison employees and how inmates did it. They use exactly the same techniques intelligence services use to recruit spies that you hear about in the military in briefings. The difference is- intelligence agencies spend money on studies to find the best techniques and train people in them. Inmates do it because they're natural con men.
I've figured out your problem, Birkel. You're just stupid. Too stupid, to read and comprehend anything that I write.
Here I am, more than two years ago, in a comment on an unrelated subject, calling out the Obama Administration's Title IX "jihad":
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/01/i-am-stunned-by-willingness-of-senator.html?showComment=1452466057376#c6036802557486946957
I want to rub your nose in this, Birkel. You stupid jackass; you don't even know what you are arguing for or against. Or more particularly, you are only out to argue against me, even when my own position is no different from yours.
Typical dumb fuck kneejerk Althouse commenter, in the era of Trumpism.
"What is an LLR???"
Yep..and new readers must scratch their head when there's endless mentions of Chuck and he's not been posting for days.
Also, maybe if they lost their clearance after the new administration came in - say six months max - there would be a lot less leaking and pontification in general from folks.
Ask Sandy Burglar about that. Why did he still have those clearances?
According to reports from the Inspector General of the National Archives and the staff of the House of Representatives' Government Operations Committee, Mr. Berger, while acting as former President Clinton's designated representative to the commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001, illegally took confidential documents from the Archives on more than one occasion. He folded documents in his clothes, snuck them out of the Archives building, and stashed them under a construction trailer nearby until he could return, retrieve them, and later cut them up. After he was caught, he lied to the investigators and tried to shift blame to Archive employees.
Contrary to his initial denials and later excuses, Berger clearly intended from the outset to remove sensitive material from the Archives. He used the pretext of making and receiving private phone calls to get time alone with confidential material, although rules governing access dictated that someone from the Archives staff must be present. He took bathroom breaks every half-hour to provide further opportunity to remove and conceal documents.
Before this information was released, the Justice Department, accepting his explanation of innocent and accidental removal of the documents, allowed Berger to enter a plea to the misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material - no prison time, no loss of his bar license. The series of actions that the Archives and House investigations detail, however, are entirely at odds with protestations of innocence. Nothing about his actions was accidental. Nothing was casual. And nothing was normal.
What could have been important enough for Berger to take the risks he did? What could have been important enough for a lawyer of his distinction to risk disgrace, disbarment, and prison?
To paraphrase the questions asked of Richard Nixon by members of his own Party, what did he take and why did he take it?
Why was the TV series "The Path to 9/11" hidden for almost 20 years ?
The group bills the event at the Intercontinental Hotel in Century City as the first time the unedited version will be shown, after ABC trimmed about a minute of footage ahead of its original broadcast airing — a move the mini’s writer-producer Cyrus Nowrasteh said was due to political pressure from Democrats who disputed the facts portrayed in the script, which was critical of President Bill Clinton for not killing Osama bin Laden when given the opportunity in 1998. (ABC advertised that the mini was based on the 9/11 Commission report, but commission member Richard Ben-Veniste and the Clinton Administration were among those that disputed its version of events). That same pressure, Nowrasteh has claimed many times since, has delayed the 4 1/2-hour miniseries from being released on DVD. In other words, it all became a big morass that nobody could really fix (see ABC’s 9/11: Big Mystery! Where’s Disney Chairman George Mitchell In This Mess?).
Disney sat on it since 2006 when it aired once. I once had an argument with a friend's mother who is a left wing Democrat. She told me that the things related in the TV series, which we had just watched, were untrue. I had a copy of the 9/11 Commission report in the book case. I handed it to her with the page marked.
She got very quiet.
Typical dumb fuck kneejerk Althouse commenter, in the era of Trumpism.
Thank you fo your contribution to the 2020 Tramp campaign.
"The already challenging work of the American intelligence and law enforcement communities was made more difficult in late July 2016, however, when Mr. Trump, then a presidential candidate, publicly called upon Russia to find the missing emails of Mrs. Clinton. By issuing such a statement, Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent."
Note Brennan's intentional misdirection and misinformation there. At that point in time, Crooked Hillary’s private email server had been Bleach Bit’d, and all her electronic devices either lost or destroyed with a hammer (despite, and the result of, a Congressional subpoena requesting such), after having been offline for most of the previous 4 years. The Russians couldn’t have “collected intelligence against a United States citizen” if they had wanted to from that server. Instead, Trump was (humorously) requesting that they turn over their copy of her emails, that they had presumably made when the Clinton email server was still online back in 2012 when she was still Secretary of State. Part of his point was that our govt never (officially) received all of her emails for the four years that she was our highest ranking Cabinet Officer. Instead, the Lynch DoJ and Comey FBI had allowed her to just turn over what she wanted to, which was almost assuredly highly sanitized (and to do so in a form that removed most of the metadata). The other part of Trump’s joke was that her security was so lax during those 4 years, that her email server was very likely hacked - very likely repeatedly by multiple nation states led by Russia, and maybe even including a bunch of teenagers.
Berger likely took the copies that Clinton or he had annotated.
Chuck: “...strict enforcement...”
Violating constitutional protections is just strict enforcement.
That is especially true now that Trump is president.
Principles are more fun when a guy like Chuck has more flexibility after an election.
"Nothing about his actions was accidental."
Shit happens when you run with scissors.
We will be forever indebted to Mark Twain for his description in a review of James Fenimore Cooper, describing Cooper as "the most successful bad writer of his generation". (available with other delicacies in "A Sub-Treasury of American Humor" co-edited by EB White and his wife. There are a gazillion used copy on Amazon: get yours. You can thank me later...
Keep talking, Mr. Brennan.
Please.
Makes your claim that you all are the noble defenders of free speech look rather weak. - Freder
Only a True Moron of the Highest Order would vaguely consider this to be a freedom of speech issue.
Congrats.
Brennan should work for CNN.
I was under the impression he already did.
Brennan believes himself to be the equal of Deep Plunger. Where, in fact, he was one of the leaks exposed by that composite entity.
His access has been officially limited on a need to know basis. He retains the civil right to publish. He has not been "deplatformed" by public or private interests. The NYT et al doth protest too much with an element of bigotry.
LLR and #DickDurbinCuckholster Chuck: "Typical dumb fuck kneejerk Althouse commenter,"
Hello mirror my old friend......
So I see where the Trump list of people scheduled to lose security clearance includes Sally Q. Yates who blew the whistle on Trump's first National Security Advisor, Mike Flynn, who lied to the Veep and, according to Trump, lied to the FBI.
But ex-General Flynn also lied on tardy documents filed to cover his lobbying activity for the Turkish government in order to influence Trump to extradite a private citizen living in the U.S and for that work, he took money from the Turkish president and dictator.
Apparently there is no intent to revoke Flynn's security clearance nor security clearances held by the 17 or so people indicted by Mueller. Of course, how can we forget that Javanka routinely accessed secret documents without proper clearance.
walter: "Yep..and new readers must scratch their head when there's endless mentions of Chuck and he's not been posting for days."
And yet, just this morning, the sun rose....
LOL
The Poor Man's LLR Chuck, gadfly, is back, and embarrassing himself again.
Always entertaining.
Flynn's crime was going against The One, Obama.
Drago said...and yet, just this morning, the sun rose....
--
Equally predictable ;)
gadfly, do you know Sandy Berger ?
walter: "Equally predictable ;)"
Well, you got me there. No arguing that.
Michael K: "gadfly, do you know Sandy Berger ?"
Quick joke: what do secure documents and gadfly have in common?.........
southcentralpa said...
We will be forever indebted to Mark Twain for his description in a review of James Fenimore Cooper, describing Cooper as "the most successful bad writer of his generation". (available with other delicacies in "A Sub-Treasury of American Humor" co-edited by EB White and his wife. There are a gazillion used copy on Amazon: get yours. You can thank me later...
**********************
When Twain was asked to review a turgid book by Henry James, he wrote: "Once you put it down, you can't pick it up."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/15/botched-cia-communications-system-helped-blow-cover-chinese-agents-intelligence/
Another example of CIA incompetence. DIdn't see any connection to Brennan (although he was pretty high up at the time) or Obama (happened in 2010)
Birkel said...
Chuck: “...strict enforcement...”
Violating constitutional protections is just strict enforcement.
That is especially true now that Trump is president.
Principles are more fun when a guy like Chuck has more flexibility after an election.
How persistently dumb can you get? I didn't support Obama. I never voted for him. Long before you ever thought about it, I was criticizing the Obama Administration's policies on the enforcement of Title IX. I showed you a link from more than two years ago, where I did that on this blog's comment pages. There are several more I could show you. I was an Obama/Title IX opponent from the time that they started ramping up their enforcement regime after 2011. And I said so.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
What Bruce said.
Except he's being a bit too gentle about "Brennan's intentional misdirection and misinformation." Brazen lies, more like it.
Of course, Brennan has had a lot of practice, having lied even about the CIA spying on senators. No one, including progs until the day before yesterday, would expect the man to be truthful about anything.
But his statement does raise a question. Trump's quip about getting Hill's messages from the Russians was such an obviously humorous way to get at the issues--the government's failure to recover the emails, her team's destruction of evidence in spite of a congressional subpoena, the obvious security risk she deliberately created, and the likelihood that foreign powers got access to classified info as a result of her breaking the law--that it's puzzling even a malicious prog would raise the prospect of collusion with any seriousness. You'd think no one could possibly be "misdirected" or "misinformed" by an obvious absurdity.
So why does he do it?
One possibility is that Brennan is trying to get absolution from progs for his past sins. He lied so often, for such unsavory reasons, that progs hated him. Going after Trump, BAMN, might get him off the hook. Being willing to BS to the point of absurdity shows his dedication to the cause and justification for acceptance.
The other possibility is that he is truly a true believer. I had been reluctant to ascribe such naive delusions to a CIA director and a manipulative lefty, preferring to view his spy-running at Trump and his smears after 11/16 as a ramped-up oppo operation, despicable, sure, but rational from a prog standpoint--but the evidence now suggests the man really is in the grip of his delusions about "dalliances."
Of course, more cynical progs will welcome his BS either way, since for the moment it is a useful tool. But with every passing month and year without collusion, sane progs will have to distance themselves just a bit from their insane comrades.
Best comment on Brennan.
Your usual Mr Brennan ?
Ann and her readers are satisfied that the evidence is overwhelming that Trump, Manafort, Flynn, Roger Stone, Carter Page and that crew are honest men and patriotic Americans.
Well I cannot speak for Ann (Althouse, I assume you meant) or anyone else but yeah that sentence describes me, absent evidence to the contrary. See I start from the assumption most of my fellow Americans are patriotic and honest, and only change when evidence is presented to the contrary. Notice the repetition?
For example, we know that in 2013 Page was an exceptionally good guy who assisted the FBI in gathering evidence on Russians and was key to their eventual arrest and deportation. He was an FBI asset. For that patriotic act he was rewarded by smears saying he was "connected to Russia" that were intended to cast suspicion on him and the DOJ swore under oath to a judge (four times!) that Page in 2016 had turned into an actual Russian asset. That was untrue. And it relied on a clever phrasing that made his association with the FBI in 2013 look adversarial when it was collegial. Carter Page has never been charged or indicted and is not under investigation now. IF he was the spy the FBI and DOJ claimed he was (on advice from Brennan) then he would be standing trial, right? He is obviously NOT a spy, and was the target of at least three operations to "set him up" with Russians during the 2016 campaign. He never took the bait.
But why was our government baiting him or Papadopoulos in the first place, John? Why not work with Trump to catch the Russians, like the FBI did with Page in 2013 or with Feinstein in 2017? Why entrap instead of assist? (Hint: evil intent.)
Thanks, JB. Anyone who voted for Gus Hall is certainly someone with an opinion worth listening to.
Berger clearly intended from the outset to remove sensitive material from the Archives.
Yes and our new friend Mueller covered for him saying that Berger only destroyed COPIES, so no big deal. Except it was a big deal. One of the "copies" he destroyed was Bill Clinton's marked up draft copy of an important policy document, one with notations made by Bill Clinton himself. Marked-up copies are originals. Nothing else in the archives contains Bill Clinton's handwritten notes on that matter. What did the notes say? Who the Hell knows--Berger destroyed them. And Mueller lies about it saying it's no big deal--there are lots of other copies and the original final report [and none of the stupid reporters at the press conference I heard challenged him." A good guess is that Bill Clinton wrote something he did not want the American people to see. He sacrificed Berger's reputation to make it go away.
Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire:
What other constitutional violations do you consider “strict enforcement “ when the Obama Administration did it?
I mean, now that you are free to express your inner Democrat and no longer need to pretend at conservatism?
Quick joke: what do secure documents and gadfly have in common?.........
They both have spent time stuffed in Sandy Berger's pants?
The Crack MC thinks that Republican Mitt Romney should be blamed for actions by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints so God needs to help the 72 million Catholics in the United States who failed to clean up the sexual activity of their Pennyvania priests. Catholics need to explain why Pope Francis hasn't condemned a single priest.
This guy is like a rabid wolverine. And makes as much sense. He'll go on snarling and snapping until he's a lonely old man on a park bench playing with himself, and wondering why no one listens anymore.
"I want to rub your nose in this, Birkel. "
Chuckles,
A dog reference? Really?
I thought it was politically incorrect to compare a human to a dog.
Didn't you criticize Trump for calling Amorosa a dog?
Comanche Voter:
Gadfly, Chuck, or Brennan?
Catholics need to explain why Pope Francis hasn't condemned a single priest.
He is a fake Pope from Argentina who thinks Socialism is the wave of the future.
exhelodrvr1: "Typical dumb fuck kneejerk Althouse commenter"
"I'm having T-shirts made, if anyone else wants to buy one. I will put mine in the drawer right next to the "Basket of Deplorables" and "Bitter Clinger" ones."
Indeed.
It sure is funny how consistent in tone the criticisms of conservatives are from Hillary, LLR Chuck and obama, isn't it?
"Quick joke: what do secure documents and gadfly have in common?.........
Jim at: "They both have spent time stuffed in Sandy Berger's pants?"
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Johnny, tell him what he's won........
Birkel: "Gadfly, Chuck, or Brennan?"
...Yes.....
Blogger Jim at said...
Quick joke: what do secure documents and gadfly have in common?.........
They both have spent time stuffed in Sandy Berger's pants?
As Clinton's National Security Director, Berger extracted several copies of his personally-authored terrorist report from the National Archives on actions expected when the calendar rolled over to the year 2000 - instead of giving it to the independent committee charged with investigating 9/11.
So I miss the joke which somehow might be implying that that I am a Clinton Dem? Clinton should have been impeached and evidence will likely show that Trump needs to be tried before the Senate as well.
gadfly:
Likely =/= fever dreams
When Trump leaves office on January 20, 2025 you can quit holding your breath.
gadfly: "evidence will likely show that Trump needs to be tried before the Senate as well"
LOL
What "evidence"?
Don't hold back now. We are dying to hear your latest scoop...(and LLR Chuck is counting on you coming through for him today!! He's still rather glum about the latest omarosa/Brennan lefty talking point failures/implosions)!
gadfly: "So I miss the joke which somehow might be implying that that I am a Clinton Dem?"
I don't think it would be logical to assume all Clinton Dem's have spent time in Sandy Bergers pants.
So it's interesting that you went there.
"It is an attempt by the President to use the power of the state to silence his critics. That is indeed a free speech (and first amendment) issue."
No it isn't. Bullshit. The two have nothing to do with each other. What idiocy. Quit parroting DNC/media complex stupidity posing as analysis.
Berger extracted several copies of his personally-authored terrorist report from the National Archives on actions expected when the calendar rolled over to the year 2000
By "copies" I assume you have bought into the leftist lie that the documents were not irreplaceable historic documents showing how Clinton failed to deal with the terrorists and that led to the worst attack on American soil since 1865.
Of course, you are a Clinton Democrat.
Michael K: "By "copies" I assume you have bought into the leftist lie that the documents were not irreplaceable historic documents showing how Clinton failed to deal with the terrorists and that led to the worst attack on American soil since 1865."
That's the typical sleight of hand stuff gadfly and LLR Chuck routinely pull in attempting to deflect for their dem/left allies.
Brennans insane accusations pretty much cement the fact that the Russia collusion crap is part of an attempted coup set up by the Obama administration before they left office.
SGT Ted: "Brennans insane accusations pretty much cement the fact that the Russia collusion crap is part of an attempted coup set up by the Obama administration before they left office."
Which is why the lefties/dems/MSM/LLR's are going to go all the way this november.
They have to.
It's Trump or them.
Blogger Seeing Red said...
I still think Colorado Cake was a set up."
So.....the cake is a lie!!!
* geekoid gamer reference :-)
It is an attempt by the President to use the power of the state to silence his critics. That is indeed a free speech (and first amendment) issue."
As long as his mug is on TV and he’s yakking, he’s not silenced.
Or being quoted or interviewed on radio or other SM.
Q: do ex-Presidents and ex-Cabinet officials retain for life security access ?
That's the typical sleight of hand stuff gadfly and LLR Chuck routinely pull in attempting to deflect for their dem/left allies.
And why Hillary set up her own insecure email server.
Someone in the Secret Service once wrote that the Clintons were the most paranoid First Couple ever in his experience in the USSS of over 30 years.
In Lukacs' book "Five Days in London: May 1940", he commented that Halifax's personal papers had been "heavily weeded" to extract references to his views in 1940 at the early stages of the war.
This is nothing new. I'm sure history has been edited by others. Churchill gives himself some credit that might not be deserved in his history of the War.
It just hasn't been quite so blatant.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/57673-infamous-trump-tower-meeting-a-clinton-setup
RealClear Investigations’ Lee Smith made an in-depth investigation into the infamous Trump Tower meeting, where staff members of Donald Trump’s campaign met with a Russian lawyer with the intention of gleaning dirt on Hillary Clinton. That meeting has long been treated by Democrats and their cohorts in the mainstream media as the “smoking gun” of a Trump/Russian collusion conspiracy. However, contrary to the Leftmedia’s popular narrative, Smith asserts that “a growing body of evidence … indicates that the meeting may have been a setup — part of a broad effort to tarnish the Trump campaign involving Hillary Clinton operatives employed by Kremlin-linked figures and Department of Justice officials.”
Smith, who has been meticulously piecing together public records evidence that the MSM has largely ignored, found that the recent evidence the DOJ handed over to Congress contains significant pieces of a puzzle that point to the real collusion conspiracy members. It is well documented that the Clinton campaign hired and financed Fusion GPS’s production of the dubious anti-Trump dossier via ex-British spy Christopher Steele. It has also been confirmed that the FBI relied heavily and almost solely upon the “unverified and salacious” dossier in obtaining its FISA warrants for running surveillance on members of Trump’s campaign.
But this most recent document release, which the DOJ and FBI turned over only after months of receiving threats from members of Congress, shows just how far the Clinton campaign appeared to go in its efforts to smear Trump. It now seems that Clinton operatives were the ones who initially contacted the Trump campaign way back in March 2016 offering “potentially damaging information” on Clinton — as bait. As Investor’s Business Daily puts it, “They were in effect live-trolling the campaign.” In other words, it was a setup in which officials within the DOJ and FBI — months after the election — leaked news of the meeting to the press, conveniently spinning the narrative of a Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy.
As Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) explained to Fox News on Sunday, “So here you have information flowing from the Clinton campaign from the Russians.” He added that it was likely that information “was handed directly from Russian propaganda arms to the Clinton campaign, fed into the top levels of the FBI and Department of Justice to open up a counterintelligence investigation into a political campaign that has now colluded [with] nearly every top official at the DOJ and FBI over the course of the last couple years. Absolutely amazing.”
"Brennan is an incredible hack. He's been caught lying repeatedly. He routinely politicized intelligence. He sought to silence dissenting intel voices. Whatever you think about Trump's decision, it's a mistake to lionize a political hack. "
-Stephen Hayes
Bruce Hayden said...
The legal theory about the 1st Amdt is that revoking Brennan’s clearance was retaliatory. Which, standing alone, might be almost plausible. But the Administration made clear two other things.
Like the only reason he would need a clearance would be if Executive branch staff needed to speak with him about classified matters, after the head of the Executive branch told his employees not to trust that lying deluded $sshole.
Pulling a clearance of a career Fed might be retaliatory. Pulling a clearance of a courtesy clearance of a retired political is just common sense if you don't want to hear what he has to say on some obscure decision he made.
Former CIA Director John Brennan said President Donald Trump yanked his security clearance to silence his criticism of Trump. Brennan’s influence and voice has been eliminated, he said in an op-ed in today’s New York Times and on MSNBC. - Scrappleface
Note to the irony impaired, the Scrappleface comment is pretty funny.
The already challenging work of the American intelligence and law enforcement communities was made more difficult in late July 2016, however, when Mr. Trump, then a presidential candidate, publicly called upon Russia to find the missing emails of Mrs. Clinton.
Wow. They simply refuse to see any criticism of Hillary as anything other than nefarious, and refuse to hear the substance of it. Trump was making a joke regarding Hillary's utter carelessness and her destruction of 30K or more public record documents that were under subpoena and these guys can't even concede that the deletion of these emails, from the time she was taking scores of millions of dollars from the Russians and others with business before the Department of State was even slightly problematic.
Pulling a clearance of a career Fed might be retaliatory.
You man like this one ?
A Trump-supporting Pentagon analyst was stripped of his security clearance by Obama-appointed officials after he complained of questionable government contracts to Stefan Halper, the FBI informant who spied on the Trump presidential campaign.
Adam Lovinger, a 12-year strategist in the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, complained to his bosses about Halper contracts in the fall of 2016, his attorney, Sean M. Bigley, told The Washington Times.
On May 1, 2017, his superiors yanked his security clearance and relegated him to clerical chores.
I think so.
Brennan, on the other hand, the destruction of the entire CIA agent network in China, probably as a result of poor security procedures.
The Chinese government systematically dismantled C.I.A. spying operations in the country starting in 2010, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources over two years and crippling intelligence gathering there for years afterward.
Current and former American officials described the intelligence breach as one of the worst in decades. It set off a scramble in Washington’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies to contain the fallout, but investigators were bitterly divided over the cause. Some were convinced that a mole within the C.I.A. had betrayed the United States. Others believed that the Chinese had hacked the covert system the C.I.A. used to communicate with its foreign sources. Years later, that debate remains unresolved.
I wouldn't put it past Brennan to be a mole but security was probably as bad as Hillary's server.
The cia debacle in China seemed a large part due to arrogance, due to a feeling of being invincible.
That is a huge issue with graduates of elite colleges.
"I wouldn't put it past Brennan to be a mole "
Methinks weasel..
Can someone please explain what his security clearance, having one or not having one, has to do with him exercising his rights under the First Amendment?
“Can someone please explain what his security clearance, having one or not having one, has to do with him exercising his rights under the First Amendment?”
Here is my response from earlier:
“The legal theory about the 1st Amdt is that revoking Brennan’s clearance was retaliatory. Which, standing alone, might be almost plausible. But the Administration made clear two other things. First he was a whack job. That would normally prevent someone from getting a clearance. But more importantly, and more objective, he has repeatedly lied to Congress and the American people. That, itself is more than sufficient grounds to yank or deny a clearance, regardless of who is involved. He doesn’t get the “retaliatory” pass on his clearance being yanked due to lying, just because he criticized the President. Otherwise, anyone who faced getting their security clearance pulled for good cause would just criticize the President, and then keep it.”
Adding a bit to that - handling classified information has long been an exception to the 1st Amdt. Overall, the government cannot infringe your free speech. But one big exception is national security. We need to have certain information secret, so that our enemies do not know such information. One small example is that the Obama Administration required State Dept approval for drone attack targets, before DoD or CIA could launch such attacks. This is/was highly classified information that Crooked Hillary likely disclosed at least once through her use of her private email server. The point though is that it was classified because if the information got out before the attack, then the targets of the attack could flee. Similarly, a military unit such as a SEAL team, has a mission planned, and the specifics get out before the attack, and America military personnel are liable to die. Or, when I had a DoE clearance, I spent a lot of time at Sandia, where our latest nuclear weapons designs were developed. That information getting into Soviet hands would have made their bombs more effective, and us less safe. This is why the 1st Amdt has to give away to military and national security necessities for the safety of our country.
Ultimately, the responsibility to keep America safe falls on the President. Not only does he have ultimate Executive power, but he is also the Commander in Chief of our military. Moreover, his Constitutionally mandated oath of office is unique, requiring him to protect the Constitution, which has been interpreted to mean protecting the country, esp fo external enemies. Everyone else just has to obey our Constitution. This means that the Constitutional response to arbitrarily revoking a clearance for retaliatory reasons isn’t a court requiring restatement, but impeachment. But, as noted above, the revocation of Brennan’s security clearance wasn’t arbitrary, because it was based on valid national security concerns - that Brennan would have had his clearance revoked normally, due to his actions, laid out by the Administration. Moreover, he no longer had any legitimate need to know any classified information. The revocation could Constitutionally have been arbitrary, but it wasn’t.
Maybe another attempt to answer that question is in order.
The legal theory being espoused by those complaining about Brennan losing his security clearance is that the 1st Amdt prevents our federal govt from infringing our free speech. One of the corollaries of that is that it cannot penalize free speech, which would have a chilling effect on such. And just like the govt cannot penalize you monetarily for your speech, it also cannot revoke a right or privilege, because the revocation of either, or the assessing of a penalty, would chill future free speech. Thus, the argument is that a security clearance is a privilege, revoking it for Brennan would chill free speech for others, and therefore it cannot be revoked for him. As noted above though, that argument ignores that in most cases, national security is a necessary exception to the 1st Amdt. The argument might work with drivers’ licenses, but doesn’t work for security clearances.
There is obviously no theory too tenuous to attack Trump and no evidence strong enough to implicate Hillary. Talk about "ultraloyalists."
Bruce Hayden said...
Ultimately, the responsibility to keep America safe falls on the President. Not only does he have ultimate Executive power, but he is also the Commander in Chief of our military. Moreover, his Constitutionally mandated oath of office is unique, requiring him to protect the Constitution, which has been interpreted to mean protecting the country, esp fo external enemies. Everyone else just has to obey our Constitution.
Though the POTUS oath is different,
"and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, of the United States."
The rest of us (Army Officer oath I took below) have to do more than obey the Constitution.
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"
@Drill - Thanks for the actual oaths. That was my point with them, that the difference in wording is part of why POTUS has the ultimate responsibility in national security, because the nation has to be defended, if the Constitution is to be defended and protected.
Blogger Freder Frederson said...
Taking away security clearance is in what way a free speech issue?
It is an attempt by the President to use the power of the state to silence his critics. That is indeed a free speech (and first amendment) issue.
How has he been “silenced”. This is like when the Bush administration disputed something james hansen had said the liars like you and in the media turns that into the “silence” LIE.
What is being silenced are the leakers in the government who if they leak classified info to this lying hack, they’ll be in big legal trouble.
obama people in the pentagon actually took away an active employee’s security because he took issue with the no bid contracts going to STEPHEN HALPER and someone who happened to be chelsea clinton’s friend. What a bunch of corrupt scum. You are probably someone in their circle posting here.
Post a Comment