Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

The Deep State Files

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
The entire Mueller investigation was not birthed due to evidence, but rather due to political wants and desires.

I would say, "Burn it all down," but that might get me a visit from Mueller, wanting to know what I was thinking when I said it.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
So Comey released his synopsis of his memos to get a SC appointed to look at obstruction of justice.( which he stated in testimony to Congress didn't happen)
Acting FBI Director at the time Andrew McCabe admitted to pressing Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein daily to appoint a SC to investigate Russian collusion with the Trump campaign ( based mostly on a unverified Dossier) which isn't actually a crime. Mueller is interviewed by Trump to be the new FBI Director but is turned down. Rosenstein walks him out afterwards and then appoints him as SC within two days without specifying a crime to investigate, which is required. Now Mueller has looked at obstruction which Comey said didn't happen and investigating without a specific crime being named. The fix is in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
Offline
No one in Spencer,Sparta, Red Bank,Soddy Daisy,Harriman, or other small towns knows the answer...I'm not sure if anyone knows the questions anymore---
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
I'm not a big fan of John Brennan, as some of you may know. He was a partisan hack before he became CIA Director, and continues to be one after leaving that position, so there's no reason to believe he suddenly became nonpartisan for 4 years as the Director under Obama. Especially since he has a 4 year history in the job of using his position and power to influence and subvert the political process.

I would not be even a little bit surprised to find out that the whole notion of Trump-Russia collusion was cooked up and served on disposal paper plates by Brennan. Keep in mind that Brennan his evil twin James Clapper and their unholy stepchild James Comey, the ones who are now ranting and screaming the loudest, were the ones in charge of the front door that Russia walked through to meddle in the 2016 election. It's blatantly obvious to me that they're either trying to cover up their own gross incompetence or their own culpability.

As for security clearances, I think I saw where Rand Paul was set to meet with Trump and press him about changing the rules on that. Nearly everyone in the Obama administration who had Top Secret security clearances still has the same clearance. Same with the other two main types of clearances, Secret and Confidential. As a general rule, as a courtesy, people get to keep their clearances when they leave their government jobs. It allows them to review their own work, for speaking engagements, books, research, etc. But like anything else, it can also be abused And that's likely what's happening with far too many of Obama's people.

After the OK City bombing I got a certain type of Top Secret clearance when I worked on hard drive data recovery. It was TS/SCI or Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information. Meaning, it was top secret, but only for the information I was working on. I didn't have wide or blanket clearance for any top secret stuff anyone else was working on.

My clearance was renewed as a matter of routine course when I did the same kind of data recovery at the Pentagon after the 911 plane attack. Again it was an SCI top secret clearance, only for the stuff I was working on. The guy sitting right next to me had a different SCI clearance. We didn't discuss.

Even though my job ended the day before the invasion of Afghanistan, I still kept the clearance, and it was renewed again after 5 years in 2006, and then again 5 years after that in 2011. It was not renewed in 2016.

Secret clearance, one step down from Top Secret, is generally reviewed and renewed after 10 years, and mine was renewed in 2006, but not in 2016.

Confidential clearances are renewed every 15 years, and mine was renewed in 2011. I still have it.

I haven't had any need or desire to review any classified information since my job ended at the Pentagon, at least not any that I'm actually cleared and have a need to see, but by retaining the Confidential clearance, it more if less keeps my mouth shut on anything from Top Secret on down. Not that there's anything to tell. It was pretty boring stuff actually.

So I fully understand why Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Yates, Rice and all the others still have their clearances. But I also understand that regardless of whatever clearance you have, anything you have access to is still on a need to know basis, and I think there's a lot of stuff these people have access to without necessarily having a need Clearly, anyone who shows an animus towards the president shouldn't have access to classified information.

The president in the one who gets to set the rules for classified information and for clearances. He gets to decide who gets to see stuff and who doesn't (which is why the whole Jared Kushner security clearance extravaganza is hilarious to me). Hopefully he will adjust the rules on courtesy clearances for former employees
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc and muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
When I see an evil tweet from Brennan in regards to the President, I think of a pyromaniac yapping it up with onlookers of a house fire that he helped lit.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
A decent article that sums up Brennan and The Deep State.
Article excerpt:
Within days of Trump’s inauguration, however, the highly classified content of wiretaps of the Russian ambassador’s conversations with the White House national security adviser were leaked by the FBI or the NSA to the media. That’s the Deep State at work.
Revenge of the Deep State
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc and Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Within days of Trump’s inauguration
Yup. And within days of Trump getting the official nomination, Brennan, who was normally MIA in the press, suddenly became a fixture in the news cycle, with relentless snarks and snipes about how despicable and unqualified candidate Trump was for president. He went from quiet and invisible in the shadows to loud and brightly lit. It was so obvious as to be jarring. One couldn't help but to think he doth protest too much
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Watch the MSM fall over themselves and explode with fake outrage to defend Brennan, et al, and their security clearances. Already it's being framed as Trump punishing people for criticizing him, and of course, the "unprecedented" word gets bandied about as if that is important.

Prior to 2016 former intel officials kept their mouths shut and didn't wade into partisan politics. That's no longer the case, so they might pay the price for that.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Comey, what a manace. Tried to portray himself as apolitical. Now he delves in conspiracy theories and puts on the hat of a Democrat political consultant.
Screenshot_20180723-210045.png Screenshot_20180723-210231.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Yes, it's a little petty, and unprecedented ,for Trump to revoke security clearances for former Intel officials.

It's also just as petty, and unprecedented, for former Intel officials to partisanly publicly critize the current president.

You reap what you sow.

I do think it would be better to do a blanket rule for all former Intel officials, and then grant individual exceptions as warranted, rather than revoke individual clearances in a manner that screams partisan politics. But the president has the sole authority to grant or deny clearances and access to information. Even SCOTUS resoundingly affirmed that one.

I do think it's laugh out loud funny how WaPo, NYT, CNN and the others are just beside themselves over the fact that Trump can grant and revoke clearances at will. As one WaPo writer put it, while spittin' bubbles as he typed Trump could deny clearances to people who's first name begins with "J" and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Incidentally, when Clapper, Hayden and others say they no longer get classified briefings, so losing their clearance doesn't matter, they're lying their ass off. They aren't getting briefings, that's almost certainly true, but losing clearance is big deal, as they no longer have access to their own work. Plus, having your clearance revoked is embarrassing. Having a Top Secret security clearance is a big, fat, hairy status symbol in intel and security circles, and not having one excludes you from many, many conversations. And jobs
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
I think it's another case of the NYT working overtime to create a FAKE NEWS narrative. I can see Rosenstein saying that about a wire, sarcastically. But not seriously. Sarcastically makes sense, seriously does not, even if we assume Rosenstein is as wicked and evil as Fox News makes him out to be at times.

hen Rosenstein says, "...a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda," DING DING DING that's the right answer.

As for who benefits from Rosenstein being fired, Jeff Sessions immediately comes to mind. <snort> But it could be anybody who doesn't like Rosenstein.

Johnny-On-The-Spot Schumer said, "This story must not be used as a pretext for the corrupt purpose of firing Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein..." but if can be proven that Rosenstein sad it (the wire or the 25th amendment), and was serious, it wouldn't be corrupt at all to fire Rosenstein. It would be for insubordination, straight up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
He could have been sarcastic when talking about a wire. Context is important here. Sources also said he was "serious". Serious about what? Serious about the wearing a wire or serious about his pushback against McCabe's demands and using absurd sarcasm liking saying something like "what do you want me do wear a wire or something?"
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
I think Rosenstein was exactly as serious about wearing a wire and secretly recording the president, as the president was when he asked Russia to find Hillary's missing emails.

Rosenstein didn't shield McCabe, and I think this is McCabe trying to get revenge, wanting Rosenstein to get fired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly
Top