Trump Revokes Brennan's Security Clearance

aviationaware · Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:35 pm

President Trump has finally removed former CIA director John Brennan's security clearance.

I never understood how those clearances are not tied to terms in office. We shouldn't even be having this discussion. No retiree needs to be able to see classified documents.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... -clearance

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:41 pm

This should be an area that both sides of the aisle agree on.

trpmb6 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:43 pm

He didn't have access to classified documents willy-nilly. After being debriefed, he'd have the same 2 year window to find a new "sponsor" with a need to know just like anyone else to keep his clearance active.

Since he likely didn't have a "need to know" he probably hasn't seen anything in recent times. Everyone gets 2 years. It's to help people who get laid off find another industry job for instance. That doesn't mean you can walk into a facility and access anything you want. It's tightly controlled.

In a white house / upper echelon government scenario people like Brennan could be brought in as a consultant and "read-in" to whatever was needing to be discussed that day. Likely some policy or situation they had experience with.

All this does is prevent brennan from finding consultant work that utilizes his clearance. Nothing nefarious here and really doesn't impact brennan much either really.

aviationaware · Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:49 pm

Well, Brennan's media cronies at CNN, where he is an 'analyst', are already in outrage mode - that's probably because they just lost their #1 source for leaks.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:55 pm

A publicized political move by a pathetically vindictive president.

It was probably in response to this very accurate/prescient quote on twitter.

Especially considering the security clearances were revoked in July.

https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/ ... 5843517440

"It’s astounding how often you fail to live up to minimum standards of decency, civility, & probity. Seems like you will never understand what it means to be president, nor what it takes to be a good, decent, & honest person. So disheartening, so dangerous for our Nation."

LMP737 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:59 pm

aviationaware wrote:
President Trump has finally removed former CIA director John Brennan's security clearance.

I never understood how those clearances are not tied to terms in office. We shouldn't even be having this discussion. No retiree needs to be able to see classified documents.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... -clearance

Do you know how security clearances work?

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:07 pm

aviationaware wrote:
LMP737 wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
President Trump has finally removed former CIA director John Brennan's security clearance.

I never understood how those clearances are not tied to terms in office. We shouldn't even be having this discussion. No retiree needs to be able to see classified documents.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... -clearance

Do you know how security clearances work?

I certainly know a retiree doesn't need one.

Then those clearances would lapse. However, if Brennan is ever needed to explain something that happened on his watch as a contractor. He won't have the clearances to review any new info for it's relevance.

aviationaware · Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:11 pm

Then he can get a special clearance with a specific scope. He does not need to be able to see any top secret documents he wants. He has obviously had access to those documents, otherwise he couldn't have leaked their contents to the press. Now that might continue, but at least we know that the person giving him access to those documents is now a felon.
Also, what should Brennan have to explain other than how he abused his power by spying on congress?

MaverickM11 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:17 pm

Pointless, vindictive, and dumb. Yep it’s classic Trump. The only thing missing is the inevitable self induced crisis for Trump.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:31 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Then he can get a special clearance with a specific scope. He does not need to be able to see any top secret documents he wants. He has obviously had access to those documents, otherwise he couldn't have leaked their contents to the press. Now that might continue, but at least we know that the person giving him access to those documents is now a felon.
Also, what should Brennan have to explain other than how he abused his power by spying on congress?

If you were a real defender of the constitution, you would be more concerned about how the President is abusing his powers to punish political opponents for expressing their 1st Amendment opinions.

alfa164 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:32 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
This should be an area that both sides of the aisle agree on.

How about we all agree that indicted and guilty-pleading Michael Flynn should have his security clearances revoked?

But Trump hasn't done that... I wonder why... :roll:

MaverickM11 wrote:
Pointless, vindictive, and dumb. Yep it’s classic Trump. The only thing missing is the inevitable self induced crisis for Trump.

What else would you expect from a thin-skinned narcissist?

Tugger · Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:35 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
Pointless, vindictive, and dumb. Yep it’s classic Trump.

Exactly my thoughts on it.
Unnecessary but hey cheap shots are what he is about soo there you go! Carry on.

Tugg

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:38 pm

I look forward to the majority here defending former Trump administration officials keeping their security clearances when Trump is no longer in office.

Tugger · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:01 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
I look forward to the majority here defending former Trump administration officials keeping their security clearances when Trump is no longer in office.

It will be a non issue.

Of course because of this dense move by Trump it will now probably be a "something" because someone somewhere will point out someone who is abusing their clearance but we'll have to wait and see. At this point I'll bet dimes to donuts that it is a non-issue for what ever next administration (non-trumpian) comes along, Republican or Democrat.

Tugg

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:04 pm

https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/ ... 4230865920

Another tweet by Brennan. Spoken by a True American.

"This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out. My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent."

LMP737 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:08 pm

casinterest wrote:
https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/1029830514230865920

Another tweet by Brennan. Spoken by a True American.

"This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out. My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent."

Of course it is. And it points out the hypocrisy of people on this thread defending this. You know if Hillary Clinton or Obama had done the same thing they would have had a stroke.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:16 pm

Politico has a very well reasoned piece about this.

One particularly sensible quote:
“your security clearance is not supposed to be useful to you; it’s supposed to be useful to the government. If you are attacking the administration every day—if you are literally calling the president a traitor, as Brennan has—there is very little chance that you will be consulted. Officials will keep clear of you, so you’ve destroyed the utility of giving you a security clearance.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... den-219038

Brennan seems to have forgotten that his clearance is not about him.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:16 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
I look forward to the majority here defending former Trump administration officials keeping their security clearances when Trump is no longer in office.

They would have to have Honor and Integrity. You won't find that with many Trump staffers.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:19 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
Politico has a very well reasoned piece about this.

One particularly sensible quote:
“your security clearance is not supposed to be useful to you; it’s supposed to be useful to the government. If you are attacking the administration every day—if you are literally calling the president a traitor, as Brennan has—there is very little chance that you will be consulted. Officials will keep clear of you, so you’ve destroyed the utility of giving you a security clearance.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... den-219038

Brennan seems to have forgotten that his clearance is not about him.

The Government is more than the President. It is the of the people,by the people, and for the people.

For the President to abuse his power to single out criticism is an abuse of power. The criticism John Brennan has levied on Trump has been true , and forced retractions from Trump on inappropriate actions.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:23 pm

Bookmark this article as it highlights very true statements about this presidency
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... ched-trump

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:28 pm

casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
Politico has a very well reasoned piece about this.

One particularly sensible quote:
“your security clearance is not supposed to be useful to you; it’s supposed to be useful to the government. If you are attacking the administration every day—if you are literally calling the president a traitor, as Brennan has—there is very little chance that you will be consulted. Officials will keep clear of you, so you’ve destroyed the utility of giving you a security clearance.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... den-219038

Brennan seems to have forgotten that his clearance is not about him.

The Government is more than the President. It is the of the people,by the people, and for the people.

For the President to abuse his power to single out criticism is an abuse of power. The criticism John Brennan has levied on Trump has been true , and forced retractions from Trump on inappropriate actions.

Brennan, through his own voluntary actions, made the purpose of the clearance moot.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:33 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
Politico has a very well reasoned piece about this.

One particularly sensible quote:
“your security clearance is not supposed to be useful to you; it’s supposed to be useful to the government. If you are attacking the administration every day—if you are literally calling the president a traitor, as Brennan has—there is very little chance that you will be consulted. Officials will keep clear of you, so you’ve destroyed the utility of giving you a security clearance.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... den-219038

Brennan seems to have forgotten that his clearance is not about him.

The Government is more than the President. It is the of the people,by the people, and for the people.

For the President to abuse his power to single out criticism is an abuse of power. The criticism John Brennan has levied on Trump has been true , and forced retractions from Trump on inappropriate actions.

Brennan, through his own voluntary actions, made the purpose of the clearance moot.

He made it know that we have a very deplorable person serving as the President of this country. He did not disparage the Country. His clearance was not moot.

seb146 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:34 pm

In previous administrations, various figures have held different levels of security clearance after the government passes from one leader to another. Do you really expect everything to simply flip over with no briefings or paperwork or any kind of communication at all? Before this administration, I mean?

As far back as FDR (or even further) I would expect security clearances to be held by outgoing administration officials. I don't know why it would be a big deal for Obama's team to still have some level of security clearance.

I still want to know why Ivanka, Eric, Donnie Jr., and Amarosa all have security clearances as high as they do/did? Some low level clearance, I can understand. I am sure even Barron has a lower level security clearance. That does not bother me. What bothers me is just giving out high clearances to close family for no real reason.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:44 pm

Did either of you read the Politico article? How do you address those cogent points? Are you suggesting that you know better than someone who has actually stood in these shoes?

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:52 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
Did either of you read the Politico article? How do you address those cogent points? Are you suggesting that you know better than someone who has actually stood in these shoes?

Have you read the constitution? All you have to do is make it to the first amendment to understand that your article has no Cogent points.

Here is a Politico article with this very tangible point.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/ ... nan-778791

"“Will the republic stand or fall on whether John retains his access to classified information, or mine or any others that were named? Of course not,“ he said. “The larger issue here, to me, throughout has been infringement on First Amendment rights. And I think people ought to think seriously about that.“:

EstherLouise · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:54 pm

I tend to be a center lefty. But, I favor the blanket withdrawal of former employees' security clearances. That's what happens in the private sector. Why not do the same in the public sector? If a former employee needs to work on a project, issue him/her a temporary, limited credential. When I ran a public nonprofit, I cancelled those security passes as soon as the door hit them in the ass on the way out. Brought back a chief that retired ten years earlier to do a consultation project. Just gave him only what he needed to do the job.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:57 pm

EstherLouise wrote:
I tend to be a center lefty. But, I favor the blanket withdrawal of former employees' security clearances. That's what happens in the private sector. Why not do the same in the public sector? If a former employee needs to work on a project, issue him/her a temporary, limited credential. When I ran a public nonprofit, I cancelled those security passes as soon as the door hit them in the ass on the way out. Brought back a chief that retired ten years earlier to do a consultation project. Just gave him only what he needed to do the job.

That would be a policy change

. This issue is about the current actions by the president which were politically motivated to generate support from his woefully misinformed base. It was retaliation for first amendment rights.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:02 pm

casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
Did either of you read the Politico article? How do you address those cogent points? Are you suggesting that you know better than someone who has actually stood in these shoes?

Have you read the constitution? All you have to do is make it to the first amendment to understand that your article has no Cogent points.

Here is a Politico article with this very tangible point.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/ ... nan-778791

"“Will the republic stand or fall on whether John retains his access to classified information, or mine or any others that were named? Of course not,“ he said. “The larger issue here, to me, throughout has been infringement on First Amendment rights. And I think people ought to think seriously about that.“:

The First Amendment doesn’t give a right to a security clearance. It gives a right to speech. Brennan is still perfectly able to exercise that right so I’m not seeing how this violates the First Amendment. Do you have an example of the government preventing his ability to speak? I just see an unsupported conclusion.

MaverickM11 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:03 pm

Trump accuses Brennan of making " a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations – wild outbursts on the internet and television "

....I mean... :scratchchin:

LMP737 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:04 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
The First Amendment doesn’t give a right to a security clearance. It gives a right to speech. Brennan is still perfectly able to exercise that right so I’m not seeing how this violates the First Amendment. Do you have an example of the government preventing his ability to speak? I just see an unsupported conclusion.

Here's what I want you to do. Prove that John Brennan is a security risk.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:10 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
Did either of you read the Politico article? How do you address those cogent points? Are you suggesting that you know better than someone who has actually stood in these shoes?

Have you read the constitution? All you have to do is make it to the first amendment to understand that your article has no Cogent points.

Here is a Politico article with this very tangible point.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/ ... nan-778791

"“Will the republic stand or fall on whether John retains his access to classified information, or mine or any others that were named? Of course not,“ he said. “The larger issue here, to me, throughout has been infringement on First Amendment rights. And I think people ought to think seriously about that.“:

The First Amendment doesn’t give a right to a security clearance. It gives a right to speech. Brennan is still perfectly able to exercise that right so I’m not seeing how this violates the First Amendment. Do you have an example of the government preventing his ability to speak? I just see an unsupported conclusion.

I never said and the article/qyi a security clearance was a right of the first amendment.

But the public revocation was retaliation for his exercising of first amendment rights is an abuse of power. Not very presidential. More like a Facist or a dictator. Wouldn't you agree?

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:10 pm

LMP737 wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
The First Amendment doesn’t give a right to a security clearance. It gives a right to speech. Brennan is still perfectly able to exercise that right so I’m not seeing how this violates the First Amendment. Do you have an example of the government preventing his ability to speak? I just see an unsupported conclusion.

Here's what I want you to do. Prove that John Brennan is a security risk.

I’m sure that you want me to have to do that since it is a distraction. There is simply no requirement that Brennan is a security risk in order to pull his clearance.

Let’s focus on what actually matters, which the Politico article I cited says very eloquently - is there a value to the sitting government for Brennan to keep his clearance? The article outlines the answer, which is, “no.” If there is no value, then it’s quite reasonable to revoke it. Trump is the executive, after all, and elections have consequences.

Respectfully, this faux outrage is why Trump’s polling remains remarkably resilient.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:12 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
LMP737 wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
The First Amendment doesn’t give a right to a security clearance. It gives a right to speech. Brennan is still perfectly able to exercise that right so I’m not seeing how this violates the First Amendment. Do you have an example of the government preventing his ability to speak? I just see an unsupported conclusion.

Here's what I want you to do. Prove that John Brennan is a security risk.

I’m sure that you want me to have to do that since it is a distraction. There is simply no requirement that Brennan is a security risk in order to pull his clearance.

Let’s focus on what actually matters, which the Politico article I cited says very eloquently - is there a value to the sitting government for Brennan to keep his clearance? The article outlines the answer, which is, “no.” If there is no value, then it’s quite reasonable to revoke it. Trump is the executive, after all, and elections have consequences.

Respectfully, this faux outrage is why Trump’s polling remains remarkably resilient.

I am sure the Germans of the 1930's would agree that elections have consequences .

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:13 pm

casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:

Have you read the constitution? All you have to do is make it to the first amendment to understand that your article has no Cogent points.

Here is a Politico article with this very tangible point.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/ ... nan-778791

"“Will the republic stand or fall on whether John retains his access to classified information, or mine or any others that were named? Of course not,“ he said. “The larger issue here, to me, throughout has been infringement on First Amendment rights. And I think people ought to think seriously about that.“:

The First Amendment doesn’t give a right to a security clearance. It gives a right to speech. Brennan is still perfectly able to exercise that right so I’m not seeing how this violates the First Amendment. Do you have an example of the government preventing his ability to speak? I just see an unsupported conclusion.

I never said and the article/qyi a security clearance was a right of the first amendment.

But the public revocation was retaliation for his exercising of first amendment rights is an abuse of power. Not very presidential. More like a Facist or a dictator. Wouldn't you agree?

Not at all. I agree with the points made in the article that I linked to which gives a very good reason why the security clearance had no value to the sitting government anymore. Brennan made his own bed and it’s reasonable that he is asked to live with the reasonable and foreseeable consequences of his voluntary actions.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:15 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
The First Amendment doesn’t give a right to a security clearance. It gives a right to speech. Brennan is still perfectly able to exercise that right so I’m not seeing how this violates the First Amendment. Do you have an example of the government preventing his ability to speak? I just see an unsupported conclusion.

I never said and the article/qyi a security clearance was a right of the first amendment.

But the public revocation was retaliation for his exercising of first amendment rights is an abuse of power. Not very presidential. More like a Facist or a dictator. Wouldn't you agree?

Not at all. I agree with the points made in the article that I linked to which gives a very good reason why the security clearance had no value to the sitting government anymore. Brennan made his own bed and it’s reasonable that he is asked to live with the reasonable and foreseeable consequences of his voluntary actions.

So you see NO Political motivation from the President then?

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:15 pm

casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
LMP737 wrote:

Here's what I want you to do. Prove that John Brennan is a security risk.

I’m sure that you want me to have to do that since it is a distraction. There is simply no requirement that Brennan is a security risk in order to pull his clearance.

Let’s focus on what actually matters, which the Politico article I cited says very eloquently - is there a value to the sitting government for Brennan to keep his clearance? The article outlines the answer, which is, “no.” If there is no value, then it’s quite reasonable to revoke it. Trump is the executive, after all, and elections have consequences.

Respectfully, this faux outrage is why Trump’s polling remains remarkably resilient.

I am sure the Germans of the 1930's would agree that elections have consequences .

Now you are just engaging in hyperbole, which is the hallmark of someone who knows that they have lost the argument. Make a factually based argument and I’m all ears.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:17 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
I’m sure that you want me to have to do that since it is a distraction. There is simply no requirement that Brennan is a security risk in order to pull his clearance.

Let’s focus on what actually matters, which the Politico article I cited says very eloquently - is there a value to the sitting government for Brennan to keep his clearance? The article outlines the answer, which is, “no.” If there is no value, then it’s quite reasonable to revoke it. Trump is the executive, after all, and elections have consequences.

Respectfully, this faux outrage is why Trump’s polling remains remarkably resilient.

I am sure the Germans of the 1930's would agree that elections have consequences .

Now you are just engaging in hyperbole, which is the hallmark of someone who knows that they have lost the argument. Make a factually based argument and I’m all ears.

I am only responding your initial hyperbole on "Election have consequences"
You already lost the argument.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:18 pm

casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:

I never said and the article/qyi a security clearance was a right of the first amendment.

But the public revocation was retaliation for his exercising of first amendment rights is an abuse of power. Not very presidential. More like a Facist or a dictator. Wouldn't you agree?

Not at all. I agree with the points made in the article that I linked to which gives a very good reason why the security clearance had no value to the sitting government anymore. Brennan made his own bed and it’s reasonable that he is asked to live with the reasonable and foreseeable consequences of his voluntary actions.

So you see NO Political motivation from the President then?

Are you asking me if a politician is political? Uh... sure. I’ve yet to see a President who wasn’t. That’s exactly why Obama said that elections have consequences and the parties are different.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:19 pm

casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:

I am sure the Germans of the 1930's would agree that elections have consequences .

Now you are just engaging in hyperbole, which is the hallmark of someone who knows that they have lost the argument. Make a factually based argument and I’m all ears.

I am only responding your initial hyperbole on "Election have consequences"
You already lost the argument.

Well... of the two of us I am the only one who has provided facts in support of their argument rather than mere unsupported conclusions. Let me know when you are ready to throw some facts into the ring.

And my comment was on point. Trump gets to decide whether or not the clearance is revoked. Neither Hillary nor Brennan get to decide.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:21 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
Not at all. I agree with the points made in the article that I linked to which gives a very good reason why the security clearance had no value to the sitting government anymore. Brennan made his own bed and it’s reasonable that he is asked to live with the reasonable and foreseeable consequences of his voluntary actions.

So you see NO Political motivation from the President then?

Are you asking me if a politician is political? Uh... sure. I’ve yet to see a President who wasn’t. That’s exactly why Obama said that elections have consequences and the parties are different.

If you think that the security clearance should have been revoked due to no value, then that would be policy. However this vindictive Orwellian President called a PRESS CONFERENCE to announce it. That is not a function of sound government. That is an abuse of power and retaliation for rights GUARANTEED In the constitution.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:26 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
Now you are just engaging in hyperbole, which is the hallmark of someone who knows that they have lost the argument. Make a factually based argument and I’m all ears.

I am only responding your initial hyperbole on "Election have consequences"
You already lost the argument.

Well... of the two of us I am the only one who has provided facts in support of their argument rather than mere unsupported conclusions. Let me know when you are ready to throw some facts into the ring.

And my comment was on point. Trump gets to decide whether or not the clearance is revoked. Neither Hillary nor Brennan get to decide.

I am using facts. Too bad you don't believe in the constitutional right to 1st amendment speech.

If Trump was to use the facts he used against Brennan, he would have to revoke his own clearance.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:27 pm

casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:

So you see NO Political motivation from the President then?

Are you asking me if a politician is political? Uh... sure. I’ve yet to see a President who wasn’t. That’s exactly why Obama said that elections have consequences and the parties are different.

If you think that the security clearance should have been revoked due to no value, then that would be policy. However this vindictive Orwellian President called a PRESS CONFERENCE to announce it. That is not a function of sound government. That is an abuse of power and retaliation for rights GUARANTEED In the constitution.

Okay, now you’ve moved the goal posts. So let’s go there. Trump is the duly elected President. He is the head of the Executive branch of government. He can call however many press conferences for whatever reason he wants. You may find it distasteful, but he can have whatever press conference he wants regardless of what your feelings are. He can also be vindictive. Lots of Presidents have been.

I appreciate that you have a bad taste in your mouth but your feelings don’t make anything Trump has done illegal.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:29 pm

casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:
I am only responding your initial hyperbole on "Election have consequences"
You already lost the argument.

Well... of the two of us I am the only one who has provided facts in support of their argument rather than mere unsupported conclusions. Let me know when you are ready to throw some facts into the ring.

And my comment was on point. Trump gets to decide whether or not the clearance is revoked. Neither Hillary nor Brennan get to decide.

I am using facts. Too bad you don't believe in the constitutional right to 1st amendment speech.

I do believe in the right. That’s why I’ve been begging you to give me a fact that establishes that the government has illegally restricted Brennan’s ability to speak! And I’m still begging!

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:30 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
Are you asking me if a politician is political? Uh... sure. I’ve yet to see a President who wasn’t. That’s exactly why Obama said that elections have consequences and the parties are different.

If you think that the security clearance should have been revoked due to no value, then that would be policy. However this vindictive Orwellian President called a PRESS CONFERENCE to announce it. That is not a function of sound government. That is an abuse of power and retaliation for rights GUARANTEED In the constitution.

Okay, now you’ve moved the goal posts. So let’s go there. Trump is the duly elected President. He is the head of the Executive branch of government. He can call however many press conferences for whatever reason he wants. You may find it distasteful, but he can have whatever press conference he wants regardless of what your feelings are. He can also be vindictive. Lots of Presidents have been.

I appreciate that you have a bad taste in your mouth but your feelings don’t make anything Trump has done illegal.

[/quote]
I didn't move any goalposts. the 1st amendment has been there since the constitution was ratified. Trump's retaliation is politically motivated and an ABSOLUTE ABUSE Of power. Calling a Press conference to expressly revoke security clearances should put a distaste in all honorable Americans.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:32 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
Well... of the two of us I am the only one who has provided facts in support of their argument rather than mere unsupported conclusions. Let me know when you are ready to throw some facts into the ring.

And my comment was on point. Trump gets to decide whether or not the clearance is revoked. Neither Hillary nor Brennan get to decide.

I am using facts. Too bad you don't believe in the constitutional right to 1st amendment speech.

I do believe in the right. That’s why I’ve been begging you to give me a fact that establishes that the government has illegally restricted Brennan’s ability to speak! And I’m still begging!

I never said that it restricted his rights to free speech. I know you like repeating your own lies, but please stop it.

So go beg on a literacy book

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:33 pm

casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:

If you think that the security clearance should have been revoked due to no value, then that would be policy. However this vindictive Orwellian President called a PRESS CONFERENCE to announce it. That is not a function of sound government. That is an abuse of power and retaliation for rights GUARANTEED In the constitution.

Okay, now you’ve moved the goal posts. So let’s go there. Trump is the duly elected President. He is the head of the Executive branch of government. He can call however many press conferences for whatever reason he wants. You may find it distasteful, but he can have whatever press conference he wants regardless of what your feelings are. He can also be vindictive. Lots of Presidents have been.

I appreciate that you have a bad taste in your mouth but your feelings don’t make anything Trump has done illegal.

I didn't move any goalposts. the 1st amendment has been there since the constitution was ratified. Trump's retaliation is politically motivated and an ABSOLUTE ABUSE Of power. Calling a Press conference to expressly revoke security clearances should put a distaste in all honorable Americans.[/quote]
You’ve done it again. You’ve made conclusory statements without any factual support. Give me facts establishing that Trump has done something that he is not legally permitted to do. What law did he break? You haven’t even said that.

VTKillarney · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:34 pm

casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:

I am using facts. Too bad you don't believe in the constitutional right to 1st amendment speech.

I do believe in the right. That’s why I’ve been begging you to give me a fact that establishes that the government has illegally restricted Brennan’s ability to speak! And I’m still begging!

I never said that it restricted his rights to free speech. I know you like repeating your own lies, but please stop it.

So go beg on a literacy book

Perfect. So we have established that there is not a First Amendment violation. So now we can move on from that.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:34 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
Okay, now you’ve moved the goal posts. So let’s go there. Trump is the duly elected President. He is the head of the Executive branch of government. He can call however many press conferences for whatever reason he wants. You may find it distasteful, but he can have whatever press conference he wants regardless of what your feelings are. He can also be vindictive. Lots of Presidents have been.

I appreciate that you have a bad taste in your mouth but your feelings don’t make anything Trump has done illegal.

I didn't move any goalposts. the 1st amendment has been there since the constitution was ratified. Trump's retaliation is politically motivated and an ABSOLUTE ABUSE Of power. Calling a Press conference to expressly revoke security clearances should put a distaste in all honorable Americans.

You’ve done it again. You’ve made conclusory statements without any factual support. Give me facts establishing that Trump has done something that he is not legally permitted to do. What law did he break? You haven’t even said that.[/quote]

I never said he broke the law. I said abuse of power.
Quit making up lies.

WarRI1 · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:35 pm

I have met unlikable, obnoxious people, egotistical people, petty people, greedy people, corrupt people, unfaithful, disrespectful, racist, and sexist, but never in my long life did I ever expect anyone with everyone of those personality defects to be in the White House. It confounds me, sickens me and scares me that this sick man still has so much support from his personality cult followers. Imagine he could not even mention an American Hero when signing a bill named after him was signed by this abhorrent man. As you know, I cannot bring myself to address him by any other title than a Buffoon and #####.

casinterest · Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:35 pm

VTKillarney wrote:
casinterest wrote:
VTKillarney wrote:
I do believe in the right. That’s why I’ve been begging you to give me a fact that establishes that the government has illegally restricted Brennan’s ability to speak! And I’m still begging!

I never said that it restricted his rights to free speech. I know you like repeating your own lies, but please stop it.

So go beg on a literacy book

Perfect. So we have established that there is not a First Amendment violation. So now we can move on from that.

Glad you caught up.
For those that understand the constitution, that was never an issue.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net