oldmanfan

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.

I'm not sure. My understanding is the president said in an interview today that he pulled his clearance in response to Brennan's involvement in initiating the Russia investigation. The only way to find out exactly how would be for Brennan to tell what he knows to the special prosecutor and to Congress.

I think I've already answered that. The Mueller team needs to get to the bottom of what happened, no mater who it affects, no matter where the blame goes. If your premise is correct, any such individuals should be arrested and charged with treason as far as I'm concerned.

You can continue acting like a child with the 2nd grade insults, or you can try to have an intelligent conversation. If they had pulled his clearance for the reasons stated in the formal White House statement that would be one thing. But in his WSJ interview he stated that is was because of his being involved in the whole Russia thing. And that starts to draw close to abuse of that power to thwart investigation into his campaign.

Nixon tried to use his Executive power to halt an investigation into his administration, and the Legislative and Judicial branches properly used their duties under the constitution to act as checks and balances against that abuse of power. If the current administration starts taking away clearances or say starts firing people or giving pardons to circumvent examination of its role in the Russian election issue then it's a similar abuse of Executive power. We don't have kings or emperors in our government, we have three co-equal branches of government

And you're a child. The Executive branch does not have unfettered power to do whatever it wants whenever it wants. What is it about the constitution and checks and balances that you don't understand? He has the right to get rid of Brennan for cause. I would have for him lying about the CIA spying on members of Congress. But he sad today he did so because he helped start an investigation into his own administration's role with the Russia thing. That then becomes an issue for the Legislative and/or Judicial branches to take on. Did none of you live through Watergate? Yes they do. It is called checks and balances. Honestly, read the Constitution. Executive power does not mean you can flagrantly abuse that power.

See above. If he is doing so in a manner to obstruct an investigation into his administration then the legislature has an obligation. Whether that's true in the case of Brennan is hard to know. Unless they look into it. As I said Brennan is no choir boy and I would have fired him for lying to Congress before.

Aand if he is doing so because he is miffed at the fact that an individual had some input into an investigation involving his administration, the LEgislative bracnch has a constitutional duty to check the abuse of that power. Oh, and your silly little !@#$ing thing. Grow up.

The sweet potato with Tourette's (nicely put) needs to either keep his mouth shut or realize his words mean something. Do you think the formal statement is more a reflection of the truth or what comes out of his mouth?

Yes. And that means a true bipartisan effort. The Senate is doing so, not the House.