CIA director John Brennan fretted his vote for communist

Here's an article from September 2016 about how the current CIA Director John Brennan apparently admitted voting for a Communist.

Could be fake, but I bet it's true.

Brennan became the CIA Director in March 2013.

I wonder why he did that?

Polygraph panic: CIA director fretted his vote for communist

(CNN)At his first polygraph test to enter the CIA, the future director had a secret.
John Brennan on Thursday recalled being asked a standard question for a top security clearance at his early CIA lie detector test: Have you ever worked with or for a group that was dedicated to overthrowing the US?

"I froze," Brennan said during a panel discussion about diversity in the intelligence community at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual conference. "This was back in 1980, and I thought back to a previous election where I voted, and I voted for the Communist Party candidate,"
Brennan was responding to a question about barriers to recruiting diverse candidates for the intelligence fields, including whether past records of activism could hurt someone applying for a clearance later in life.
The CIA director said the agency's mission is to protect the values of the Constitution -- which include free speech.

So what?

Are not votes meant to be private?

Are not Americans entitled to be allowed to vote or support who they like?

originally posted by: crazyewok
So what?

Are not votes meant to be private?

Are not Americans entitled to be allowed to vote or support who they like?

Well if they decide to talk about their vote then not so much.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Here's an article from September 2016 about how the current CIA Director John Brennan apparently admitted voting for a Communist.

Could be fake, but I bet it's true.

Brennan became the CIA Director in March 2013.

I wonder why he did that?

Polygraph panic: CIA director fretted his vote for communist

(CNN)At his first polygraph test to enter the CIA, the future director had a secret.
John Brennan on Thursday recalled being asked a standard question for a top security clearance at his early CIA lie detector test: Have you ever worked with or for a group that was dedicated to overthrowing the US?

"I froze," Brennan said during a panel discussion about diversity in the intelligence community at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual conference. "This was back in 1980, and I thought back to a previous election where I voted, and I voted for the Communist Party candidate,"
Brennan was responding to a question about barriers to recruiting diverse candidates for the intelligence fields, including whether past records of activism could hurt someone applying for a clearance later in life.
The CIA director said the agency's mission is to protect the values of the Constitution -- which include free speech.

I think the answer is in the quote.

Brennan was responding to a question about barriers to recruiting diverse candidates for the intelligence fields, including whether past records of activism could hurt someone applying for a clearance later in life.

He was just nervous. If you were in a room, being interviewed about joining the CIA, with a polygraph attached to you, you might get nervous and that your thoughts could throw the result even if you never planned on 'overthrowing the USA' or the Communist Party in the US never planned to.

originally posted by: crazyewok
So what?

Are not votes meant to be private?

Are not Americans entitled to be allowed to vote or support who they like?

Not in the case of militant insurrectionists intent on subverting our constitution. Marxists and Islamists represent such a threat.

The issue isn't that a citizen can't be a communist sympathizer (or vote for one) but, that a government agent cannot.

originally posted by: crazyewok
So what?

Are not votes meant to be private?

Are not Americans entitled to be allowed to vote or support who they like?

You are right.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: crazyewok
So what?

Are not votes meant to be private?

Are not Americans entitled to be allowed to vote or support who they like?

Well if they decide to talk about their vote then not so much.

AND you are right.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: crazyewok
So what?

Are not votes meant to be private?

Are not Americans entitled to be allowed to vote or support who they like?

Not in the case of militant insurrectionists intent on subverting our constitution. Marxists and Islamists represent such a threat.

The issue isn't that a citizen can't be a communist sympathizer (or vote for one) but, that a government agent cannot.

A government agent can vote for a Communist candidate. A government agent can vote for an Islamic candidate. It is up to the agency in question to decide the potential agent's state of mind.

As in 'Are they a radical? Will their political activities distract from their job?', that kind of thing.

a reply to: reldra

As far as I know, the purpose of asking these questions under oath and/or with a lie detector is to determine whether a candidate should be disqualified from consideration.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: reldra

As far as I know, the purpose of asking these questions under oath and/or with a lie detector is to determine whether a candidate should be disqualified from consideration.

Correct, that is what I just said. Voting for a particular candidate or possibly quoting 'The Daily Kos' on Facebook is not disqualifying.

Being a government agent is different from being a day to day citizen, so there is the difference. They decide if the potential candidate is deeply involved in politics, really ANY politics could distract from the job if radical in nature or if they are involved in activities regarding those politics often.

According to multiple ATS threads, , CNN is fake news.

I have to ask... why use the mainstream media? I don't own cable nor antenna so I'm not sure what the paid actors under the guise of "journalism," are up to nowadays. Stopped taking that # seriously years ago.

Just an example

CNN is mentioned in the comments vehemently.

Here's an example of why I don't trust nor bother wasting my time watching TV for news.

And another one claiming CNN is biased/fake news.

And another one.

Considering your OP is BASED with a CNN citation I do believe this is an on topic comment and I have provided more than enough context to show my point.

I have to give it to you, though, your talents of seeing everything so one-sided... I'm envious. Life in general is very complex (especially political matters) and I extensively studied this during my time at college and learned a thing or two along the way.

To dumb it down to just rally up your side and beat down the other - and how many people eat it up, it's impressive to be honest.

a reply to: RomeByFire

Well you would think Brennan would have denied this by now right?

He IS the CIA Director afterall.

a reply to: xuenchen

So he used his rights to vote for someone who would remove his rights.



Sounds like a typical leftist.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: reldra

As far as I know, the purpose of asking these questions under oath and/or with a lie detector is to determine whether a candidate should be disqualified from consideration.

Correct, that is what I just said. Voting for a particular candidate or possibly quoting 'The Daily Kos' on Facebook is not disqualifying.

Being a government agent is different from being a day to day citizen, so there is the difference. They decide if the potential candidate is deeply involved in politics, really ANY politics could distract from the job if radical in nature or if they are involved in activities regarding those politics often.

Yes but, I think you're underestimating the seriousness of it. Marxists and Islamists are enemy combatants.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: RomeByFire

Well you would think Brennan would have denied this by now right?

He IS the CIA Director afterall.

Obviously, he said that. I am lost as to what the argument is here.

CNN does produce real news, you just used them as a source.

Some on ATS have been pretty vocal about them being 'fake news', just to deflect, I think about junk news sites they like that make things up out of the blue. CNN is Liberalish in nature and has had to make a couple of retractions, but are definitely not fake news.

Possibly the other post is pointing out that you used CNN as a source, though I have not noticed you stating CNN is fake news.

So I am lost.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: RomeByFire

Well you would think Brennan would have denied this by now right?

He IS the CIA Director afterall.

Because I'll believe a word that comes out of the mouth from the CIA or anyone remotely involved in it.

This nation has been mired in corruption since before any one of us walked this Earth (unless you're over 120+ years old) and imo since long before that.

I don't believe a damn thing the government has to say nor the propoganda machine people refer to as "news."

I haven't for awhile, ESPECIALLY when it comes to alphabet agencies that specialize in infiltration, coercion, and subterfuge.

a reply to: RomeByFire

Why would he make up the fact that he once voted for a Communist candidate? It is a legitimate political Party here.

If there is a reason to make it up, I would like to know.

a reply to: reldra

Well he said he voted for the CPU candidate on an election right?

Why would he do that?