It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The admiral in charge of Navy intelligence has not been allowed to see military secrets for years

page: 2
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Agree 100%...

Political BS like this is widespread and very apparent from the inside.

This is one of the main reasons I bailed out after my four years was up even though I had one of the nicest jobs in the fleet.




posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
Says a lot when the heads of intelligence aren't allowed to see any intelligence, ironic really

So true...




posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I only read the op so I am giving a naked opinion as it were.

It sounds to me as if the US system of government classification is broken.

I can not think of anything else really, system broken sums it up.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
This happens I have seen it many times. The standard to suspend someones clearance is much lower than it is to remove them from their job. So you just create a work around. In this case branch chiefs likely do his and the deputies jobs, while they are forced to do all the branch chief non classified administrative work.

And for those that think this is something nefarious keep in mind Navel Intelligence focus is on enemy ships capabilities, fleet make ups, locations, and readiness. Nothing very exciting. Also this nothing Obama or any President would have anything to do with.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad
This happens I have seen it many times. The standard to suspend someones clearance is much lower than it is to remove them from their job. So you just create a work around. In this case branch chiefs likely do his and the deputies jobs, while they are forced to do all the branch chief non classified administrative work.

And for those that think this is something nefarious keep in mind Navel Intelligence focus is on enemy ships capabilities, fleet make ups, locations, and readiness. Nothing very exciting. Also this nothing Obama or any President would have anything to do with.


Does that work even if the person in question is the Naval Intelligence chief? How does that even work if that is the case, more to the point, SHOULD it work?

Like I said earlier. broken.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

He should talk with Hillary. She has all the docs on her server.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

So quick to blame the puppet instead of the puppet master. Good job, you're playing right into their hands.

Obama is not innocent in any way, he is complicit in it, but you're blaming him alone for some reason. He takes his orders from other people behind the scenes, they are not his decisions only what he is told to do.
edit on 1/28/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus




Why does he even still hold that position when he obviously isn`t qualified anymore to hold that position?


It does appear Kind of strange for the Navy's intelligence chief to not be able to have classified information?

I wonder if they haven't caught all the rats above him and he might have some intel that some might not like to have revealed?


edit on 54131America/ChicagoThu, 28 Jan 2016 14:54:37 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

exactly, broke...broke...broke.

what really bugs me about this is that they revoked his clearance only 4 months after he took the job and for the past 26 months he hasn`t been able to do that job other people have been doing it,so why is he still there? obviously they don`t need him in that position.

I also look at it this way if it is a requirement of that job to be able to secure a certain clearance level and he isn`t able to do that then he isn`t qualified for the job and should be replaced.
another way to look at it is: lets say that they knew before he was given the job that (for whatever reasons) he wouldn`t be able to obtain the proper clearance to qualify for the position, then they wouldn`t have even considered him for the position. He was only in that position for 4 months before they revoked his clearance, at that point they should have replaced him. The system is seriously broken when no longer being qualified for a position isn`t enough of a reason to get rid of someone.

They are basically saying " you aren`t qualified for the position but since we already hired you, you can stay and keep the title and the pay but you won`t be allowed to carry out the duties of the position we`ll make someone else do that"

He might actually like the way things are now he`s got the position and the pay without having to do the work or having to take any responsibility. talk about government waste and handouts, the taxpayers are getting ripped off here.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I guess that's good work if you can get it.

Go to work in the morning. Make sure everybody has enough paper clips and copy paper.

Then he and his Deputy Commander can go golfing the rest of the day.

Our tax dollars at work...

-dex



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: smurfy
He accepted gifts from the marine company, who was scamming.
The investigation of Branch was considered a non-criminal act, while much of the rest were charged, some senior officers included. just it seems that he was a naughty boy. He won't be getting his clearance back though, and there is a new nominee for his job. So it seems he wasn't endicted at all


No. You are citing as fact what has been an unproven allegation, an allegation over two years old. Rear Admiral Elizabeth Train was nominated to succeed Branch in 2014 and was supposed to have taken over in 2015, BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED. It's now been over a year since she was nominated.

Maybe Obama wanted the female in place ASAP and the guy wouldn't resign / retire. So bang ! Indicted eternally until he gives in.

May want to check that retirement pay # of 12 K. An admiral is making well up over 100 K, and his retirement pay for 30 years will be well up over 50% of that. My guess is 50-75 K per year.
edit on 28-1-2016 by stevieray because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
e female in place ASAP and the guy wouldn't resign / retire. So bang ! Indicted eternally until he gives in.

May want to check that retirement pay # of 12 K. An admiral is making well up over 100 K, and his retirement pay for 30 years will be well up over 50% of that. My guess is 50-75 K per year.


He's making about $15K per MONTH, $180K per YEAR. He would get 75% of base pay on retirement, so I'm right in the ballpark without resorting to a calculator. Retirement is based on BASE pay only, but he's getting significantly more in all sorts of allowances, particularly housing unless he lives on base, which is unlikely. Sorry, but I wouldn't be off by a factor of 10 on something like that. I was talking months and you were talking years.

Now, as to WHY he is still there, here's the situation. It's basically the Navy against the Justice Department. I suspect there is a bit of antagonism between them at this point. The whole thing was investigated by the Navy and "turned over" to justice and justice has been sitting on it. The ball is in the Justice Department court.

So WHY would the Navy wait on this? ESPECIALLY since last year they came to the same conclusion many people here have and went ahead with a nomination for a replacement. WHY did that not happen if it were already in the pipeline?

Because somebody stopped it. Either

1. The Navy feels their guy is being sold down the river and won't abandon him, or
2. Justice has told the Navy, "We're almost done." and has continued to sit on it.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: amicktdwhy does she have clearance i thought she wasn't a senetor or sos anymore so why does she of all people have clearance.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley




Our tax dollars at work...


Well they're not really your tax dollars. These tax dollars have co-mingled with the other fake money printed by the Fed, to keep illusion up that your country is solvent. I think most of your dollars keep the Defence industries, Bankers and Big Pharma on the gravy train.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: MrSpad
This happens I have seen it many times. The standard to suspend someones clearance is much lower than it is to remove them from their job. So you just create a work around. In this case branch chiefs likely do his and the deputies jobs, while they are forced to do all the branch chief non classified administrative work.

And for those that think this is something nefarious keep in mind Navel Intelligence focus is on enemy ships capabilities, fleet make ups, locations, and readiness. Nothing very exciting. Also this nothing Obama or any President would have anything to do with.


Does that work even if the person in question is the Naval Intelligence chief? How does that even work if that is the case, more to the point, SHOULD it work?

Like I said earlier. broken.


The military has its own laws, the UCMJ, that would be how and when he would lose his job. A security clearance can be pulled easy for all kinds of thing, large debt, suspected criminal activity, losing the wrong piece of paper etc.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
As former Navy I have been following this issue since it first happened. The fact is the government is unable to prove anything against Admiral Branch. If they had been able to they would have done so long ago. So instead they hold him in limbo. Why is he still there? because he is a competent administrator with, other than this accusation (and that's all it is), a stellar reputation in the Naval community. So they refuse to engage the issue, and now everyone blames Admiral Branch.

Kind of a nice smear campaign the government has done on him. The other officers and enlisted who were engaged in this situation were disciplined years ago. So why is Branch still there? because they can't prove their case.


I think that at that level trust goes beyond what you can prove. If people have even an unproven suspicion it doesn't make sense to take chances. The real question is why he hasn't been retired by Obama revoking his commission if he can't simply be let go. Even if they're giving up a competent administrator I imagine it has to cause huge logistical issues for him to be unable to act on any classified information.
edit on 28-1-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: stevieray
e female in place ASAP and the guy wouldn't resign / retire. So bang ! Indicted eternally until he gives in.

May want to check that retirement pay # of 12 K. An admiral is making well up over 100 K, and his retirement pay for 30 years will be well up over 50% of that. My guess is 50-75 K per year.


He's making about $15K per MONTH, $180K per YEAR. He would get 75% of base pay on retirement, so I'm right in the ballpark without resorting to a calculator. Retirement is based on BASE pay only, but he's getting significantly more in all sorts of allowances, particularly housing unless he lives on base, which is unlikely. Sorry, but I wouldn't be off by a factor of 10 on something like that. I was talking months and you were talking years.

Now, as to WHY he is still there, here's the situation. It's basically the Navy against the Justice Department. I suspect there is a bit of antagonism between them at this point. The whole thing was investigated by the Navy and "turned over" to justice and justice has been sitting on it. The ball is in the Justice Department court.

So WHY would the Navy wait on this? ESPECIALLY since last year they came to the same conclusion many people here have and went ahead with a nomination for a replacement. WHY did that not happen if it were already in the pipeline?

Because somebody stopped it. Either

1. The Navy feels their guy is being sold down the river and won't abandon him, or
2. Justice has told the Navy, "We're almost done." and has continued to sit on it.

Your original post didn't say monthly, hence my reply. I know the #'s and formula, I'm retired USAF.

If the guy's guilty, he gets run out of there quickly a la Petraeus. He's clearly not guilty, or at least there's not evidence available to prove it.
edit on 29-1-2016 by stevieray because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Actually you said "12 K a year" lol. Not that it matters, was just checking myself. Then you talked about an additional 1500 per month, so just semantics / details, for sure.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I scanned through the posts to see if Leonard Glenn Francis had been mentioned yet.
Honestly this story looked like something they ran up the flag pole to see who would salute.
Why would the public even need to know who is in charge of Naval Intelligence?
I had a good chuckle anyways..



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: schuyler
As former Navy I have been following this issue since it first happened. The fact is the government is unable to prove anything against Admiral Branch. If they had been able to they would have done so long ago. So instead they hold him in limbo. Why is he still there? because he is a competent administrator with, other than this accusation (and that's all it is), a stellar reputation in the Naval community. So they refuse to engage the issue, and now everyone blames Admiral Branch.

Kind of a nice smear campaign the government has done on him. The other officers and enlisted who were engaged in this situation were disciplined years ago. So why is Branch still there? because they can't prove their case.


I think that at that level trust goes beyond what you can prove. If people have even an unproven suspicion it doesn't make sense to take chances. The real question is why he hasn't been retired by Obama revoking his commission if he can't simply be let go. Even if they're giving up a competent administrator I imagine it has to cause huge logistical issues for him to be unable to act on any classified information.


It is very rare for a President to relieve any officer. It takes rare cases and normally it would officers of only the highest rank that directly answer to the President. Presidents tend to let the services run themselves when it come to these matters.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join