John Brennan's Security Clearance

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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?

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? 

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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?

Nowhere did I say the CIA conducted any specific investigation.

[LB3]

9 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

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.

Thank you. I'm inclined to believe the White House statement. What you just posted was not one full quote. "So I think it's something that had to be done" could have been said after he named other reasons. The context is lost without his full quote. There have been too many examples of his quotes being spliced together in a way that makes him look worse. Like when he called MS-13 animals, but the media made it look like he was talking about all immigrants.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said:

Thank you. I'm inclined to believe the White House statement. What you just posted was not one full quote. "So I think it's something that had to be done" could have been said after he named other reasons. The context is lost without his full quote. There have been too many examples of his quotes being spliced together in a way that makes him look worse. Like when he called MS-13 animals, but the media made it look like he was talking about all immigrants.

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

[LB3]

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

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

That's not what I said. Trump is obviously pissed at Brennan. He has consistently said that the investigation is a sham. That doesn't mean it was his primary reason, just the one that pisses him off the most. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by LBSeeBallLBGetBall

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

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

 

I can't even recall the last time I believed a president when he spoke.  Probably Bush Sr., once.

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

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? 

 

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.

 

Nowhere did I say the CIA conducted any specific investigation.

 

Again, context is important.

 

Brennan was the head of the CIA. 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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. 

 

 

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?

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

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?

 

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.

Edited August 17, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

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.

 

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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

 

Here's a National Review article having to do with this debate.  I think it was a vindictive move by Trump because he's a vindictive person, but Brennan gave him enough reason to remove it.

 

Here's a snippet:

 

Generations of precedent suggest that the president does not possess entirely unreviewable authority over the substance of security-clearance determinations. Though he does enjoy broad discretion, it’s clearly bounded by limits, even if they haven’t yet been fully defined by the courts. One of those limits should be that presidents cannot dispense or revoke the security clearances of private citizens (such as contractors or former government employees) in retaliation for the exercise of constitutionally protected political expression, short of evidence of disloyalty to the United States, instability, or vulnerability to improper influence. A security clearance is not a reward for good political behavior, and treating it as such has negative consequences for American national security. Does anyone doubt that John Brennan would still have his security clearance if his Twitter comments were just as frothy and erratic, but were instead aimed at the so-called witch hunt rather than the Trump administration.

 

Administration critics should note well that Brennan in many ways presents a poor plaintiff for a monumentally important constitutional test case. As noted above, his false statements to Congress alone provide an entirely legitimate reason to terminate his security clearance. But Trump’s statements indicating that the true motivation for the move was political, and his indications that he may target other former officials, are more than enough reason to be concerned that he views his authority over security clearances not as power held in trust to protect our nation’s security but rather as a weapon to wield against political foes in violation of the very Constitution he’s vowed to defend.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

 

 

Here's a National Review article having to do with this debate.  I think it was a vindictive move by Trump because he's a vindictive person, but Brennan gave him enough reason to remove it.

 

Here's a snippet:

 

Generations of precedent suggest that the president does not possess entirely unreviewable authority over the substance of security-clearance determinations. Though he does enjoy broad discretion, it’s clearly bounded by limits, even if they haven’t yet been fully defined by the courts. One of those limits should be that presidents cannot dispense or revoke the security clearances of private citizens (such as contractors or former government employees) in retaliation for the exercise of constitutionally protected political expression, short of evidence of disloyalty to the United States, instability, or vulnerability to improper influence. A security clearance is not a reward for good political behavior, and treating it as such has negative consequences for American national security. Does anyone doubt that John Brennan would still have his security clearance if his Twitter comments were just as frothy and erratic, but were instead aimed at the so-called witch hunt rather than the Trump administration.

 

Administration critics should note well that Brennan in many ways presents a poor plaintiff for a monumentally important constitutional test case. As noted above, his false statements to Congress alone provide an entirely legitimate reason to terminate his security clearance. But Trump’s statements indicating that the true motivation for the move was political, and his indications that he may target other former officials, are more than enough reason to be concerned that he views his authority over security clearances not as power held in trust to protect our nation’s security but rather as a weapon to wield against political foes in violation of the very Constitution he’s vowed to defend.

 

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.

[oldmanfan]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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.

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

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

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

 

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.

[boyst]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

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

you have absolutely no room to say anything about someone else in this thread.

 

i know you're sincere in your obtuse thinking and lack general intelligence or awareness to research this.  i also see that you are intellectually dishonest and also highly ignorant of materials that you have not bothered to do your own research on which shows in the responses you are provided.  the ignorance is high in that you simply do not take any time to critically think about opportunities from both perspectives and instead use a lens of disillusion believing yourself of a superior intellect and lacking bias.  

 

literally, you've **** post through this entire thread and i am surprised that anyone has taken the time to discuss this with you because you do not consent to be wrong but you consistently consent to not knowing the full context of this situation.

 

you're, essentially, what is wrong with this entire country and the beta & plebs of our society.

 

so, please, while TYTT is tolerating you, you're really not adding anything of value with your constant attempts to engage others in conversation because you're not actively conversing.

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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.

please, give up.

 

he's not worth it and he's petulant and annoying similar to that of child refusing to put the square peg in the hole.

[oldmanfan]

32 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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.

And I have said the Mueller investigation should go after anyone and let the chips fall where they may.  Of course, you and your friend think a guy in Mueller that has an impeccable reputation and was lauded by both sides of the aisle all of a sudden has turned into some part of conspiracy because his investigation to date has indicted guys like Flynn and such.  But it's the rest of the world that's delusional.

 

You and your friends stay on here and continue to conspire amongst yourselves and listen to the voices inside your heads.  As for the rational, we will watch the process unfold and see what comes of it.  Regardless of whom it might affect.  Because thankfully the majority of folks in this country actually care about things like the sanctity of our democracy and have not sworn allegiance to a man who would be king.

[Koko78]

49 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

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.

 

The evidence is certainly is not voluminous and staggering, if you completely ignore it by putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and screaming "la la la can't hear you" loudly.

 

 

[Azalin]

7 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

And I have said the Mueller investigation should go after anyone and let the chips fall where they may.  Of course, you and your friend think a guy in Mueller that has an impeccable reputation and was lauded by both sides of the aisle all of a sudden has turned into some part of conspiracy because his investigation to date has indicted guys like Flynn and such.  But it's the rest of the world that's delusional.

 

You and your friends stay on here and continue to conspire amongst yourselves and listen to the voices inside your heads.  As for the rational, we will watch the process unfold and see what comes of it.  Regardless of whom it might affect.  Because thankfully the majority of folks in this country actually care about things like the sanctity of our democracy and have not sworn allegiance to a man who would be king.

 

That assessment is both incorrect and unfair. Nobody discussing any of this with you is listening to 'the voices' in their heads, they are trying to get you to think for yourself and let go of preconceived notions that you're very obviously clinging to with increasing desperation.

 

That majority of folks that you refer to are the people who are so disengaged that they can't even tell you who their own congressional representative is, so I would tell you that they don't begin to care enough about the sanctity of our democracy.

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Azalin said:

 

That assessment is both incorrect and unfair. Nobody discussing any of this with you is listening to 'the voices' in their heads, they are trying to get you to think for yourself and let go of preconceived notions that you're very obviously clinging to with increasing desperation.

 

That majority of folks that you refer to are the people who are so disengaged that they can't even tell you who their own congressional representative is, so I would tell you that they don't begin to care enough about the sanctity of our democracy.

I do think for myself.  I have read some of the articles and theories of the coup etc.  and from what I can see it is ultra right wing individuals opining on things with no actual fact, or trying to weave disparate occurrences into a grand scheme.

 

Have I not said several times here that my main concern is that we as a country get to the bottom of the Russians involvement in our election?  Have I not said I was fine with firing Comey because of how he handled the events before the election.  Have I not said we need to find whomever was responsible for this Russian thing and charge them with treason regardless of political party?

 

Have I said those things?  Yes.  But do people sctually read?  No.

 

Sp to say I have preconceived notions is the height of hypocrisy.  To say I am the one who doesn't think for myself is likewise.  What you guys have here is a little group of like minded individuals who have your preconceived notion of this grand conspiracy, refuse to acknowledge at reasonable discussion about it and resort to insult when challenged, and have the audacity to say it's the rest of the world that isn't open to ideas.  It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

 

I will let you all have your jollies but leave you with this statement:  you show me actual evidence, real evidence that Brenner, Comey, etc actually have conspired against our country, evidence that would bring them before a court and convict them,  and I'll be the first one calling for the needle for any and all of them.  

 

 

 

 

[Koko78]

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I do think for myself.  I have read some of the articles and theories of the coup etc.  and from what I can see it is ultra right wing individuals opining on things with no actual fact, or trying to weave disparate occurrences into a grand scheme.

 

If you're actually being serious, I would suggest that you read @Deranged Rhino's work over the past 18 months. His writings are fully sourced, and he freely admits when he is speculating. He's not an ultra right wing nut; he's just a regular Hollywood crackpot.

 

The facts are out there, if you're actually willing to look at them.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

45 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 a man who would be king.

 

You're a !@#$ing fool, and can safely be ignored as such.

 

[Azalin]

20 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I do think for myself.  I have read some of the articles and theories of the coup etc.  and from what I can see it is ultra right wing individuals opining on things with no actual fact, or trying to weave disparate occurrences into a grand scheme.

 

Have I not said several times here that my main concern is that we as a country get to the bottom of the Russians involvement in our election?  Have I not said I was fine with firing Comey because of how he handled the events before the election.  Have I not said we need to find whomever was responsible for this Russian thing and charge them with treason regardless of political party?

 

Have I said those things?  Yes.  But do people sctually read?  No.

 

Sp to say I have preconceived notions is the height of hypocrisy.  To say I am the one who doesn't think for myself is likewise.  What you guys have here is a little group of like minded individuals who have your preconceived notion of this grand conspiracy, refuse to acknowledge at reasonable discussion about it and resort to insult when challenged, and have the audacity to say it's the rest of the world that isn't open to ideas.  It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

 

I will let you all have your jollies but leave you with this statement:  you show me actual evidence, real evidence that Brenner, Comey, etc actually have conspired against our country, evidence that would bring them before a court and convict them,  and I'll be the first one calling for the needle for any and all of them.  

 

 

 

 

 

I suggest that you're clinging to preconceived notions with increasing desperation, and you react by reiterating the same preconceived notions with increasing desperation?

 

I'm not talking at all about Comey or the Russians - that crap is being discussed in a different thread. This is about Brennan and his security clearance being revoked, and the reason for that happening. The material is all there for you to review for yourself, should you choose to. If you decide to ignore that information, fine. Don't expect anyone to consider your attempts at discussion to be serious though.

 

And what have I said in this thread that makes my previous post 'the height of hypocrisy'?

 

With regard to your final paragraph - drama doesn't earn you points, but if it helps you feel like you've disengaged with a semblance of dignity, then by all means....