Russiagate

[LeeroyJenkins 3]

rushmc

******nothing is going to become of the Mueller investigation anyway. FBI agents early on said there is no there there so why would that change?

again all Mueller is going to do is to release some sort of op-ed hit piece against Trump before the elections. That's been the goal all along anyway.

“nothing is going to become of the Mueller investigation anyway.”

Have you even bothered to notice that plea deals and indictments have already come from the mueller investigation?

okay you need to concentrate here. Or focus a little bit. Every one of the charges that have been levied and all of the plea deals that have been met or reached have nothing absolutely nothing to do with Trump Russia collusion. All they are is attempts by Mueller to try and get somebody to flip or compose as said by one famous lawyer that's dealing with one trial going on now

most normal thinking people this would give pause. But I realize that's not what I'm dealing with on this site.

Rush, you really need to stop moving the goalposts. You can’t say nothing has come of the muller investigation. Then when pointed out that is incorrect say nothing about Russian collusion has come up. The fact that none of it has to do with trump is irrelevant to the numerious indictments that have came from the investigation.

The muller investigation is more than strictly trump-Russia. If you want to make the claim that so far nothing relating to trump-Russia has came from it and nothing will come from it you can say that. But you have to say that explicitly.

[kallend 2,030]

Why is Trump so scared of Brennan that he tries to discredit him? What does Brennan know? What did he learn from the CIA’s deep assets in Moscow, and from liaison partners such as Britain, Israel, Germany and the Netherlands?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,008]

Quote

Why is Trump so scared of Brennan that he tries to discredit him? What does Brennan know? What did he learn from the CIA’s deep assets in Moscow, and from liaison partners such as Britain, Israel, Germany and the Netherlands?

I don't think there's anything so "deep" going on. Brennan isn't supporting Trump, so Trump is thinking up ways to hurt him. That's it.

[LeeroyJenkins 3]

billvon

Quote

Why is Trump so scared of Brennan that he tries to discredit him? What does Brennan know? What did he learn from the CIA’s deep assets in Moscow, and from liaison partners such as Britain, Israel, Germany and the Netherlands?

I don't think there's anything so "deep" going on. Brennan isn't supporting Trump, so Trump is thinking up ways to hurt him. That's it.

We get to add it to the list of potential crimes* Revoking a security clearance (a thing of value) due to a private citizens public comments (free speech) is likely a violation of the first amendment.

*Not really a crime, just a violation of civil rights.

- A group of 11 former CIA directors and a former Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement calling Trump’s move against Brennan “an attempt to stifle free speech.”

- Trump summoned a Wall Street Journal reporter into the Oval Office for an impromptu interview in which he linked Brennan’s clearance revocation to the “sham” Russia investigation. “These people led it,” he said, referring to Brennan and others. “So I think it’s something that had to be done.”

[yoink 321]

LeeroyJenkins

We get to add it to the list of potential crimes* Revoking a security clearance (a thing of value) due to a private citizens public comments (free speech) is likely a violation of the first amendment.

*Not really a crime, just a violation of civil rights.

I'm not convinced by that.

In fact I think that anyone leaving a sensitive position with access to secure material should have their rights revoked as a matter of course.

I've done subcontractor work for various defense departments, and my clearance was certainly stripped once my part on the projects were over.

That Trump did it to be petty speaks volumes about his character, but I don't see it as a crime, a violation of rights or even a surprise to be honest.

[LeeroyJenkins 3]

yoink

***

We get to add it to the list of potential crimes* Revoking a security clearance (a thing of value) due to a private citizens public comments (free speech) is likely a violation of the first amendment.

*Not really a crime, just a violation of civil rights.

I'm not convinced by that.

In fact I think that anyone leaving a sensitive position with access to secure material should have their rights revoked as a matter of course.

I've done subcontractor work for various defense departments, and my clearance was certainly stripped once my part on the projects were over.

That Trump did it to be petty speaks volumes about his character, but I don't see it as a crime, a violation of rights or even a surprise to be honest.


Being a subcontractor and being a high ranking official are very different. Officials are often consultants to large DOD contractors. Having an active clearance is worth a lot of money in the private sector. Now if Brennon wanted to do contract work he no longer can.

The reason it's an issue if because its worth money and trump said he revoke it in part because of Russia investigation and saying bad things about trump.

[yoink 321]

LeeroyJenkins

******

We get to add it to the list of potential crimes* Revoking a security clearance (a thing of value) due to a private citizens public comments (free speech) is likely a violation of the first amendment.

*Not really a crime, just a violation of civil rights.

I'm not convinced by that.

In fact I think that anyone leaving a sensitive position with access to secure material should have their rights revoked as a matter of course.

I've done subcontractor work for various defense departments, and my clearance was certainly stripped once my part on the projects were over.

That Trump did it to be petty speaks volumes about his character, but I don't see it as a crime, a violation of rights or even a surprise to be honest.


Being a subcontractor and being a high ranking official are very different. Officials are often consultants to large DOD contractors. Having an active clearance is worth a lot of money in the private sector. Now if Brennon wanted to do contract work he no longer can.

The reason it's an issue if because its worth money and trump said he revoke it in part because of Russia investigation and saying bad things about trump.

But there is no 'right' that once you have clearance that you can keep it so that you can then go and consult with it and make money that way.
It's been a perk, sure, but I don't see it as a right that has been stripped.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

yoink

***

We get to add it to the list of potential crimes* Revoking a security clearance (a thing of value) due to a private citizens public comments (free speech) is likely a violation of the first amendment.

*Not really a crime, just a violation of civil rights.

I'm not convinced by that.

In fact I think that anyone leaving a sensitive position with access to secure material should have their rights revoked as a matter of course.

I've done subcontractor work for various defense departments, and my clearance was certainly stripped once my part on the projects were over.

That Trump did it to be petty speaks volumes about his character, but I don't see it as a crime, a violation of rights or even a surprise to be honest.

I don't think Brennan had any 'access' to classified stuff.

It's not like he could log onto "CIAdotcom" and discuss classified stuff with other retired spooks.

What he had was the ability to see and be shown classified material, should the need arise.

With his experience and skill set, the likelyhood of being consulted for a variety of things is pretty high.

Allowing retired and former employees to keep their clearances is one thing.

Allowing the Director of the CIA, FBI, NSA, ect (or any of the deputy directors) to keep it is something quite different.
And it's apparently something of a standard practice.

For the Mango Mussolini to take it away, for no other reason than not liking what Brennan said about him may well cross the line into civil rights violations.

I'm not a civil rights lawyer. But this is pretty clearly an attempt to stifle speech. By the head of the US government.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[LeeroyJenkins 3]

yoink

*********

We get to add it to the list of potential crimes* Revoking a security clearance (a thing of value) due to a private citizens public comments (free speech) is likely a violation of the first amendment.

*Not really a crime, just a violation of civil rights.

I'm not convinced by that.

In fact I think that anyone leaving a sensitive position with access to secure material should have their rights revoked as a matter of course.

I've done subcontractor work for various defense departments, and my clearance was certainly stripped once my part on the projects were over.

That Trump did it to be petty speaks volumes about his character, but I don't see it as a crime, a violation of rights or even a surprise to be honest.


Being a subcontractor and being a high ranking official are very different. Officials are often consultants to large DOD contractors. Having an active clearance is worth a lot of money in the private sector. Now if Brennon wanted to do contract work he no longer can.

The reason it's an issue if because its worth money and trump said he revoke it in part because of Russia investigation and saying bad things about trump.

But there is no 'right' that once you have clearance that you can keep it so that you can then go and consult with it and make money that way.
It's been a perk, sure, but I don't see it as a right that has been stripped.


Having it stripped because of something said it the issue.

That entire last sentence of yours is confusing. The right being talked about is free speech.

[yoink 321]

wolfriverjoe

******

We get to add it to the list of potential crimes* Revoking a security clearance (a thing of value) due to a private citizens public comments (free speech) is likely a violation of the first amendment.

*Not really a crime, just a violation of civil rights.

I'm not convinced by that.

In fact I think that anyone leaving a sensitive position with access to secure material should have their rights revoked as a matter of course.

I've done subcontractor work for various defense departments, and my clearance was certainly stripped once my part on the projects were over.

That Trump did it to be petty speaks volumes about his character, but I don't see it as a crime, a violation of rights or even a surprise to be honest.

I don't think Brennan had any 'access' to classified stuff.

It's not like he could log onto "CIAdotcom" and discuss classified stuff with other retired spooks.

What he had was the ability to see and be shown classified material, should the need arise.

With his experience and skill set, the likelyhood of being consulted for a variety of things is pretty high.

Allowing retired and former employees to keep their clearances is one thing.

Allowing the Director of the CIA, FBI, NSA, ect (or any of the deputy directors) to keep it is something quite different.
And it's apparently something of a standard practice.

For the Mango Mussolini to take it away, for no other reason than not liking what Brennan said about him may well cross the line into civil rights violations.



Just because something is a standard practice doesn't make it the same as a right, and I'm not seeing why it's 'quite different' for a director than for any other employee, or at least in my simplistic view of the world I don't think it should be.

Before now I would have thought that if you were someone wanting to hire Brennan for his experience it would be treated like hiring any other consultant - you apply for their security clearance to let them look at the material you want them to see.
It would be a shit load easier than hiring someone else, sure, but I didn't think his resume was 'comes with own security clearance' negating the need to go through that process.


Again, I'm not surprised by it. We've put a petulant, petty bully into a position of power. He'll do whatever he can to disrupt people who annoy him, just because he thinks he can.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Before now I would have thought that if you were someone wanting to hire Brennan for his experience it would be treated like hiring any other consultant - you apply for their security clearance to let them look at the material you want them to see.
It would be a shit load easier than hiring someone else, sure, but I didn't think his resume was 'comes with own security clearance' negating the need to go through that process.

Actually, his resume probably did say that he already has a clearance. For normal people a TS is worth tens of thousands of dollars per year in potential salary.

Brennan will also not be able to get a clearance again. One of the questions on the form is, "has your clearance ever been denied or revoked?"

This was clearly a punative measure intended to stiffle not only Brennan, but anyone else with a clearance who might speak out against the president.

- Dan G

[LeeroyJenkins 3]

yoink

*********

We get to add it to the list of potential crimes* Revoking a security clearance (a thing of value) due to a private citizens public comments (free speech) is likely a violation of the first amendment.

*Not really a crime, just a violation of civil rights.

I'm not convinced by that.

In fact I think that anyone leaving a sensitive position with access to secure material should have their rights revoked as a matter of course.

I've done subcontractor work for various defense departments, and my clearance was certainly stripped once my part on the projects were over.

That Trump did it to be petty speaks volumes about his character, but I don't see it as a crime, a violation of rights or even a surprise to be honest.

I don't think Brennan had any 'access' to classified stuff.

It's not like he could log onto "CIAdotcom" and discuss classified stuff with other retired spooks.

What he had was the ability to see and be shown classified material, should the need arise.

With his experience and skill set, the likelyhood of being consulted for a variety of things is pretty high.

Allowing retired and former employees to keep their clearances is one thing.

Allowing the Director of the CIA, FBI, NSA, ect (or any of the deputy directors) to keep it is something quite different.
And it's apparently something of a standard practice.

For the Mango Mussolini to take it away, for no other reason than not liking what Brennan said about him may well cross the line into civil rights violations.



Just because something is a standard practice doesn't make it the same as a right, and I'm not seeing why it's 'quite different' for a director than for any other employee, or at least in my simplistic view of the world I don't think it should be.

Before now I would have thought that if you were someone wanting to hire Brennan for his experience it would be treated like hiring any other consultant - you apply for their security clearance to let them look at the material you want them to see.
It would be a shit load easier than hiring someone else, sure, but I didn't think his resume was 'comes with own security clearance' negating the need to go through that process.


Again, I'm not surprised by it. We've put a petulant, petty bully into a position of power. He'll do whatever he can to disrupt people who annoy him, just because he thinks he can.

Stop saying right, jesus, no one is saying a clearance is a right. The first amendment is the right being talked about. You are correct about your simplistic view, it is not accurate regarding the security clearance process.

I promise you his resume said active clearance. It is very common to mention a security clearance on resumes. Mine even mentions my SCI clearance even though it is expired, and defiantly mentioned it when it was valid.

[kallend 2,030]

LeeroyJenkins

***

Quote

Why is Trump so scared of Brennan that he tries to discredit him? What does Brennan know? What did he learn from the CIA’s deep assets in Moscow, and from liaison partners such as Britain, Israel, Germany and the Netherlands?

I don't think there's anything so "deep" going on. Brennan isn't supporting Trump, so Trump is thinking up ways to hurt him. That's it.

We get to add it to the list of potential crimes* Revoking a security clearance (a thing of value) due to a private citizens public comments (free speech) is likely a violation of the first amendment.

*Not really a crime, just a violation of civil rights.

- A group of 11 former CIA directors and a former Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement calling Trump’s move against Brennan “an attempt to stifle free speech.”

- Trump summoned a Wall Street Journal reporter into the Oval Office for an impromptu interview in which he linked Brennan’s clearance revocation to the “sham” Russia investigation. “These people led it,” he said, referring to Brennan and others. “So I think it’s something that had to be done.”

18 USC 1513(e)

Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[LeeroyJenkins 3]

kallend

******

Quote

Why is Trump so scared of Brennan that he tries to discredit him? What does Brennan know? What did he learn from the CIA’s deep assets in Moscow, and from liaison partners such as Britain, Israel, Germany and the Netherlands?

I don't think there's anything so "deep" going on. Brennan isn't supporting Trump, so Trump is thinking up ways to hurt him. That's it.

We get to add it to the list of potential crimes* Revoking a security clearance (a thing of value) due to a private citizens public comments (free speech) is likely a violation of the first amendment.

*Not really a crime, just a violation of civil rights.

- A group of 11 former CIA directors and a former Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement calling Trump’s move against Brennan “an attempt to stifle free speech.”

- Trump summoned a Wall Street Journal reporter into the Oval Office for an impromptu interview in which he linked Brennan’s clearance revocation to the “sham” Russia investigation. “These people led it,” he said, referring to Brennan and others. “So I think it’s something that had to be done.”

18 USC 1513(e)

Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Whistleblower law, that may be able to apply, but we don't know what Brennan told the FBI.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

LeeroyJenkins

***

18 USC 1513(e)

Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Whistleblower law, that may be able to apply, but we don't know what Brennan told the FBI.

Trump didn't revoke Brennan's clearance for talking to the FBI.

Trump's own statement, read by Sanders, said it was due to his public statements, both on TV and over the internet.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[LeeroyJenkins 3]

wolfriverjoe

******

18 USC 1513(e)

Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Whistleblower law, that may be able to apply, but we don't know what Brennan told the FBI.

Trump didn't revoke Brennan's clearance for talking to the FBI.

Trump's own statement, read by Sanders, said it was due to his public statements, both on TV and over the internet.

I am aware, that's what I originally said. Dude above we posts whistleblower law.

[yoink 321]

LeeroyJenkins

Stop saying right, jesus, no one is saying a clearance is a right. The first amendment is the right being talked about.

OK, maybe I'm not seeing it then - how is his right to free speech being infringed in a way that doesn't directly relate to his continued security clearance (the trigger here)?

He can still talk about anything that isn't classified - that hasn't changed, and can't about classified stuff which he couldn't anyway except to other people with appropriate clearance.

I'm just not understanding the link - maybe you could try explaining it to me in a different way, because I'm just not seeing a first amendment violation here.


I've never really thought about how clearance applies to the first amendment in detail before this, but my initial thought is that it would have to be an exception. I'd need to do some research.

I think it has to work like this:
Right to free speech trumps everything unless what you're talking about is classified (you can't just talk to anyone about it), unless classified information you have come into possession of is illegal (whistleblower law takes effect).

In this case, Trump hasn't infringed Brennan's right to call Trump an asshole or talk about the administration in any way, but he has limited Brrennan's ability to come into contact with new classified information.

[LeeroyJenkins 3]

yoink

***
Stop saying right, jesus, no one is saying a clearance is a right. The first amendment is the right being talked about.

OK, maybe I'm not seeing it then - how is his right to free speech being infringed in a way that doesn't directly relate to his continued security clearance (the trigger here)?

He can still talk about anything that isn't classified - that hasn't changed, and can't about classified stuff which he couldn't anyway except to other people with appropriate clearance.

I'm just not understanding the link - maybe you could try explaining it to me in a different way, because I'm just not seeing a first amendment violation here.


I've never really thought about how clearance applies to the first amendment in detail before this, but my initial thought is that it would have to be an exception. I'd need to do some research.

I think it has to work like this:
Right to free speech trumps everything unless what you're talking about is classified (you can't just talk to anyone about it), unless classified information you have come into possession of is illegal (whistleblower law takes effect).

In this case, Trump hasn't infringed Brennan's right to call Trump an asshole or talk about the administration in any way, but he has limited Brrennan's ability to come into contact with new classified information.

You are getting hung up on clearance and speech being the same thing. You have to sepperate the two. A security clearance has value, monitory in the case of being a consultant to DOD contractors. Full stop. The first amendment protects against retaliation from the government for protected speech. This retaliation can includes taking things of value. Trump took away something of value from Brennan because of what Brennan said about trump. Since the thing of value is a clearance it’s going to be more complicated but that’s the gist of it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

yoink

...In this case, Trump hasn't infringed Brennan's right to call Trump an asshole or talk about the administration in any way, but he has limited Brrennan's ability to come into contact with new classified information.

Trump has absolutely infringed on Brennan's right to call Trump an asshole.

He is also threatening a whole lot of other people with the same thing. If that isn't infringing on the free speech of those people, I don't know what it is.

He took punitive action against Brennan. Not for misconduct. Not because he didn't need a clearance anymore.

But because he said mean things about Trump.

13 former high level intel people have signed a letter, saying pretty much the above, but with better words.

Quote

“The president’s action,” they wrote, “has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances — and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech...
...We have never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool, as was done in this case,” they wrote. “Beyond that, this action is quite clearly a signal to other former and current officials. As individuals who have cherished and helped preserve the right of Americans to free speech — even when that right has been used to criticize us — that signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable.”

Too many people are trying to look at this as:

"Why should Brennan (or Comey or the others) keep their clearances?"

Too few (IMO) are looking at it as:

"Why did the president punish this one person in this manner?"

If clearances aren't needed by retired people, or anything like that; great. Let's have that conversation. Separately.

The fact that the sitting president has taken punitive action against a citizen for criticizing the president is abhorrent.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[ryoder 1,590]

This is curious:

McGahn, White House Counsel, Has Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[rushmc 23]

ryoder

This is curious:

McGahn, White House Counsel, Has Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html

Not if you got nothing to hide! Makes perfect sense.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,500]

rushmc

***This is curious:

McGahn, White House Counsel, Has Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html

Not if you got nothing to hide! Makes perfect sense.
So you absolutely do not believe that the Mueller investigation is trying to catch members of Trump's inner circle in perjury traps?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nigel99 507]

jakee

******This is curious:

McGahn, White House Counsel, Has Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html

Not if you got nothing to hide! Makes perfect sense.
So you're absolutely do not believe that the Mueller investigation is trying to catch members of Trump's inner circle in perjury traps?

Definitely not! They are only trying to catch Trump, his inner circle are irrelevant they only fetch coffee.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[DJL 235]

rushmc

***This is curious:

McGahn, White House Counsel, Has Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html

Not if you got nothing to hide! Makes perfect sense.

Agreed, what I've been saying all along. If T gets in trouble it'll be for trying to hide something. For him to be implicated in collusion they would need a recording or several corroborating witnesses. Considering how many people have flipped on him at this point I'd say that they don't have that and therefore it didn't happen. The only thing pointing at him is how much knowledge he had of the meeting with T Jr and I don't think there's much criminality there because it seems like that particular meeting didn't develop into a formal case of collusion. They had the meeting, it was the wrong move and they swept it under the rug which was also the wrong move. T Jr will probably see the inside of a courtroom for it and maybe he'll get a slap on the wrist.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[LeeroyJenkins 3]

DJL

******This is curious:

McGahn, White House Counsel, Has Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/us/politics/don-mcgahn-mueller-investigation.html

Not if you got nothing to hide! Makes perfect sense.

Agreed, what I've been saying all along. If T gets in trouble it'll be for trying to hide something. For him to be implicated in collusion they would need a recording or several corroborating witnesses. Considering how many people have flipped on him at this point I'd say that they don't have that and therefore it didn't happen. The only thing pointing at him is how much knowledge he had of the meeting with T Jr and I don't think there's much criminality there because it seems like that particular meeting didn't develop into a formal case of collusion. They had the meeting, it was the wrong move and they swept it under the rug which was also the wrong move. T Jr will probably see the inside of a courtroom for it and maybe he'll get a slap on the wrist.

You just described conspiracy.