View Full Version : Chief of Naval Intelligence Lost His Security Clearance - 2 Years Ago
You can't make this sh!t up...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27/the-admiral-in-charge-of-navy-intelligence-has-not-been-allowed-to-see-military-secrets-for-years/
Vice Adm. Ted “Twig” Branch has been barred from reading, seeing or hearing classified information since November 2013, when the Navy learned from the Justice Department that his name had surfaced in a giant corruption investigation involving a foreign defense contractor and scores of Navy personnel....
...Branch can’t meet with other senior U.S. intelligence leaders to discuss sensitive operations, or hear updates from his staff about secret missions or projects. It can be a chore just to set foot in colleagues’ offices; in keeping with regulations, they must conduct a sweep beforehand to make sure any classified documents are locked up.
It gets better. His deputy, the Chief of Naval Intelligence Operations, is in the same boat.
Sounds like a person unqualified to perform the responsibilities of their occupation. Why does he still hold his position?
Good timing for the article, my family knew this guy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Moose-Knuckle
01-28-16, 03:02
"If you like your security clearance you can keep your security clearance . . ."
Ole Twig will probably end up in HRC's cabinet.
Ole Twig will probably end up in HRC's cabinet.
He'll make a good fit. Hitlery herself shouldn't be able to get any security clearance, seeing as how she broke all sorts of laws, shared classified information for $$$ and threw Americans under the bus of Islam.
Sounds like a person unqualified to perform the responsibilities of their occupation. Why does he still hold his position?
Because the CinC isn't worth a flying monkey ****?
Ole Twig will probably end up in HRC's cabinet.
SecDef
crusader377
01-28-16, 12:17
You can't make this sh!t up...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27/the-admiral-in-charge-of-navy-intelligence-has-not-been-allowed-to-see-military-secrets-for-years/
It gets better. His deputy, the Chief of Naval Intelligence Operations, is in the same boat.
Why aren't both of these officers relieved of duty and forced out of the service? These senior officers should also be given dishonorable discharges and not allowed to have retirement benefits. IMO, an officer who can not hold a security clearance is about as useful as an infantryman who can't pass a PT test.
This would make an amusing JAG episode, just saying
sniperfrog
01-28-16, 13:12
At that rank its the "good ole boy" system at work. The CNI is probably good buddies with the CNO and the Sec of the Navy.
Dist. Expert 26
01-28-16, 13:22
Why aren't both of these officers relieved of duty and forced out of the service? These senior officers should also be given dishonorable discharges and not allowed to have retirement benefits. IMO, an officer who can not hold a security clearance is about as useful as an infantryman who can't pass a PT test.
This is the reality of the military under Obama. It's like some backwards alternate universe where only the worst get promoted and the best get out after years of frustration.
BTW there was a good segment of my company that regularly failed PFTs. None of them got kicked out.
The Navy hasn't done anything yet because the investigation is still ongoing. Obviously it shouldn't be taking this long, but that's why. This will probably force their hand now. And they can't suspend him because if he goes 30 days on that suspension, he'll be demoted automatically. That's not something you do when an investigation hasn't been concluded yet.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You don't have to suspend the guy but it's stupid to keep a guy with no clearance in an intelligence position for years
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Averageman
01-29-16, 10:40
You don't have to suspend the guy but it's stupid to keep a guy with no clearance in an intelligence position for years
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
If you don't move him, keeping him in place, even if he doesn't have any direct control or contact with any classified material only makes everyone around him job that much harder.
Not to speak of the credibility issue, if there is a possible issue or an investigation, take it out of play; it simply protects everyone.
You don't have to suspend the guy but it's stupid to keep a guy with no clearance in an intelligence position for years
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Well we kept Strom Thurmond in office long after he could even comprehend what was going on around him and Ruth Ginsberg has difficulty just staying awake.
Averageman
01-30-16, 04:33
This is the reality of the military under Obama. It's like some backwards alternate universe where only the worst get promoted and the best get out after years of frustration.
BTW there was a good segment of my company that regularly failed PFTs. None of them got kicked out.
This is the poison pill left behind by this administraion.
It used to be you stacked the courts, you put your people deep in to places where your influence would be felt long afte your time in office was done.
Now you leave a poison pill behind.
If you want to do the right thing you simply move the guy, put him somewhere until the investigation is over. Instead they leave him behind, leave him in a position where everyone he works with is going to have their mission made a little more difficult.
Anything, everything this guy touches while he is where he is....
Absent from the Navy doing the right thing, If he was doing the right thing, he would retire.
Where exactly do you move a three star? If the investigation hasn't concluded, no one knows for sure that he has done anything wrong. Therefore, moving him, which would very likely damage his career, isn't such a simple solution. I'm not necessarily defending any of this, but it's not as simple as most of you seem to think.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wake I agree. You need some evidence or good testimony to take action. Anyone can say anything about you.
Averageman
02-05-16, 06:31
Wake I agree. You need some evidence or good testimony to take action. Anyone can say anything about you.
No, the Military does not need evidence, only the preponderance of evidence to remove you from your job, Demote or QMP you, they can simply ask you to leave.
UCMJ has nothing to do with Justice as others live under it.
No, the Military does not need evidence, only the preponderance of evidence to remove you from your job,Demote or QMP you, or simply ask you to leave.
UCMJ has nothing to do with Justice as other live under it.
But the military probably wants to be sure any accusations are correct before removing a 3 STAR. That is not a minor ordeal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.