Doc Brown
-
Posts
20,999 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Doc Brown
-
-
On 8/17/2018 at 1:30 PM, njbuff said:
Not for nothing, but how desperate is the left that they buy into this woman?
Makes no sense whatsoever.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
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?
100% credible intelligence? Yes. Revoke their security clearances. If that's the outcome in this case a couple years down the line then everything Trump's done and said with regard to Brennan and anybody else's security clearance he takes away in the future FOR THAT REASON will be justified.
If Trump simply is paranoid and is just guessing this was a coup (while being irritated by ex intelligent officials who speak out against him), then this sets a bad precedent as I'm sure previous presidents would've loved to revoke security clearances of intelligence officials who spoke ill of their administration.
-
-
6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
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?
I would say until there's enough credible evidence to suggest there was some Deep State coup against Trump and that Brennan was directly involved. You seem to be pretty convinced it was while I haven't seen enough evidence yet even after going through Greg's diligent and exhaustive work.
-
Glad he's out of our division.
-
2 hours ago, Warcodered said:
I think he's used to it from Wyoming's porous O-line.
Beane on draft day. "Well, our o-line is going to suck so we should pry draft a QB's who's o-line also sucked."
-
12 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:
With his very first throw tonight Peterman convinced me he's either out of the starting job already or will be yanked absolutely no later than mid-season.
Dude's clearly not an NFL starting QB.
Probably the latter. The one silver lining with McCarrons injury is we'll see a lot of both the last two preseason games.
-
Peterman looked good as well. I still think it's Peterman's job to lose, but looking at the bigger picture....the fact that Allen is playing well is great for this organization moving forward. I'm cautiously optimistic at this point as it's only been two games, but I was really afraid he would suck.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:
The media is going to force feed fans information that is twisted and altered in order to create the narrative they want. I highly suggest fans start educating themselves on their topic of interest by going to numerous sources, rather than just click a headline, listen to ESPN or click on a boxscore and assume it is a fact. I just want an unbiased opinion on how these guys are doing, I am so tired of media personalities and their inflated egos. They're not talent evaluators, their job is to report facts. Give me the facts and have constructive conversations around sports, athletes and their performance.
This is why sports are so much simpler than politics. You can let your playing on the field destroy any narrative put out there. I'll definitely have to eat crow if Allen turns into a franchise QB, but all those expert anti Allen prognosticators have to also.
-
8 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.
That's problematic if that's the reason as that hasn't been proven yet. He pry should've just stuck to the official reason and not given an interview to the WSJ. If this is ultimately about political retribution it's a bad precedent to set even though I'm no fan of Brennan.
-
Tonight's winner so far - Nathan Peterman
-
Nice job by McDermott.
-
They force a punt?
-
Cue the annual preseason overreaction crew.
-
That's the Tyrod I know and love.
-
There we go Edmunds.
-
Low percentage throw there.
-
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.
-
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
You'll regret it when the Oompa-Loompa-in-Chief has to find another shiny object to distract him. Better hope, for everyone's sake, it's not something from the NRC.
Football season and SNL are close. We should be fine.
13 hours ago, DC Tom said:Except when you live and breathe identity politics, an attack on an individual is an attack on a group. For example: calling Omarosa a "dog" oppresses all women and blacks.
It is humorous to me that the best defense about comments like that proving he's not a racist is he's a dick to anybody he doesn't like regardless of sex, ethnicity, etc...
-
Game was stolen from us. I've never been more ticked off at the refs after any other game.
For every Bills fan that complains about Instant Replay slowing the game down I refer to this game. We win the game if Instant Replay was a part of the game at that time.
-
It's no Comet.
-
Kelvin Benjamin took cheap shots at his ex quarterback who always seemed to perform better without him. Jalen Ramsey has only been on one team and didn't take any cheap shots at any players on his team. That should be rather obvious.
-
8
-
1
-
-
Any hashtag started on twitter is dubious as most #walkaway people are Trump supporters pretending to walk away and it's wishful thinking. It's just the way social media works and twitter seems to be the perfect medium for that. For the few democrats that are, they're obviously not very ideological to begin with or are so self absorbed that they think they're above the current state of the party (see Never Trumpers).
John Brennan's Security Clearance
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
We've also never had a president question the findings of his intelligence agency publicly as much as Trump so it's difficult to determine the motivation of the attacks by Brennan and Clapper. Are they just ticked off he's undermining institutions they've spent a majority of their career working for and take pride in......or are there alternative motives for the attacks? We don't know yet.
I have no problem with Trump getting rid of their security clearances if that's the stated reason and Trump doesn't deviate from that reason.