re: Well Well.... Looks like the Obama Admin scrubbed security clearances 2013

Not a reply to you junk. And I don’t have time to read 5-6 pages of this.

This can be summed up rather simply:

Being fired from FBI (or anyone else) = a dishonorable discharge.

You do not keep the benefits when you are fired.

As you were.

quote:

---

Shhh...Donnie gets to punish enemies...it's okay now.

---

What is the punishment?

quote:

---

Consult in time of crisis.

---

Example?

quote:

---

Only if that opinion is adverse to the party in power or just a blanket rule of rescission following any public statements?

---

boosiedumbass........,

quote:

---

Did they do it for expressing an opinion regarding politics?

---

Who did that?

Wait, are you suggesting that to be the reason for Brennan losing his clearance?

quote:

---

Did they do it for expressing an opinion regarding politics?

---

Adjudications generally made by those trained to do so and considered expert based on about a dozen categories. Their decisions can be challenged for the typical stuff like being arbitrary or not following procedure. But it's a high hurdle because it inherently involves a ton of subjective judgment. Their power comes via executive order, from the president, and the president is ultimately responsible, has ultimate authority, and constitutionally, is not bound in the same way as inferior officers. I believe the primary procedural safeguard the president has to adhere to is notification of review and opportunity to respond to an adverse decision. I think the leading case is Egan from SCOTUS.

"The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant...It should be obvious that no one has a "right" to a security clearance. The grant of a clearance requires an affirmative act of discretion on the part of the granting official. The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when "clearly consistent with the interests of the national security."...A clearance does not equate with passing judgment upon an individual's character. Instead, it is only an attempt to predict his possible future behavior and to assess whether, under compulsion of circumstances or for other reasons, he might compromise sensitive information. It may be based, to be sure, upon past or present conduct, but it also may be based upon concerns completely unrelated to conduct, 529*529 such as having close relatives residing in a country hostile to the United States. "[T]o be denied [clearance] on unspecified grounds in no way implies disloyalty or any other repugnant characteristic."...Thus, unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs..."
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 US 518 - Supreme Court 1988

The justification of this power by Trump was endorsed by Obama in EO 13526, IIRC. In fact, Obama expanded the pool of those that could still have access to information without a 'need to know'. In that pool are those former 'policy writing officials' and I assume people like Brennan fit into that category. If so, then he and the others certainly demand heavy scrutiny moving forward.

Ben Rhodes failed his clearance and Obama pushed him through. Imagine Trump doing this with a deputy nat sec advisor or head spook of the CIA.