Deranged Rhino Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Easiest solution to this is to pass a law stating that all security clearances from previous administrations are terminated upon inauguration day. If you need guys brought back in your grant them temporary clearance as needed. Simple. That way you don't have a president going off the deep end potentially just because his feelings are hurt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donbb Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 8 minutes ago, row_33 said: bless your tender and naive heart... Bless your Canadian spleen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 18 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Easiest solution to this is to pass a law stating that all security clearances from previous administrations are terminated upon inauguration day. If you need guys brought back in your grant them temporary clearance as needed. Simple. That way you don't have a president going off the deep end potentially just because his feelings are hurt. The former Director of the CIA is casting dispersions about the POTUS on his paid TV gig, and acting as if he has knowledge presumably from his secret sources. Can you see what problems this might cause? In addition, a security clearance cannot just be reissued without a fair amount of time going by. Can you see what problems this might cause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 38 minutes ago, donbb said: Bless your Canadian spleen you are 100% assuming because someone isn't charge that they are innocent completely? when you are retained by a government you almost always have immunity from prosecution for your actions during your tenure, you have to have this protection you are subject to prosecution under severe negligence or criminal activity, but it's often they don't bother if it's not worth their while to pursue this they just cut you loose for the rest of your life from further work.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: The former Director of the CIA is casting dispersions about the POTUS on his paid TV gig, and acting as if he has knowledge presumably from his secret sources. Can you see what problems this might cause? In addition, a security clearance cannot just be reissued without a fair amount of time going by. Can you see what problems this might cause? A security issue could be issued essentially immediately if a guy has had prior top level clearance. Certainly that could be written into law. I would prefer Brennan not be as vocal as he has been, but he is I think genuinely concerned about what is going on. Those concerns would be best expressed to members of Congress in my opinion, but he has a right to speaking as we all do. Do you not see what problems it might cause when a president deliberately takes security clearance away from people because he has a personal vendetta, or because he is upset about an investigation that involves his own administration? Imagine if Nixon had had that unfettered power during Watergate. He tried to use it on the Saturday night massacre, and luckily the legislative and judicial branches did their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: A security issue could be issued essentially immediately if a guy has had prior top level clearance. Certainly that could be written into law. I would prefer Brennan not be as vocal as he has been, but he is I think genuinely concerned about what is going on. Those concerns would be best expressed to members of Congress in my opinion, but he has a right to speaking as we all do. Do you not see what problems it might cause when a president deliberately takes security clearance away from people because he has a personal vendetta, or because he is upset about an investigation that involves his own administration? Imagine if Nixon had had that unfettered power during Watergate. He tried to use it on the Saturday night massacre, and luckily the legislative and judicial branches did their jobs. Do you have any idea how well his words would be received in Congress? Do you know anything about the guy? He was actively involved in trying to prevent Trump's presidency and then a coup once he won the election. For your own sake I suggest you educate yourself about theshit the Deep State has been doing before getting into a discussion about the Deep State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: A security issue could be issued essentially immediately if a guy has had prior top level clearance. Certainly that could be written into law. I would prefer Brennan not be as vocal as he has been, but he is I think genuinely concerned about what is going on. Those concerns would be best expressed to members of Congress in my opinion, but he has a right to speaking as we all do. Do you not see what problems it might cause when a president deliberately takes security clearance away from people because he has a personal vendetta, or because he is upset about an investigation that involves his own administration? Imagine if Nixon had had that unfettered power during Watergate. He tried to use it on the Saturday night massacre, and luckily the legislative and judicial branches did their jobs. That's not what happened though. There's strong evidence to point to which shows Brennan played a role in a coup attempt, and did so by working with foreign intelligence services including Russian. What's happening to Brennan has been brought on entirely by his actions and crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donbb Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: That's not what happened though. There's strong evidence to point to which shows Brennan played a role in a coup attempt, and did so by working with foreign intelligence services including Russian. What's happening to Brennan has been brought on entirely by his actions and crimes. If there was strong evidence of what you claim Brennan would be behind bars awaiting trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 It's coming. Bottom to top roll up, as I've been saying for months. Brennan is near the top of the chain, not the bottom. Those falling over themselves to defend a man with as shady of a past as Brennan (and doing so not because they like Brennan but because their overlords in the DNC/MSM programmed them to do so), are exposing their ignorance and partisanship. Pay attention to who they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, donbb said: If there was strong evidence of what you claim Brennan would be behind bars awaiting trial. Was there not strong evidence against Hillary due to her violations of security with her private email server? Just wait on Brennen. Edited August 16, 2018 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donbb Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Was there not strong evidence against Hillary due to her violations of security with her private email server? You guys waited until page 2 for a BUT HILLARY! Great job - you're getting better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Bring something of substance to the board, Gary. It's not hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, donbb said: You guys waited until page 2 for a BUT HILLARY! Great job - you're getting better. Page 3, not that it matters. Hillary broke the law and hasn't been taken to task for it----yet. Same as Brennan. Edited August 16, 2018 by 3rdnlng 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 nothing done by the Dems is ever prosecuted, even when it's clearly breaking the law anyone paying attention by 1974 knew forever that the CIA/FBI and others are corrupt and working solely for hire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donbb Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Page 3, not that it matters. Hillary broke the law and hasn't been taken to task for it----yet. Same as Brennan. Page 3 - even more impressive! 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Bring something of substance to the board, Gary. It's not hard. You got it Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Do you have any idea how well his words would be received in Congress? Do you know anything about the guy? He was actively involved in trying to prevent Trump's presidency and then a coup once he won the election. For your own sake I suggest you educate yourself about theshit the Deep State has been doing before getting into a discussion about the Deep State. Your paranoid rantings about the deep state aside, the proper place to voice such objections is with Congress so they can carry out their constitutionally prescribed duty to be a check and balance against the Executive branch. 16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That's not what happened though. There's strong evidence to point to which shows Brennan played a role in a coup attempt, and did so by working with foreign intelligence services including Russian. What's happening to Brennan has been brought on entirely by his actions and crimes. The president himself said he did this because of the Russia investigation. So don't tell me it's entirely due to anything else but the president being paranoid about an investigation into the potential involvement of his campaign. What the president has yet to figure out is that people pay attention to what he says and then hold him accountable for such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 All that can be said in condolence to John Brennan about losing his security clearance might be something along the lines of, “Try not to lie repeatedly to the U.S. Congress. Please do not allege that the current president of the United States is a traitor. And do not hire yourself out to partisans to issue near daily unproven invective, supposedly sanctified and monetized by your past tenure and present access to the highest level of covert U.S. intelligence.” That"s not too much to ask. -- Victor Davis Hanson 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, oldmanfan said: Your paranoid rantings about the deep state aside, the proper place to voice such objections is with Congress so they can carry out their constitutionally prescribed duty to be a check and balance against the Executive branch. Again you should educate yourself. Do you have any idea why Congress would have any desire to bring this former executive office employee to testify in front of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 20 minutes ago, donbb said: If there was strong evidence of what you claim Brennan would be behind bars awaiting trial. And if he were behind bars, you'd be claiming it's a personal vendetta by a fascist in the White House. There will never be any discussing it with you. Your opinion is entirely emotional based on your preferences for the personalities involved. You wouldn't accept any evidence anyone provided. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts