DC Tom Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 1 minute ago, oldmanfan said: 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? Always defer to the formal statements, if they make sense. And in this case it does, in addition to taking in to consideration that Trump routinely speaks with the precision of a blind, drunken bowler with Parkinson's. Most - not all, mind you - of his formal statements are clear and specifically Constitutional (and yes, I have complained about those that weren't - I was absolutely irate over the first travel ban, which was insanely stupid and ignorant.) . I also work in the government sphere, so I have some insight in to how the sausage is made. Trump speaking alone, vs. multiple people preparing a statement and mitigating Trump's stupidity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 1 minute ago, oldmanfan said: 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. Your posting style and stubborn belief that you are right, regardless of what has been explained to you reminds me very much of gator/Tiberius. I'm serious. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, joesixpack said: You're a buffoon. He has the authority to revoke a clearance for whatever reason he chooses. Congress has no business with regard to it, no matter what you believe. 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? 1 minute ago, joesixpack said: NO THEY DO NOT. Yes they do. It is called checks and balances. Honestly, read the Constitution. Executive power does not mean you can flagrantly abuse that power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: They keep them on for institutional memory and non partisan cooperation through different administrations. Human capital is a stupid thing to waste for partisan temper tantrums. Just because your enemy slides a knife through your 4th and 5th ribs while pretending to be about the greater good does not mean you should let him There is no need to run around like chicken little wondering about all the vast knowledge he might be able to provide, if needed, after he clocks out at the end of his day job. If it's that crucial, we can always kick the rock back and ask him. Edited August 16, 2018 by leh-nerd skin-erd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: 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. You're calling the right of the president to rescind security clearances an "abuse of power" when it is CLEARLY within the president's domain as the head of the executive. How many hours till the early bird special? Wouldn't want your stewed prunes getting cold. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: Your posting style and stubborn belief that you are right, regardless of what has been explained to you reminds me very much of gator/Tiberius. I'm serious. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, oldmanfan said: 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 Your entire premise hinges on an "if" that has yet to happen. What "if" what I'm laying out is accurate, that there was a seditious coup attempt which originated inside the CIA/FBI/DOJ against then candidate Trump and carried over to President elect Trump? Does that calculus change? Or nah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 1 minute ago, oldmanfan said: We don't have kings or emperors in our government, we have three co-equal branches of government We used to, way back in 2007. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 1 minute ago, oldmanfan said: 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 How does revoking Brennan's clearance affect the investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 1 minute ago, joesixpack said: You're calling the right of the president to rescind security clearances an "abuse of power" when it is CLEARLY within the president's domain as the head of the executive. How many hours till the early bird special? Wouldn't want your stewed prunes getting cold. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said: How does revoking Brennan's clearance affect the investigation? The old man is confused again. Must have missed his latest dose of Aricept. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Your entire premise hinges on an "if" that has yet to happen. What "if" what I'm laying out is accurate, that there was a seditious coup attempt which originated inside the CIA/FBI/DOJ against then candidate Trump and carried over to President elect Trump? Does that calculus change? Or nah? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 1 minute ago, oldmanfan said: 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. You're nuts. You're so blinded by your hatred for Trump that you can't see the plainly obvious. Brennan is no longer part of the government, and can have his clearance rescinded at any time for any reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, oldmanfan said: 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. And is not the swath of firings inside the DOJ/FBI of high level officers evidence that this cleanup is ongoing? Or nah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said: How does revoking Brennan's clearance affect the investigation? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: And is not the swath of firings inside the DOJ/FBI of high level officers evidence that this cleanup is ongoing? Or nah? My guess? He'll say nah. Or issue some mealy-mouthed "well, if bobby mueller finds something on someone..." answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 OMF, if you would have fired Brennan for reason would you have rescinded his security clearance too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 the President can basically do anything he wants to. checks and balance may advise it's not a wise thing to do, and may investigate if it really crosses the line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 16, 2018 Author Share Posted August 16, 2018 OMF, Brennan instigated the investigation but not in the way you think. Think of a car accident that is under investigation. Brennan was driving the car that ran a stop light and hit another car. Mueller is investigating Trump, based on Brennan's lies. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, joesixpack said: You're nuts. You're so blinded by your hatred for Trump that you can't see the plainly obvious. Brennan is no longer part of the government, and can have his clearance rescinded at any time for any reason. 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. 5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: OMF, if you would have fired Brennan for reason would you have rescinded his security clearance too? Yes. 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: And is not the swath of firings inside the DOJ/FBI of high level officers evidence that this cleanup is ongoing? Or nah? I hope so. I thought the firing of Comey was justified; I would have done so if I were Obama for violating departmental policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Your entire premise hinges on an "if" that has yet to happen. What "if" what I'm laying out is accurate, that there was a seditious coup attempt which originated inside the CIA/FBI/DOJ against then candidate Trump and carried over to President elect Trump? Does that calculus change? Or nah? And on several assumptions - "its role in the Russian election issue." That always ends up being the fundamental flaw in the argument: the a priori assumptions that the administration must have colluded, and must be obstructing the investigation. It is, unfortunately, a circular argument: because the investigation hasn't shown the administration colluded, the administration is obstructing the investigation, so the investigation will never show collusion. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 17 minutes ago, DC Tom said: And on several assumptions - "its role in the Russian election issue." That always ends up being the fundamental flaw in the argument: the a priori assumptions that the administration must have colluded, and must be obstructing the investigation. It is, unfortunately, a circular argument: because the investigation hasn't shown the administration colluded, the administration is obstructing the investigation, so the investigation will never show collusion. and yet they pretend they care and pretend to be investigating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Sometimes this forum has me scratching my head. Why argue over facts? The entire process of granting, denying or revoking someone’s security clearance is derived from the president’s Article II authority as commander in chief. Donald Trump is the President of the United States. Ergo, President Donald Trump can revoke a security clearance. John Brennan's security clearance was revoked. And, as a cherry on top, John Brennan is a very bad man who attempted to influence a US Election, and later attempted a soft coup. Why anyone is arguing this person should keep his security clearance so he can continue to be in-the-know trading leaks for money, is beyond me. But I am sure it has something to do with the way Trump combs his hair, drinks diet Coke, or speaks in marketing sound-bites. ? 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 9 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Sometimes this forum has me scratching my head. Why argue over facts? The entire process of granting, denying or revoking someone’s security clearance is derived from the president’s Article II authority as commander in chief. Donald Trump is the President of the United States. Ergo, President Donald Trump can revoke a security clearance. John Brennan's security clearance was revoked. And, as a cherry on top, John Brennan is a very bad man who attempted to influence a US Election, and later attempted a soft coup. Why anyone is arguing this person should keep his security clearance so he can continue to be in-the-know trading leaks for money, is beyond me. But I am sure it has something to do with the way Trump combs his hair, drinks diet Coke, or speaks in marketing sound-bites. ? because post-Reagan the POTUS has looked the other way on mostly all attempts to undermine the USA inertia is powerful, they thought Trump would smile and laugh about all this as well. NOPE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, row_33 said: because post-Reagan the POTUS has looked the other way on mostly all attempts to undermine the USA inertia is powerful, they thought Trump would smile and laugh about all this as well. NOPE A man who feels it is his duty to crush his enemies is going to go-along to get-along? Big fat NOPE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: 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. Funny how the people who are quick to ask "If Brennan is so guilty, why isn't he in jail?" question...are the same people who keep insisting how guilty Trump is in colluding with Russia. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: A man who feels it is his duty to crush his enemies is going to go-along to get-along? Big fat NOPE! that says it better than i could.... 12 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: Funny how the people who are quick to ask "If Brennan is so guilty, why isn't he in jail?" question...are the same people who keep insisting how guilty Trump is in colluding with Russia. i don't really want to see a complete public unraveling of Brennan and his colleagues if it isn't crucial to the existence of the USA. this doesn't work out well for anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDexter Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Brennan wants Trump impeached before Putin "visits..." and he has his life in the balance.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 46 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: 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. This shows a complete misunderstanding of the Constitution, a complete disregard of the actual facts of the Russian Collusion narrative, and is just really !@#$ing stupid. 1.) The President has the absolute authority to revoke security clearances. This is not even a question. There is no provision of law to allow the Congress to intervene. Brennan would be stupid to try to claim a 5th Amendment taking of a liberty interest in Court, as that would expose all his bullSchiff and lies to public scrutiny. It's not even realistic that he could make out a prima facie case. 2.) The President has the absolute right under the Constitution to issue pardons for any federal offense he wants and for any reason he wants. There is no provision of the Constitution for the Legislature or the Courts to review pardons. 3.) The "Russian election issue" has been pretty solidly debunked. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 15 minutes ago, LaDexter said: Brennan wants Trump impeached before Putin "visits..." and he has his life in the balance.... oh ****, you've got it, don't tell CNN... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDexter Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Once it comes out that 911 was a fraud and that ZIONISM was behind it, what happens to folks like Brennan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, LaDexter said: Once it comes out that 911 was a fraud and that ZIONISM was behind it, what happens to folks like Brennan? One would hope they're locked in a room with you and donbb, but I think that's outlawed by the Geneva Convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDexter Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 (edited) Once again, when innocent Americans were being burned alive by Israeli thermite, DC Tom was counting the profits of his investments in defense stocks and other "911" "plays..." Edited August 16, 2018 by LaDexter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 6 minutes ago, Koko78 said: This shows a complete misunderstanding of the Constitution, a complete disregard of the actual facts of the Russian Collusion narrative, and is just really !@#$ing stupid. 1.) The President has the absolute authority to revoke security clearances. This is not even a question. There is no provision of law to allow the Congress to intervene. Brennan would be stupid to try to claim a 5th Amendment taking of a liberty interest in Court, as that would expose all his bullSchiff and lies to public scrutiny. It's not even realistic that he could make out a prima facie case. 2.) The President has the absolute right under the Constitution to issue pardons for any federal offense he wants and for any reason he wants. There is no provision of the Constitution for the Legislature or the Courts to review pardons. 3.) The "Russian election issue" has been pretty solidly debunked. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, LaDexter said: Once again, when innocent Americans were being burned alive by Israeli thermite, DC Tom was counting the profits of his investments defense stocks and other "911" "plays..." Nano-thermite. And it's not Israeli, it was from a secret Chinese lab in Kansas. The micro-nukes were from the Israelis...a factory in Beersheba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDexter Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 One demographic wanted Nixon out.. the same one that wants Trump out.... right Mr DEAN... you "Republican" you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donbb Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Just now, LaDexter said: One demographic wanted Nixon out.. the same one that wants Trump out.... right Mr DEAN... you "Republican" you.... Who dragged this clown back into the circus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDexter Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 Maybe DC Tom can explain how burning jet fuel melted steel.... burning jet fuel 600F melting steel 2200F where did the missing 1600F come from???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 9 minutes ago, donbb said: Who dragged this clown back into the circus? his one hour a week on the computer at the home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 16, 2018 Share Posted August 16, 2018 6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: 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. Settle down, pappy. Don't want the pacemaker getting overloaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts