John Brennan Entered CIA in 1980 Though Voted Communist in 1976

Dude. They are mostly filled with ex-military people, many who have faught for our country. They are career law enforcement. They carry guns because a number of them have died keeping your sorry ass safe.

 

Eighteen months of daily stories of leaks to the Fake News Media all sourced to current and former WH and Intelligent officials? Are you saying the Fake News Folks fabricated the entire thing?

 

Why would anyone listen to the Hag?

 

At least Trump used a little common sense, Ovomit had this for virus protection...LOL.

Trump signs into law U.S. government ban on Kaspersky Lab software
President Donald Trump signed into law on Tuesday legislation that bans the use of Kaspersky Lab within the U.S. government, capping a months-long effort to purge the Moscow-based antivirus firm from federal agencies amid concerns it was vulnerable to Kremlin influence.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-ban-on-kaspersky-lab-software-idUSKBN1E62V4

 

These lying bastards that first fixed Hillary's espionage case, to fix the election, and then had "an insurance policy" so they could drive Trump from office in the rare chance he actually won, well, I might be okay with hanging them after a fair trial and conviction by a Jury. I do not owe them loyalty as you falsely assert, but I might be talked into kicking in for the rope.

With our trust, they attacked our electoral system, and that's unforgivable. All that are like-minded in their hatred for America need to be identified and purged.

 

Yes, 18 months of right-wing sliming. All that, and as yet NO evidence that even your poster children (Strzok and Page) let their personal political views affect their work. Certainly no evidence to justify tarring entire agencies, as you are trying to do.

Essentially all you have is "FBI agents have political opinions, and some of them don't like Trump!" News flash: government employees are allowed to have political opinions. They're just not allowed to let that impact their work. Until you have evidence of the latter, you have nothing. And until you have evidence that it is widespread, please refrain from sliming entire agencies.

 

The Left supports their entire racial and gender set-asside system on unperceived microbiases. You know what, you guys are all horseshit and no one cares.

Gallup:



* = can't even round to 1%.

 

I believe there actually is an order from the WH from Obama to "stand down" the investigations and other efforts to identify "meddling". It has been reported in the media that this is factually accurate. Since you asked, I've answered. Now what?

 

What a weird deflection attempt.

I accept your concession that you have no grounds for attempting to slime our law-enforcement agencies.

 

Wait what? Wasn't your ilk just siding with BLM and doing the LEO sliming a year ago?

 

Shockingly, your summation of the story leaves out important details.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-cy...ssian-cyberattacks-summer-2016-204935758.html

The Obama administration detected signs of Russia hacking the election. So they authorized extensive investigation efforts. Those investigations were robust and still ongoing.

But there were two aspects of the issue where there were tough decisions to be made: whether to publicize the information in the midst of a presidential election, and what sort of punishment to inflict on Russia for the hacking.

Obama chose not to publicize the information, for fear it would unduly affect the election. Note that he was protecting TRUMP in this case, since the hacking all seemed aimed at helping Trump.

Also, by this time we were close enough to the end of the election that he felt any response -- such as sanctions -- should be left up to the incoming administration, whoever that turned out to be.

So the "stand down" order, such as it was, applied only to the "how should we punish Russia" part of the process.

I'm not sure how that is scandalous, but I'm sure you'll give it your best shot.

I'll also point out that what I was specifically asking for was evidence that Brennan "let the Russians do it." Since the decisions I just described were made by Obama, not Brennan, it doesn't constitute evidence that Brennan "let" the Russians do anything.

 

And in 2 years Mulehead indicts a tray full of ham sandwiches.

 

John Brennan voted Commie once as a sort of protest vote and has never been a Communist. He was also entirely forthcoming about that and worried that it might keep him from getting the position.

Not at all like being Putin's poodle, the obedient servant of a former KGB officer.

 

And Bill Clinton admitted to also being a Rhodes scholar who studied in Russia, He also claimed he never had sex with that woman. Now, either he meant he isn't Chelsea's dad,... or..... The fallacy is that Brennan's admitting that he voted for the US communist party candidate isn't impactful. Using his admitting it as a bench mark that he is credible, or trustable is an entirely different conversation. I would remind you that either HRC or mr Obama have publicly demonstrated what could easily be statements made in earshot of a microphone that kind of obedient service you're referring to.

I don't think mr Brennan is a communist. I also, however, don't believe he's a patriot. I would suggest that he has a personal thumb print on the current war in Yemen. I think he actively worked against the Saudis. I believe his approach to the middle east was to insight as much violence as possible to consume the region as punishment. I think there is a strong case, now, to wonder why all of these policy efforts are now things that the democratic party, and the left wing media are willing to ignore.

 

At the height of the Cold War BRENNAN WAS A COMMUNIST, and then has the gall to pretend that the not spewing the preferred left narrative at a press conference = "TREASON"????!!!

Really?

 

Oh...look..someone who can forensically read Brennan's mind.

WHY TF would ANYONE but a TRAITOR, vote COMMUNIST, at the height of the Cold War.

 

TRUMP is "Putin's Poodle"...over a PRESS CONFERENCE?

ARE YOU EFFIN' KIDDING ME????

Let is know when Pres.Trump DOES ANY OF THIS:





First, HOW DARE ANYONE CONSIDER RUSSIA A THREAT!!!
(Obama dancing on Putin's string before he's even POTUS!! )




Followed by :



and then THIS OUTRAGE:

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.


https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

And then this STUNNING BETRAYAL



Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show

After the Obama administration approved the sale of a Canadian mining company with significant U.S. uranium reserves to a firm owned by Russia’s government, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assured Congress and the public the new owners couldn’t export any raw nuclear fuel from America’s shores.

“No uranium produced at either facility may be exported,” the NRC declared in a November 2010 press release that announced that ARMZ, a subsidiary of the Russian state-owned Rosatom, had been approved to take ownership of the Uranium One mining firm and its American assets.



Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.


http://thehill.com/policy/national-...deal-led-to-some-exports-to-europe-memos-show

Obama allowed US YELLOW CAKE URANIUM, the primary component of NUCLEAR WEAPONS, to be ILLEGALLY shipped, WITH NO NRC PERMITS , to WHEREVER PUTIN WANTED IT TO GO.





And then..BETRAYS NATO to APPEASE PUTIN:



Obama abandons missile defense shield in Europe

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/17/missile-defence-shield-barack-obama





And , as if ALL THAT WERE NOT ENOUGH...OBAMA BEGS TO GROVEL for PUTIN EVEN MORE:





And then IMMEDIATELY Makes GOOD in his PROMISE TO PUTIN:


Obama Won’t Arm Ukraine Because He Led the Disarming of Ukraine

https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...e-he-led-disarming-ukraine-andrew-c-mccarthy/

FOLLOWED BY THE COUP DE GRACE:



Obama cyber chief confirms 'stand down' order against Russian cyberattacks

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/21/obama-cyber-chief-confirms-stand
-down-order-against-russian-cyberattacks.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE FACTS show us the TRUTH about who Putin's Puppet/Bi**h IS, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN.....

 

He's demented insurrectionist Commie Scum:

“Following former Obama administration CIA Director John Brennan on Twitter, we see his animus nakedly on display. He is demented by hatred. Is this really the public role a former Director of the CIA is to be playing?”​

One of the things the Trump presidency has done is to reveal how rotten our institutions have become.

 

Did you pick up on Brennan's accent?
It is distinctly foreign, not regional.
What do you think it is?

 

You lefties are fun to get into really deep discussions with. Someone lists verifiable facts, and you come back with "sorry, kiss butt fan boys".
The revelations are stunning.

 

Today, I've been really concerned with Brennan's weird accent that is not regional. Have you noticed? The more he blib-blabs, the more obvious it is that he is a foreigner. Probably a Russian spy. Think on that - Putin's dream would be to have agents embedded at the top of all our intelligence agencies.

They are behaving true to form: they scream "treason" because they are guilty of it and are desperately deflecting.

 

Nobody cares about Russia.
The lefties have buried their heads so deeply into the dark, stinking swamp that they cannot hear the world around them.

 

Only Rand Paul stood for Liberty and opposed Brennan's confirmation with a filibuster.

Sarah Sanders: White House Is Looking Into Revoking the Security Clearances of John Brennan, James Crapper, Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Michael Hayden and Susan Rice



ABC News

✔@ABC
Press Sec. Sanders: "Not only is the president looking to take away Brennan's security clearance, he's also looking into the security clearances of Comey, Clapper, Hayden, Rice, and McCabe...because they've politicized and in some cases monetized their public service."

11:50 AM - Jul 23, 2018

They are lying slanderous insurrectionists.

 

"Fusion Ken" Dilanian on Yanking Crapper, Brennan et al's Security Clearances: But They Need These Clearances In Case Trump Calls Up Them to Advise Him

As John Ekdahl says: wut


John Ekdahl@JohnEkdahl
wut

Ken Dilanian

✔@KenDilanianNBC

Security clearances are a valuable commodity. By making this threat, @realDonaldTrump is seeking to levy a financial penalty on @JohnBrennan and Clapper. There are also public policy reasons that former intel leaders remain cleared--so they can help their successors.

12:22 PM - Jul 24, 2018

So the reason we permit these guys to keep their security clearances is actually twofold:

1. To keep them legal to accept classified information, in case the president needs to call them out of retirement to advise him on a national security matter.

With Comey and McCabe proven leakers, with Brennan looking like he arranged the Comey briefing just to leak it, and calling Trump a traitor every week, etc., I would say the likelihood that Trump will call on these Genius Experts' Expert Genius is slim.

2. Frankly, as way to pay them continuing non-pecuniary benefits in their retirement, because anyone with a security clearance will be paid more money than those without one in the fields where such a thing is valuable, e.g., defense industries, information security, etc.

I don't see why Trump would feel obliged to put money into their pockets by extending to them a benefit he is not required to extend to them.

So there are two reasons to keep these people cleared for classified reason -- one which could maybe, allegedly benefit the country, but which will never happen, due to the fact that these people belong to the Deep State which has been trying to get Trump blocked from taking office and now that he is president, removed from it.

The second is just a nice thing you do for your friends, to keep paying them off for services rendered, but they are not Trump's friends and the services they have rendered are a conspiracy to enact a coup against the duly elected president of the United States.

On the other hand, there is the risk of permitting them to retain their security clearances.

Given that there is absolutely no benefit to the country -- none at all, zero -- of letting them keep their clearances, the downsides risks stand all alone, with no upside potential to offset them.

What risks are being run? Well, these:

Crapper and Brennan are now being paid by media corporations whose mission it is to take down the duly-elected president of the United States. The fact that they have security clearances means that illegal leakers can leak classified information to them and avoid the worst penalties for leaking classified information, because the parties they are leaking to are legally authorized to see such information.

Now, this wouldn't apply to codeword-classified information, just general top secret (and below) information. And it wouldn't mean that there would be no penalties for leaking the information to them -- you can still be fired for leaking classified information to an unauthorized recipient.

But you could not, I think, be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for giving classified information to those not cleared to see it. The whole point of security clearances is that having one means you are authorized, generally, to see such information.

So Brennan and Crapper are NBC's and CNN's collection points for unauthorized classified leaks.

"Fusion Ken" Dilanian is squealing precisely because John Brennan will not be worth as much to himself or his employer NBC if his security clearance is terminated.

Also note that while technically, Brennan and Crapper might be authorized to see classified information, they still wouldn't be cleared to release it publicly (as the public consists of a great mass of unauthorized persons):

First of all, the First Amendment protects a lot of behavior which would otherwise be prosecutable under the Espionage Act. Newspapers technically violate classification laws a lot, but plead the First Amendment as a defense.

Second of all, you don't have to actually disclose the information to help a reporter himself get the information out there. Recall "Deep Throat," the FBI official Mark Felt, who would not reveal classified information to Bob Woodward, as he did not want to give Woodward any information which could be traced back to him and get him fired, but who would serve as a second source confirming (or repudiating, if false) information that Woodward had been leaked from a different source.

Brennan is no doubt serving a similar role for NBC, and Clapper for CNN. It seems likely, to me anyway, that these mercenaries are assisting those "news" outlets in pushing leaks out to the public by at least warning them away from the ones that seem to them wrong. Which tells their employers which leaks they receive seem accurate. By simply not saying "No, don't run that," they essentially tell NBC and CNN that they are not aware of any reason the leak would be provably false.

(A similar tactic was used by Woodward in getting information from a partially-willing source: He said "I'm going to run X story, and I'm going to count down from ten, interrupt me if you you know any reason I should not run X story.")

Lastly, these people can flat-out tell reporters classified information in a hint-hint way and get away with it. From James Comey's explanation as to why he did not prosecute Hillary Clinton for disclosing classified information in her unsecure email system which was shared with non-cleared persons: He said she employed the practice of "talking around" the classified information, which seems to be just hinting at it without being specific, trusting that anyone who knows the information you're talking about gets what you're talking about.

Supposedly this method of "talking around" classified information makes it legal -- per no less a legal authority than Jesus Christ's personal adviser James Comey.

Yet, I can think of many people who could figure out the information you're "talking around" who are not actually authorized to receive it. Reporters covering the story, for example, who have generally received hints and leaks about the information, and can piece the parts they don't know or haven't confirmed yet from your "talking around" the information.

Enemy intelligence services could also easily do this. You know, like the enemy intelligence service the FBI found that hacked Hillary's emails (which Strzok and Co. then took out of the official FBI statement on the matter).

If you just know a little of the story, you can figure out the rest if someone who knows the whole story "talks around" the classified information.

And Comey has decided such "talking around" by authorized persons to unauthorized persons is non-prosecutable. No "intent," you see.

So why shouldn't Brennan and Crapper take their good friend Comey's legal advice and just "talk around" the classified information they have to their worker-friends Jake Tapper and Fusion Ken Dilanian?

As there is no national security upside to letting these leakers and liars keep their security clearances and continue "monetizing" them -- as Trump correctly said -- and quite a bit of national security downside to letting them keep them, it's time to terminate the clearances.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/376259.php

 

RUDY WAS RIGHT: Criminal John Brennan Walked the Junk Dossier Over to Harry Reid to Start the Spygate Scandal — SHOULD BE JAILED