Susan Rice: John Brennan Is a Patriot

Now we have yet another Obama puppet ringing in on the John Brennan security clearance slash.

This one is a well known liar and crowned Benghazi Princess Susan Rice.

She claims Brennan (a known Communist sympathizer) is a great patriot !!!!

Brennan claims his clearance "revocation" infringes on his free speech.

Well that can only mean he was using classified material to mount his attacks on Trump.

Different story now as the Obama trash cleanup efforts continue to expose more and more rotting garbage under the surface soil.

I swear from some comments many people still think these Obama.Phonies are still in power 😃😃

Susan Rice: John Brennan Is a Patriot

Former President Barack Obama’s national security advisor Susan Rice voiced her support for former CIA director John Brennan after President Donald Trump removed his security clearance.

“John Brennan is an extraordinary patriot and professional. I’m deeply proud to call him a valued colleague and cherished friend,” Rice wrote on Twitter.

Rice was included on Trump’s list of former national security professionals that might lose their security clearances including James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr.

*******************
Susan Rice
✔
@AmbassadorRice

@JohnBrennan is an extraordinary patriot and professional. I’m deeply proud to call him a valued colleague and cherished friend. Those who diminish his service and patriotism, past and present, only denigrate themselves. #freespeech
5:29 PM - Aug 15, 2018

2,354
771 people are talking about this
*******************

zzzzzzzzzzz 😵

Brennan later swore the dossier did not “in any way” factor into the CIA's assessment that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump. However, congressional investigators suggest a still-classified version of the January 2017 intelligence report contradicts his claim. Also in his May 2017 testimony, Brennan swore he had no idea who commissioned the dossier.

CIA veterans say Brennan was the most politicized director in the agency’s history and was responsible for much of the anti-Trump bias from the intelligence community during the campaign and transition period.

Former CIA field operations officer Gene Coyle, a 30-year agency veteran who served under Brennan, said he was "known as the greatest sycophant in the history of the CIA, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton before the election.” "I find it hard to put any real credence in anything that the man says,” he added.

Exclusive: CIA Ex-Director Brennan's Perjury Peril


This guy is going down ..... and the media is outraged LOL

Just more of the same crap.

That's why the media is in the full panic attack mode.

Once all the rats lose their security clearance there will be no one else to deliver them classified information.

a reply to: xuenchen

Is Brennan still director of the CIA?

No.


/thread





Rice is a drooling moron so her opinion matters not.

libertywriters.com...
rice is neck deep in this
and she has quite the hisory
www.washingtontimes.com...

She first publicly demonstrated her bad judgment as far back as 1996 when as the Clinton National Security Council’s senior director for African affairs, she successfully urged the Clinton White House to refuse a Sudanese offer to turn al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden over to the United States.

Those familiar with the way she went about collecting information on her boss’ political enemies know that she and Mr. Rhodes were running an unprecedented effort to politically weaponize the powerful tools put into the hands of the government to fight terrorism and turn them on those with whom they disagree. Michael Doran, a former National Security Council (NSC) senior director, was shocked at the enormity of what they had purportedly done, telling a reporter they had accessed “a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in the wall.”

rice will ultimately bring down the entire administraion

Losing a security clearance infringes on free speech? U wot m8? Hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. That's a good one Brennan.

Susan Rice: John Brennan Is a Patriot

Quick!

Dial 911.

Some village lost their idiot.

a reply to: xuenchen

archive.is...

An apology and an internal review board might suffice if this were Brennan or intelligence leaders’ first offense, but the track record is far from spotless. In 2011, Brennan claimed that dozens of U.S. drone strikes on overseas targets had not killed a single civilian. This remarkable success rate was not only disputed at the time by news reports — even supporters of the drone program called it “absurd” — but as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the New York Times both reported later, President Obama received reports from the very beginning of his presidency about drone strikes killing numerous civilians. As Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser at the time, Brennan would have received these reports as well, so either Brennan knew that his claim was a lie, or he is secretly deaf. Similarly, Brennan denied snooping on Senate computers six weeks after Feinstein first made the accusation to the CIA in private, which means either that he was lying, or he had ignored a serious charge against his agency for six weeks, then spouted off about it without any real knowledge — hardly the behavior expected of an agency director. And last year, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied under oath to Congress when he told Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and the Senate Intelligence Committee that the National Security Agency did not collect any kind of data on millions of Americans, a claim later disproved by documents leaked by former NSA employee Edward Snowden. Despite Clapper receiving criticism from both sides of the aisle, the damage to Clapper’s and the White House’s credibility on intelligence and civil liberties issues and, well, the fact that lying to Congress is a crime (though one that’s difficult to prosecute), Obama has not disciplined Clapper in any way. Sadly, it’s unlikely that this latest incident will encourage Obama to finally induce some accountability in the intelligence community: White House press secretary Josh Earnest called the CIA’s illegal activities mere “misunderstandings.” But as Brennan said when he denied the allegations, “if I did something wrong…he is the one who can ask me to stay or to go.” It’s time for Obama to take that responsibility head-on and start to restore in U.S. intelligence agencies some semblance of responsibility to the Constitution and the public.

from the way back machine seems hes had trouble on both sides of the isle in the last 4 years www.youtube.com... here is his response to the above allegations but seems like hes been up to shady shenanigans for a while now

www.theatlantic.com... also from wayback in the day this time regarding leaks and how some were selectively prosecuted

Does the rule of law demand that leaks of highly classified information be prosecuted? If so, John Brennan and many other current and former national-security officials had better be given orange jumpsuits. They weren't even leaking to alert Americans to behavior that they found immoral. Often times, the U.S. national security establishment leaks to exploit a political advantage. Shafer writes: It doesn't really matter which modern presidential administration you decide to scrutinize for this behavior, as all of them are guilty. For instance, President George W. Bush's administration declassified or leaked whole barrels of intelligence, raw and otherwise, to convince the public and Congress making war on Iraq was a good idea. Bush himself ordered the release of classified prewar intelligence about Iraq through Vice President Dick Cheney and Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to New York Times reporter Judith Miller in July 2003. Sometimes the index finger of government has no idea of what the thumb is up to. In 2007, Vice President Cheney went directly to Bush with his complaint about what he considered to be a damaging national security leak in a column by the Washington Post's David Ignatius. "Whoever is leaking information like this to the press is doing a real disservice, Mr. President," Cheney said. Later, Bush's national security adviser paid a visit to Cheney to explain that Bush, um, had authorized him to make the leak to Ignatius.

so leaks to exploit a political advantage are more

The secrets shared with Woodward were so delicate Obama transition chief John Podesta was barred from attendance ... Isikoff asked, quite logically, how the Obama administration could pursue a double standard in which it prosecuted mid-level bureaucrats and military officers for their leaks to the press but allowed administration officials to dispense bigger secrets to Woodward. The best answer Isikoff could find came from John Rizzo, a former CIA general counsel, who surmised that prosecutor leaks to Woodward would be damn-near impossible to prosecute if the president or the CIA director authorized them. .... In 2012, as the presidential campaigns gathered speed, after the New York Times published stories about classified programs, including the "kill list," the drone program, details about the Osama bin Laden raid, and Stuxnet, all considered successes by the administration. The reports infuriated Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who essentially accused the Obama White House of leaking these top secrets for political gain. "This is not a game. This is far more important than mere politics. Laws have apparently been broken," McCain cried. To the best of my knowledge, no investigation of these alleged leaks to the press have been ordered or are active, and I have yet to hear Messrs. Brooks, Simon and Cohen describe these leakers of those details as self-indulgent, losers or narcissists.

common in Washington then we hear about usually oh and edit to add this as well seems even podesta was banned from some breifings over leak fears and that some people would use it for political gain

Inside the Beltway in these last 15 years, perjurers like Brennan and Clapper and others are celebrated and decorated. A very sad state of affairs for these United States.

In all probability he won't even be indicted for his transgressions.

www.wsj.com...

The CIA director couldn’t himself go public with his Clinton spin—he lacked the support of the intelligence community and had to be careful not to be seen interfering in U.S. politics. So what to do? He called Harry Reid. In a late August briefing, he told the Senate minority leader that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump win the election, and that Trump advisers might be colluding with Russia. (Two years later, no public evidence has emerged to support such a claim.) But the truth was irrelevant. On cue, within a few days of the briefing, Mr. Reid wrote a letter to Mr. Comey, which of course immediately became public. “The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” wrote Mr. Reid, going on to float Team Clinton’s Russians-are-helping-Trump theory. Mr. Reid publicly divulged at least one of the allegations contained in the infamous Steele dossier, insisting that the FBI use “every resource available to investigate this matter.”

and then this may help explain why brennan needed his security clearance revoked over a pattern of partisan leaks and leaks for political gain

In their recent book “Russian Roulette,” Mr. Isikoff and David Corn say even Mr. Reid believed Mr. Brennan had an “ulterior motive” with the briefing, and “concluded the CIA chief believed the public needed to know about the Russia operation, including the information about the possible links to the Trump campaign.” (Brennan allies have denied his aim was to leak damaging information.)

and before trump did this back in 2014 the dems and several news agencies wanted him fired for his shenigans so is it really that surprising that he got his clearance finally revoked? www.theguardian.com...

As reports emerged Thursday that an internal investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency’s inspector general found that the CIA “improperly” spied on US Senate staffers when researching the CIA’s dark history of torture, it was hard to conclude anything but the obvious: John Brennan blatantly lied to the American public. Again. “The facts will come out,” Brennan told NBC News in March after Senator Dianne Feinstein issued a blistering condemnation of the CIA on the Senate floor, accusing his agency of hacking into the computers used by her intelligence committee’s staffers. “Let me assure you the CIA was in no way spying on [the committee] or the Senate,” he said. After the CIA inspector general’s report completely contradicted Brennan’s statements, it now appears Brennan was forced to privately apologize to intelligence committee chairs in a “tense” meeting earlier this week. Other Senators on Thursday pushed for Brennan to publicly apologize and called for an independent investigation. Sen. Ron Wyden said it well:

he should have been removed after getting caught spying on the senate

www.nytimes.com...

WASHINGTON — An internal investigation by the C.I.A. has found that its officers penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program. The report by the agency’s inspector general also found that C.I.A. officers read the emails of the Senate investigators and sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department based on false information, according to a summary of findings made public on Thursday. One official with knowledge of the report’s conclusions said the investigation also discovered that the officers created a false online identity to gain access on more than one occasion to computers used by the committee staff.

seems hes quite a fan of hacking things where it works in his favor

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes he is, ask anybody in the inner circle of the Deep State, but for the American voter he's a Traitor and a Scumbag.

a reply to: xuenchen

Someone on twitter wrote Mr Brennan a poem, a very apt poem that is a dose of reality.....

a reply to: xuenchen

Now I understand what the Trump Administration is doing. Deep Staters and mainstream media come to support Brennan. And then Brennan is indicted and found guilty of criminality.

Brennan has been saying nasty things about the Trump Administration for 18 months. There is a reason why his security clearance was revoked at this time. Legal action is about to be taken against him.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

God bless Ray Ray

a reply to: xuenchen

My only non-biased response to all of this crappos is;
"How does removal of a security clearance imped somebodies freedom of speech, and inversely does having a security clearance enhance a persons freedom of speech?"


These are the questions that need to be answered before this conversation goes on. I personally feel that if you leave your place of work, then you shouldn't be privied to any of your former employers secrets
(regardless if it was a private or public employer). Now since this discussion is about the personal rights of a security clearance and it's removal, then we need to ask if having/not having one effects a persons freedom of speech.

Can someone please educate me? Why would he still have security clearance for a former position? At my job we change the security code at the doors every time we lose an employee. Also educate me how this infringes his 1A rights? I’m not a smart man, but I want to be one

Does Barry still have his ?

a reply to: xuenchen

Go to 2:15 .youtu.be... Brennan was the director and part instigator of the fake Russian collusion.. He and Harry Reid are the ones who leaked the letter to Comey and then to the press. 8 years of Obama/Clinton stacking the deck at DOJ, FBI, and CIA may be beginning to unravel simply because Clinton did not win. Hopefully Clinton was right when she said, "If Trump wins we all hang"..

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: xuenchen

My only non-biased response to all of this crappos is;
"How does removal of a security clearance imped somebodies freedom of speech, and inversely does having a security clearance enhance a persons freedom of speech?"

It's an act of attempted public shaming of critics via the use of the security apparatus at the President's disposal.

It goes hand in hand with the "list" of other former intelligence officials that he was "considering" stripping of their security clearance, all people that have questioned his policies or actions.

It was a public threat to the rest of the critics to be silent or also be stripped of your security clearance.