Posted on Aug 20, 2018
Gold Star Parents Rip Into Admiral Who Bashed Trump Over Brennan Clearance Revocation - Sara A....
616
9
5
6
6
0
Posted in these groups: 
Gold Star Families
Gold Star Families
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
3
3
0
0
0
0
The Admiral didn’t speak about Trump in his role as an Officer. So he is entitled to his beliefs as a man, a retiree, and a SEAL who also has seen more than his share of losses. He didn’t call the man any names either. He spoke up for what he felt was a targeted attack on someone else who doesn’t like Trumps politics and how he deals with people here and abroad. Had this been Obama or Bush, would the loss be any easier? I’m not going to say anything bad about the family of the fallen being they too are speaking their mind, as a family who lost a son. They’ve more than earned that right.
While the article has its place, to say their son would be honored to serve under Trump makes it seem they’re Trump supporters (which is fine), and take offense to the Admiral and Brennan personally rather than the situation itself. Loosing a loved one is never easy, you’ll never get past it, and you definitely don’t know the whole story of how your son died. He’s in a community where no family member ever gets the ‘whole truth’, and a whistleblower? The government cover up a lot of things, (training accidents for days remember), but there are certain things we don’t need to know. It won’t make the pain any less, and only leads to more questions that can’t/ won’t be answered.
You can’t ‘turn in’ your clearance yourself. Doesn’t work that way. It’s revoked or downgraded.
While the article has its place, to say their son would be honored to serve under Trump makes it seem they’re Trump supporters (which is fine), and take offense to the Admiral and Brennan personally rather than the situation itself. Loosing a loved one is never easy, you’ll never get past it, and you definitely don’t know the whole story of how your son died. He’s in a community where no family member ever gets the ‘whole truth’, and a whistleblower? The government cover up a lot of things, (training accidents for days remember), but there are certain things we don’t need to know. It won’t make the pain any less, and only leads to more questions that can’t/ won’t be answered.
You can’t ‘turn in’ your clearance yourself. Doesn’t work that way. It’s revoked or downgraded.
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
True, but he's still wrong and Brennan did in fact speak ill about Trump, falsely accusing him of treason, thus earning him the distrust of the President and in turn his clearance. Had Brennan used the Adm's approach, it might not have come to that.
But also bear in mind the Adm is treading on thin ice. Retiree or not, UCMJ still applies.
But also bear in mind the Adm is treading on thin ice. Retiree or not, UCMJ still applies.
(0)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin the Admiral still has the ability to speak his mind. Brennan does also. The Admiral is sticking up for apparent friend, so for someone to bring him back in to answer for his comments using the UCMJ would be a bad yet possible idea. McRaven would prevail if that happened. Plus imagine going to a Courts Martial and convincing a jury of his peers he is unable to speak his mind. Obama had a LTC retiree call him a pussy on national TV. That’s worse, and nothing happened to him UCMJ wise. Brennan is under no UCMJ unless he too was prior service. I could be wrong but the last person I’ve heard of being recalled for misconduct was a Army MG who’s at Fr. Belvior right now for sexual harassment He did while AD. Mattis won’t support that idea. But now that you mention it, the current DOJ tries to take people who used 1A to count for laughing. So I won’t be surprised either way
(0)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Did I say he doesn't have that ability? I don't think I did. Brennan also has the right too. But as I'm sure you know, having the right to do something does not absolve you of the repercussions caused by that speech. In the Adm's case, I don't believe he has crossed any lines, I only stated he is walking a fine line.
In Brennan's case he overstepped it, he knew did so, and he also tried to backtrack. He has subsequently demonstrated his political bias and hatred for President Trump too. Now tell me, if you were President (i.e. let's ignore the fact that Trump is currently our President) and the ex-CIA head accused you of treason along with other pretty personal attacks, what reason would you have to trust the expertise and experience which established the basis for his continued clearance? How do you know whether he's not working against you? Isn't that what the whole basis is behind retaining the clearance... to be able to consult with the former head's of significant government positions? Do you really think Trump would consult him now or even trust the information relayed to him by those who do?
I'll also point out, since you want to cite examples, that Gen McChrystal for disparaging remarks about the President (Obama) made by him and his subordinates (in private!). After the IG investigation, it was determined that there was no proof this ever happened, it was uncorroborated. Still, he subsequently retired as his career was pretty much over.
The LTC you speak of was Ralph Peters and I would agree that was a stupid thing to do and very much subject to UCMJ should anyone in the military pursue it. He was, however suspended by Fox News for a period of time for that comment. The question is whether it is worth the time and effort of the US military to put him in front of a court martial hearing. I think not. Peters also does not hold a security clearance, nor does he represent the former head of a significant organization within the Federal Government which is expected to be apolitical.
In Brennan's case he overstepped it, he knew did so, and he also tried to backtrack. He has subsequently demonstrated his political bias and hatred for President Trump too. Now tell me, if you were President (i.e. let's ignore the fact that Trump is currently our President) and the ex-CIA head accused you of treason along with other pretty personal attacks, what reason would you have to trust the expertise and experience which established the basis for his continued clearance? How do you know whether he's not working against you? Isn't that what the whole basis is behind retaining the clearance... to be able to consult with the former head's of significant government positions? Do you really think Trump would consult him now or even trust the information relayed to him by those who do?
I'll also point out, since you want to cite examples, that Gen McChrystal for disparaging remarks about the President (Obama) made by him and his subordinates (in private!). After the IG investigation, it was determined that there was no proof this ever happened, it was uncorroborated. Still, he subsequently retired as his career was pretty much over.
The LTC you speak of was Ralph Peters and I would agree that was a stupid thing to do and very much subject to UCMJ should anyone in the military pursue it. He was, however suspended by Fox News for a period of time for that comment. The question is whether it is worth the time and effort of the US military to put him in front of a court martial hearing. I think not. Peters also does not hold a security clearance, nor does he represent the former head of a significant organization within the Federal Government which is expected to be apolitical.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google