oldmanfan

Your entire series of comments in this thread are tied to your belief in this coup conspiracy.

Explain why not only Brennan but other are in the crosshairs because as the president stated they were supposedly involved in starting the Russian thing? We live in a bizarre world now where we are just supposed to assume what our president says is untrue and'/or ignore his actual words?

So you're saying you don't believe the president when he talks? Does this not concern you?

I don't necessarily think it is UNLESS the removal of that clearance would in some way block investigation of the president in the Russia thing. Would it? Don't know. But why did the president say he did so because of the Russia investigation? Nowhere did I say the CIA conducted any specific investigation.

There is no problem unless he does so to obstruct the investigation into his administration. Theoretically. And that is why the president saying he did so because of him supposedly starting the investigation is troubling. Again compare to Watergate and the Saturday Night Massacre. Did Nixon have the right to fire those guys? Constitutionally yes since they worked under the Executive branch. But the Congress and courts rightfully saw it as an abuse of power and used their constitutional authority. Here you go. I tried to copy the White House statement but I ciuldn't in my phone, but it's readily available "I call it the rigged witch hunt, (it) is a sham," Mr. Mr. Trump told the Journal, which posted its story on its website Wednesday night. "And these people led it!" He added: "So I think it's something that had to be done." So there you go.

Because the official statement gives reasons for pulling the clearance. And none of those are the same as what the president said in his WSJ article. Yeah he attempted a coup. Right. I have already said in this thread the President has that authority, and I have said Brennan is no Boy Scout and that I would have asked for his resignation if I had been Obama when he lied about CIA secretly tagging members of Congress. The president by his own words said he removed him primarily because he felt he was involved in the start of the Russia investigation. That suggests abuse of his power

President's statement: “I call it the rigged witch hunt, [it] is a sham,” Mr. Trump said in an interview. “And these people led it!” And that is why he pulled the clearance and may on others. This was not stated in the official White House release.

No. Which is valid? That's the point. Which you refuse to acknowledge. Does the president believe the statement put out by his administration or not?

I don't know which is factual or not. Which is the point. The president needs to finally realize his words have meaning. And your stupid shtick? Very old, very tiring. The president indicated quite clearly that Brennan as well as potentially others would have their clearances removed because of the Russia investigation. I think you should read each without confirmation bias looking to support a preconceived idea.

Yep. And with Ivory as well I'm comfortable with the RB spot

I'm liking Murphy right now over Goillisler

That is not what the president said. I get your point about the constitutional difficulties, and it causes me to rethink how this could be done. As far as my rejection of the carefully worded official statement, the president's statement to the WSJ paints a different scenario. Which should we believe?

I'm looking at the current situation where the president stated he pulled the clearance in relation to an ongoing investigation involving his administration. That could be construed as an abuse of his constitutional authority and the other two branches them would exert the proper checks and balances. it would be similar to Nixon and the Saturday Night massacre. In that case Congress and the courts stepped in.

I would suggest all of them. My model would be similar to what some businesses do with a change in CEO. Senior management files resignation letters and the new guy either ignores them or accepts. And I may be mistaken but if a president is re-elected his cabinet does the same. I understand your point about the sheer numbers being unwieldy. My concern would be for more senior leaders. And again to try and have a process that tries to negate a president doing so to protect himself against an investigation. Good points though. Make me think about how I'd execute such a strategy. You're saying Congress could not legislate this because constitutionally it is an executive power? Good point. Then if he abuses that power the other two branches could assert their control

What it meant is you should clear the decks for a new administration. Let them do their homework ahead of time and decide what people who are in secure positions they want to have stay on, and which one they do not. By having it in law that all must have their credentials pulled means the chief exec can determine whose he wants to accept and not accept. The law could be written in that way. My interest would be in a process where the chief executive has his authority over clearances, but where there is some protection in the system to ensure it is not being done for nefarious purposes.

I don't think so. Presidential campaigns are run for years now. In that time you should be able to look at the current folks in their jobs and make a determination who you want to keep. Plus look at the current system. The president has the power to determine who gets clearance and who doesn't, correct? well, let's say the current head of the CIA comes to Trump and says they absolutely need to get some background info from Brennan on an issue. Trump could with a stroke of a pen give Brennan his clearance back for that purpose.

Because it would make sense

Congress should pass a law saying that security clearances are revoked the day of inauguration of a new administration. Then the new administration can decide who to let in as needed. Sort of like when a new CEO comes in a lot of executives formally provide a resignation letter, which the CEO can ignore if he'd like. It would take the politics out of it to a significant degree.

God forbid you would have to try and understand the complexity of issues. On this topic I'll make it easy for you: I honor anyone who wears the uniform, particularly a guy who led the way to take out the monster that killed over 3000 on 9/11. He's earned the right to have his say.

Why exactly is my name posted here?

Should and will: McCarron. Gives them the best chance to win. Although if Peterman continues the play he had last week I could see that, but in the end I think McCarron's longer time in the league wins out. Allen isn't ready yet, but I think he's going to be rally good once he gets in there.

Except that I'm independent. And I've read Rhino's stuff and it doesn't convince me. I realize coming into into this thread, where many of you have your preconceived points you won't come off of is a waste of time. I said above I don't care who caused the attack on our democracy, I want it figured out and for those who did so to pay the price, party be damned. But you and others don't read and unless people subscribe to your narrowly held views all you have are insults. You lecture others to read more and become educated, yet you refuse to read or acknowledge anything that could disrupt your conspiracy fantasies. The prosecutor has indicted Russians, caught guys like Flynn lying, but there's nothing going on in the administration? Right. Let Mueller do his job, go after any and all who were responsible for this Russian thing (which despite the fantasies shown here really did happen as every intelligence agency has said) and let the chips fall whee they may.

That's easy. Congress has the power to impeach if they feel the executive abuses his power. If he removed him based on the statement put out by the White House, fine. But as happens far too often his own words with the WSJ belie that. As for you Rhino, the reason I want this handled by Mueller is because we have a special prosecutor who has been given the mandate to find out how a foreign enemy managed to influence our democracy. I tryst him to do so. I have looked at some of the deep state stuff. I'm not impressed. I find it to be confirmation bias; things are picked over here and there and conflated to try and buttress a preconceived notion. I have much more faith in a man who served his country in uniform with distinction, and who then protected this country from foreign attack for years as head of the FBI, to find the truth. Everyone in government had the highest regard for the guy until it interfered with their politics then all of a sudden he's crooked? Not a chance. I know you don't agree , and we'll simply have to do so.

I agree with 1and 2, but with 1 I would say if it is shown any president does so to obstruct justice then the Legislative and Executive branches can intervene through hearings, etc. again apparently some of you did not live through Watergate. Nixon had the constitutional right to fire the special prosecutors, Congress and the judiciary executed their duties under the constitution to interpret that as an abuse of power and acted on it. As for 3, I will say again the president today with his WSJ article linked the pulling of his security clearance to the Russian investigation. So before accusing others of being stupid etc. check your facts.

Am I a fan of Trump? No. I think our president should be a better representative of all the people and quit acting like a petulant, spoiled child. I like some of his policies though. I'm for tax cuts, although we need draconian spending cuts to go with them. I'm OK with rescinding some regulations. But as far as the Russian investigation goes, doesn't matter to me one iota whether it was Democrats or Republicans, whoever is responsible needs to pay, and that's what Mueller needs to find out. What I do know is that the president indicated today that the impetus for the Brennan thing stems from him being involved in starting the Russia thing. And that is a dangerous thing for our democracy in my opinion. I said in my initial post on this subject, just terminate all outgoing security clearances when a new administration comes in and this issue goes away. Because you know and I know if the coin was flipped and it was a Democrat doing this you and others would be going nuts about him doing so. Yes. I hope so. I thought the firing of Comey was justified; I would have done so if I were Obama for violating departmental policies.