TakeYouToTasker

You'll note that I asked a question in response to someone who attacked the President for not staging military photo ops in various foriegn theaters. I'll take this as you disagreeing with that poster's contentions?

Intellectual exercise: Let's pretend we aren't talking about President Trump. Let's talk about a possible future President 20 years from now. That President has 100% credible intelligence provided to him by the NSA that a federal election was rigged and a coup attempted by members of the civilian arms of US intelligence services. The President OKs a counter intelligence roll up on these individuals, the final goal being their exposure and prosecution, but it's a long process. Years long, if done properly, because the list of wrong doers involved includes leaders of the opposition political party, and simply throwing them in jail would cause mass civil unrest; so the cases made against them need to be 100% air tight and incontrovertible. Durring this process some of the highest ranking intelligence officials involved realize they're completely screwed, and begin to use their retained security clearances to hamper and harm the new government's prosecution efforts by attempting to sow public discord in order to seed a citizens rebellion when the arrests start to happen. Should the President be able to revoke the security clearances of those involved?

So, in a situation where there was an ongoing coup attempt a sitting President should be required to maintain security clearances of the coup plotters until after it's been adjudicated?

And yours are tied to your belief in a Russian/Trump collusion conspiracy which has yielded zero evidence, while the direct evidence of an ongoing coup attempt is voluminous and staggering.

Under his own power?

Our defense looks very solid, but man is our offensive line play discouraging.

That OpEd lacks context. Again, the President's words carry the two year long context of elements of the CIA, DOJ, and FBI working to rig a federal election, and stage a palace coup while John Brennan was heading up one of the agencies in question. That's not political or vindictive. The National Review piece in question carefully skips through that minefield, and attempts to place the removal of Brennan's clearances in a vacuum, marking it solely as a political decision, when it is decidedly not.

I'd argue that doesn't give a clear picture of real micro impacts. For the aggregate of all business transactions, that may be true (I'd be willing to entertain that argument), though I believe that the impacts in different industries and different regions are disparate; and that an over-arching macro picture doesn't give a fair accounting. For instance, looking at industries in which profit margins are narrow (5-10%), and low skilled labor cost are high (30-40%), the macro effects on the overall economy paper over what is happening to those industries.

But, to be clear, you're saying that wages only have a one sided impact on the macroeconomic picture, and that artificial wage increases have zero impact on low skilled employment levels?

The others "in the crosshairs" have been documented here, on this web forum, for almost two years, along with Brennan, as active participants in the rigging of the Presidential election and ongoing palace coup attempt. The names on that list come as no surprise to anyone who has been following along (compendiums provided by Greg). IE Brennan's co-conspirators. By the way, the President's list isn't comprehensive. Edit: I'm not ignoring the President's words, I'm giving them context, and explaining to you how what he said to the WSJ does not contradict the official White House release in any way, shape, or form.

So you're suggesting that wages are not an input into macroeconomic performance?

Context is incredibly important, and you've missed it. The President stated Brennan was at the root of the investigation, which if you read what the President has had to say about the investigation, was intentionally started based on a bed of lies perpetrated by Brennan as part of a plot to rig the federal election in favor of Hillary Clinton, and then continued to stage a palace coup once she lost and what they had done had been exposed. That's what the President was talking about. That's the only link between the Russian investigation and Brennan. The removal of Brennan's clearances in no way impact the ongoing investigation. Again, context is important. Brennan was the head of the CIA.

... It puts downward pressure on the number unskilled entry level positions. But, as you well know, that's not the only input. There are many other factors putting upward pressure on those positions. When labor becomes scarce due to a strong and growing economy, it lowers hiring standards. IE employers become more willing to dip deeper into the dredges of the labor pool. Things like drug tests, credit checks, and education levels go by the wayside as prospective employers have more difficulty finding qualified candidates.

Several things: What authority does the CIA have to start such an investigation? Do you know what their authority is chartered to be? John Brennan no longer works for the federal government. He is neither part nor party to the ongoing investigation. He has no role. How would removing the security clearance of a man who no longer works for the government, and isn't a part of the ongoing investigation in any way similar to the Saturday Night Massacre? The President didn't fire Brennan. Brennan has no role in the ongoing investigation. The removal of his security clearance doesn't have any impact of any sort on any function of government, or the investigation into the President. How is the removal of his clearances, which he held at the pleasure of the President, problematic in any way?

Again, not repeating is not the same as contradicting. The official release unequivocally makes room for what the President has to say to the Wall Street Journal, and does not contradict it in any way; but rather it expands on what the President had to say. And I'll ask you again, given that a former CIA director has no role in the ongoing investigation, and is not entitled to his security clearances; why there is any problem with the President revoking those clearances?

Right, but just because it wasn't repeated doesn't mean it's contradictory. Explain how it's contradictory.

Again, explain how what was reported by the Wall Street Journal contradicted the official policy statement from the White House.

How dare you assume that "she" properly articulated how she self identifies!!!

I'd ask you to read both again. The official statement does not contradict what was reported by the Wall Street Journal.

bull ****. How dare you assume gender!

You're missing my point. If we're talking about specific Constitutionally prescribed authority, on what grounds should branches of government not imbued with Constitutional authority be permitted to act against the Constitutionally prescribed duties of the third branch? There is no body of law higher than the Constitution. Also, as an aside, given your rejection of the very deliberate official statement given in regards to Brennan's loss of clearance, which it's important to note does not contradict, but rather expands on what the President said were his reasons, what role does a former government employee have in a current ongoing investigation of which he is neither part nor party?

I'm saying I'm not sure if they could. But the rest of your post makes no sense. If Congress couldn't legislate this, because it's a Constitutional issue, under what authority are you asserting the legislative and judicial branches could act which supersedes the Constitution?

So the President shouldn't have fluid authority over the executive branch as things change? And again, I don't think what you're describing, even if it were desirable, which it isn't, could be enacted by law because it modifies Constitutionally prescribed roles in the separation of powers. It would likely require amendment.

Can you provide a link? Twitter links are broken on my browser at the moment.

Pushing ahead with the plans to amend their Constitution to permit the government to seize the land of white farmers and business people without compensation. "We have not called for the killing of white people, at least for now."