General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDevin Nunes Has Top Secret Clearance Revoked
Sources with links to the intelligence community report that Devin Nunes, the former leader of the Russia inquiry, and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee* has had his TS/SCI clearance revoked.
https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/31/exclusive-devin-nunes-top-secret-clearance-has-been-revoked/
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)Security clearances don't just get revoked. The person would get a notice called a Statement of Reasons, and they have the opportunity to appeal the revocation. While Nunes probably deserves to lose his clearance, if the relevant agency (probably the State Department) wanted to revoke it, they would have to follow required procedures, which take time. And who's in charge of the State Department these days?
So... take this, like all of Louise Mensch's "news," with a grain of salt. Maybe a whole salt lick.
Added: We've been reminded (below) that members of Congress don't actually need security clearances; the intelligence agencies give the appropriate committees whatever classified information the agencies determine they need for their work.
Which further proves Mensch is out to lunch, again.
Amaryllis
(9,525 posts)Kleveland
(1,257 posts)Though it would be grand!
Midnight Writer
(21,795 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)more than enough time for him to lose the top secret designation. (Patribotics doesn't claim he has no security clearance -- just not the top secret level.)
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)Mensch is not credible.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)give her the resources she needs to confirm the story she already confirmed.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)msongs
(67,441 posts)unblock
(52,317 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)drray23
(7,637 posts)the agency who issued it does that.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,240 posts)revoked, but the guest seemed to think the Orange One was the only one who could pull his clearance. Good to know.
FBaggins
(26,758 posts)The "agency" that grants security clearance to members of the House is called "the voters".
So unless he was removed from Congress and we all missed it... this is yet another example of LM not know what the heck she's talking about.
FlightRN
(194 posts)I sent him a letter that I probably should not have.
Warpy
(111,339 posts)and a slap on the rear, sober up, get over the hangover, discuss the best course of action over the next month, then lock the barn door.
It should have been revoked the day he skedaddled over to spill his guts to Asshole rather than clue in his committee.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)impressive.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)Or is this horseshit?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)As far as I'm concerned it's at least presumptively horseshit, like so many of Mensch's other "news" stories. If it turns out to be true, great; but I'm not impressed by a story that doesn't appear anywhere else and that purports to come from "sources with links to the intelligence community," which doesn't mean crap.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)I doubt that it is on anywhere?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)Some good stuff coming out of Reuters and Newsweek, too - the print media seem to be doing a better job than TV. If the WaPo runs a story I'll believe it. They, and other reputable news outlets, don't normally publish a story unless they've corroborated it by at least two independent sources. Mensch publishes gossip and rumors.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)I agree. It is the print journalists that are doing the work on this scandal. CNN and MSNBC only report what they write.
PSPS
(13,614 posts)tandem5
(2,072 posts)onenote
(42,759 posts)Hard to "revoke" something that doesn't exist.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R43216.pdf
See page 4.
She's an idiot. Or maybe she thinks we're idiots.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)but doesn't say whether they automatically have access to top secret or SCI classified materials.
I know I've heard about all members of Congress NOT having access to the highest levels of classified material. Ted Kennedy once said that he didn't blame other Dems who voted for Iraq because they didn't have access to all the classified materials that he did.
onenote
(42,759 posts)From the CIA website:
All Members of Congress have access to intelligence by virtue of their elected positions. They do not receive security clearances per se.
Mensch claims Nunes security clearance has been "revoked". Which would be quite the trick since he doesn't have one to revoke.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)onenote
(42,759 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)But House members do take a secrecy oath and there are consequences for violating it.
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2014/06/28/congressional-staff-members-required-obtain-security-clearances/
House members and staff must take a self-imposed secrecy oath, while the Senate does not.
Once a congressional or judicial staff member are read in, he/she should receive training on how to properly protect classified information.
They also receive a clarification of the consequences when he/she does not properly protect classified information.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)It doesn't say Nunes is being sanctioned in some way for misusing or disclosing classified information; it says *his security clearance has been revoked*, which obviously can't be true. I don't see any point in following Mensch's little games of Telephone that get basic facts wrong and don't lead to anything that can be confirmed.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)She didn't say his security clearance was revoked. She said his TOP SECRET clearance was revoked. And then she went on to say:
"Mr. Nunes still retains a security clearance, sources say. But he has been denied access to the most sensitive intelligence information."
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)She also said "Mr. Nunes still retains a security clearance, sources say." That can't be true, either, since as a member of Congress he wouldn't have had *any* kind of security clearance. And if, in fact, he is being denied access to some of the information that is most likely being done internally by the committee itself.
onenote
(42,759 posts)She said he had his security clearance revoked. As much as you don't want to admit it, the fact is that can't be true because there is no process for granting or revoking security clearances. They have security clearance simply by virtue of getting elected.
And yes the House (but not the Senate) requires its members to take a "secrecy oath." Violations of the oath are investigated by the House as violations of its rules -- not by the intelligence agencies.
If you think the republican-majority Congress has investigated and taken action against Nunes for violating his secrecy oath, I have a bridge to sell you.
Just give it up already. Your hero Mensch is a con-woman. And she's taken you in.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)She said his TOP secret clearance was revoked. And then she said:
"Mr. Nunes still retains a security clearance, sources say. But he has been denied access to the most sensitive intelligence information. "
And there is a process for dealing with violations, and members of Congress are informed about it. How do you know it doesn't include limiting access to the most secret classified material?
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2014/06/28/congressional-staff-members-required-obtain-security-clearances/
House members and staff must take a self-imposed secrecy oath, while the Senate does not.
Once a congressional or judicial staff member are read in, he/she should receive training on how to properly protect classified information.
They also receive a clarification of the consequences when he/she does not properly protect classified information.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)He never had any kind of security clearance! Just give up; Louise is full of shit - again.
onenote
(42,759 posts)They don't get top secret security clearances. They don't get Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearances. THEY DON"T GET CLEARANCES.
The intelligence agencies don't enforce clearance rules against members of Congress. Congress enforces its "secrecy oath". And you have to be the only person on earth who would believe the Republican House would take action against Nunes for violating that oath (which isn't even required of members of the Senate).
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)of top secret info, info that can only be viewed in a SCIF?
onenote
(42,759 posts)They don't get security clearances. They have access to intelligence materials subject only to the limitation that intelligence agencies tend to give out such information on a "need to know" basis, with intelligence committee members given priority. To the extent there is a "secrecy oath" (which is the case only in the House not the Senate), its a House rule, enforced by the House.
I know you want to believe in Mensch, but she's making you look silly.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)except to say there ARE consequences. So the question is still left -- what are the consequences of a breach, and could they include limiting access to the most secret materials?
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2014/06/28/congressional-staff-members-required-obtain-security-clearances/
House members and staff must take a self-imposed secrecy oath, while the Senate does not.
Once a congressional or judicial staff member are read in, he/she should receive training on how to properly protect classified information.
They also receive a clarification of the consequences when he/she does not properly protect classified information.
onenote
(42,759 posts)You're not rational about this. You want to believe. I get it. But the reality is that Nunes didn't have any kind of security clearance and there was nothing that could be revoked. The consequences of violating the House-only secrecy oath are in the first instance imposed by the House. Intelligence agencies give information to the committees with intelligence subject matter jurisdiction. If you think the House majority on the Intelligence Committee is punishing Nunes by withholding information from him, you're more naive than I thought.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)It's not distributed to all of the members.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)that are not necessary for his work.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)for managing how it's used or who sees it. I don't think there's any way for the FBI or the CIA or whoever to give classified material to a House committee but with the restriction that Congressman So-and-So must not be allowed to see it.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)"Classified intelligence reports(1) are routinely provided only to the committees that have responsibilities in the national security area.(2) Members of these committees receive preference from the Intelligence Community in satisfying their requests on an individual basis. Among the national security committees, the intelligence committees and their Members are accorded preferential treatment..." https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm
If a member of Congress does improperly disclose classified information, as a practical matter the consequences are more likely to be political than legal. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/06/senate_intelligence_hints_at_prism_can_members_of_congress_be_tried_for.html
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)That doesn't mean they're non-existent, or they couldn't include preventing access to top secret or SCI materials.
And there is this -- which states there ARE consequences.
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2014/06/28/congressional-staff-members-required-obtain-security-clearances/
House members and staff must take a self-imposed secrecy oath, while the Senate does not.
Once a congressional or judicial staff member are read in, he/she should receive training on how to properly protect classified information.
They also receive a clarification of the consequences when he/she does not properly protect classified information.
onenote
(42,759 posts)And the statement about the legal ramifications being "murky" is based on the fact that members of Congress have certain immunities under the speech and debate clause but, according to the author, it has never been tested whether a member who disclosed secret information could be tried for treason. It has nothing to do with revoking non-existent security clearances.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)in how to handle classified materials, and I have seen nothing implying there are no consequences for deliberately mishandling them. Have you?
onenote
(42,759 posts)The House and Senate self-regulate. Believe me, I've worked up there although not with any intelligence committees.
This article is not at all confusing about how security breaches are handled:
Investigation of Security Breaches
The Senate Office of Security and the House counterpart are charged with investigating or coordinating investigations of suspected security violations by employees. In addition, investigations by the House and Senate Ethics Committees of suspected breaches of security are authorized by each chambers rules, directly and indirectly. The Senate Ethics Committee, importantly, has the broad duty to receive complaints and investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and violations of rules and regulations of the Senate. The panel is also directed to investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence information [from the Senate Intelligence Committee] by a Member, officer or employee of the Senate. The House, in creating its Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, issued similar instructions. H.Res. 658 ordered the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence or intelligence-related information [from the House Intelligence Committee] by a Member, officer, or employee of the House.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS20748.pdf
These are formal procedures. If there had been a complaint and an investigation of Nunes by the Republican majority house we'd know. Mensch is wrong. And you are wrong to try so desperately to defend her.
By the way, we're approaching the second month anniversary of the April arrests she said were about to happen. How'd that work out?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)both of whom are naught but gossips and rumor-mongers looking for hits on their blogs (and contributions to help them "investigate" , have acquired such a devoted following, since none of their big "scoops" have actually panned out. There's so much really juicy news coming from reputable news outlets - CNN never has to take down its BREAKING NEWS chyron any more - that there's no need to hang on every scrap of fake (or at least unsourced) news from obscure bloggers. We all want Trump and his repulsive collection of orcs and trolls to go away as soon as possible, but being taken in by the left's version of Drudge won't make that happen any faster.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 3, 2017, 05:32 AM - Edit history (1)
Committee.
"If there had been a complaint and an investigation of Nunes by the Republican majority house we'd know."
Yes, we would know and we do know. He IS being investigated, even though the House has a Republican majority. In fact, even though the Ethics Committee comprises equal numbers of R's and Dems, it elected to start "the Nunes investigation on its own," rather than wait for the Office of Congressional Ethics to consider it first.
This is the most recent release by the House Ethics Committee:
http://ethics.house.gov/media-center
"The Committee is aware of public allegations that Representative Devin Nunes may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information, in violation of House Rules, law, regulations, or other standards of conduct. The Committee, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), is investigating and gathering more information regarding these allegations.
"The Committee has determined to investigate these allegations in order to fulfill its institutional obligation, under House Rule X, clause 11(g)(4), to investigate certain allegations of unauthorized disclosures of classified information, and to determine if there has been any violation of the Code of Official Conduct under House Rule XXIII, clause 13. The Committee notes that the mere fact that it is investigating these allegations, and publicly disclosing its review, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee.
" In order to comply with Committee Rule 7 regarding confidentiality, out of fairness to all respondents, and to assure the integrity of its work, the Committee will refrain from making further public statements on this matter pending completion of its initial review."
______________________________________________-
The Ethics Committee elected to start the investigation and, with an evenly divided membership, at least one Republican must have joined the Democrats in making the decision.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-nunes-intelligence-committee-20170525-story.html
"The House Ethics Committee has no deadline to finish its work, and such investigations can take months, or years. Rob Walker, former chief counsel and staff director of the Senate and House ethics committees, said the investigation is probably still in the information-gathering stage, and staff members will have to get security clearance to even get access to some of the intelligence information in question.
SNIP
"The committee has oversight over questions of how classified information is handled. It started the investigation into Nunes' conduct on its own, rather than following normal procedure of having the nonpartisan Office of Congressional Ethics take a precursory look."
________________________
As of May 30, according to the WA Post, the investigation was still ongoing. More info here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9152512
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Sorry but I don't buy this story.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,836 posts)As the above posts indicate, Nunes can't have had his "top secret" security clearance revoked because members of Congress don't get security clearances of any kind. They are not considered to need them (yeah, I know, right?); the intelligence agencies give the appropriate committees classified information only as needed. As usual, Mensch's story is unsourced gossip that gets the basic facts wrong.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Nunes for his handling of classified material?
It isn't true that he had NO security clearance. He was cleared to view classified materials -- in other words, he had a security clearance. But he didn't have to APPLY and get APPROVED for one. He was AUTOMATICALLY granted a security clearance based on his position as a Congressman.
But now, it is entirely plausible that while he is being investigated, his ability to view top secret or SCIF materials has been limited by an action of the House Ethics Committee, which is made up of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats.
No one has posted the House rules that apply to his current situation -- when a House member is under investigation for violating security rules for classified information. I haven't seen anything that says being barred from access to top secret or SCIF materials, at least while an investigation is still ongoing, is NOT a possible consequence of mishandling them.
And as of May 30, according to the WA Post report below, he had NOT been cleared in the investigation of his own actions, and he had not resumed his position leading the Russia investigation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/devin-nunes-the-congressman-who-nearly-derailed-the-houses-investigation-into-russia-is-blaming-democrats/?utm_term=.65bae938e06d
May 30, 2017
The last time we heard from the chair of the House committee leading an investigation into Russia meddling, it was in April, when Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) announced that he was temporarily stepping down from leading the investigation because he's under investigation for his handling of the investigation.
The House Ethics Committee (made up of an even number of Democrats and Republicans in Congress) is looking into whether Nunes improperly shared classified information.
SNIP
The status of his colleagues' ethics investigation into Nunes isn't clear, but Nunes's feelings about the whole Russia investigation are VERY clear: He blames Democrats for sidelining it.
SNIP
If Nunes does take over the Russia investigation again (he says he will once the ethics committee clears him), he appears to have no interest in assuaging people's concerns that he'll lead the Russia investigation impartially.
_________________
A statement from the House Ethics Committee is here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9152515
onenote
(42,759 posts)The House Ethics Committee rules discuss the actions it can take upon completion of its investigation and the related adjudicatory process. Apart from issuing a "Letter of Reproval" its does not take direct action. Rather it recommends what it feels is an appropriate sanction to the full House. One category of sanction it can recommend is limiting a particular right or privilege enjoyed by the House member to the extent such limitation is consistent with the Constitution.
So maybe the Ethics Committee could recommend to the full House that Nunes be stripped of his right and privilege to have access to certain levels of secret information.
BUT...as you acknowledge, the House Ethics committee investigation is still underway. And the Ethics Committee itself has stated that "The Committee notes that the mere fact that it is investigating these allegations, and publicly disclosing its review, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee.
Even if the Committee has reached a judgment, it can't act on its own to punish Nunes. It can recommend a punishment to the full House.
By the way, as Mensch belatedly acknowledged, Nunes remains chair of the committee and while he has (sort of) recused himself from the Russia investigation the Committee's oversight with respect to intelligence matters goes beyond the Russia investigation and there is no indication that he is not involved in other committee activities that involve access to secret information.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)him for possibly violating the rules for handling secret or SCIF materials, I wouldn't view that as a "punishment" or "sanction." It would seem to be a justified precaution.
And I haven't seen any rule that prevents them from doing so.
onenote
(42,759 posts)They're pretty clear. For example, Ethics Committee Rule 24 ("Sanction Hearing and Consideration of Sanctions or Other Recommendations" sets forth in some detail the rules governing the process by which the Committee, if after an adjudicatory hearing, finds that a "Statement of Violation" has been "proved", can RECOMMEND to the full House that some sanction be imposed on a Member. One of those sanctions expressly listed is: (5) Denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or immunity of the Member if under the Constitution the House of Representatives may impose such denial or limitation. The only action identified that the Committee itself can take directly is the adoption of a Letter of Reproval. (Also see Committee Rule 10).
In addition to the above, the House Rules contain pages upon pages of very detailed rules governing both the Ethics Committee and the Intelligence Committee. The rule governing the Ethics Committee (XI(3) states that The committee may recommend to the House from time to time such administrative actions as it may consider appropriate to establish or enforce standards of official conduct for Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and employ- ees of the House. A letter of reproval or other administrative action of the committee pursuant to an investigation under subparagraph (2) shall only be issued or implemented as a part of a report required by such subparagraph.
The rules governing the Intelligence Committee (X(11)(4) and (5) state
that the committee "shall investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence or intelligence-related information by a Member...and report to the House concerning any allegation that it finds to be unsubstantiated....If, at the conclusion of its investigation, the Committee on Ethics determines that there has been a significant breach of confidentiality or unauthorized disclosure by a Member...it shall report its findings to the House and recommend appropriate action.
In all of these detailed rules there is not one word suggesting that the Ethics Committee itself has the authority to impose any restriction or other sanction on a member being investigated, let alone do so before the investigation has been fully completed and a decision reached pursuant to the committee's specific procedural rules.
You seem to be of the view that an entity of government has the power to do anything that is not expressly, by rule, denied to it, even if the rules governing that entity contain very specific grants of authority. I doubt that you actually hold to that view generally. It certainly is a view that I would expect Mr. Trump to hold -- that unless and until someone can show him where he is expressly barred from doing something, he has the power to do it.
Cattledog
(5,919 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Let me go see what other news outlets are saying about it...
Wait...nobody is reporting that. Why? See, I wonder about things like that. It should be a big story, covered by all the major papers and networks, right?
So, what conclusion should I draw from this?
1. Are all of the major news outlets deliberately sitting on this important story?
2. Or, is Louise Mensch throwing another handful of past on the kitchen wall?
I think I'll go with number two. It sounds like crap to me anyhow.