Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Locked
User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Animavore » Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:55 pm

Cohen's lawyer says his client has information on the Russian collusion affair ...

Cohen has information on a Russian conspiracy, says lawyer

Michael Cohen’s lawyer Lanny Davis has come out all guns blazing on a tour of the broadcast studios in the US today. He has reiterated the guilt of the president regarding the hush money paid to two women, and stressed his client possesses information about Russian interference that would be of interest to investigators.

He told MSNBC and Cohen knows information that would be of interest to special counsel Robert Mueller about a Russian conspiracy to “corrupt American democracy” and “a failure to report that knowledge to the FBI.”
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Scot Dutchy » Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:52 pm

LOCK HIM UP and throw away the key.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4975
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Joe » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:56 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:50 pm
Joe wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:39 am
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:44 pm
Joe wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:30 am


Humping Brennan's leg doesn't change the fact that Trump screwed up again. As usual, you're trying to deflect attention from the issue. Pitiful argument.

You also demonstrate your complete ignorance of security clearances. The typical working stiff doesn't "lose" their clearance when they leave their job. As a rule, the clearance stays current for 2 years, meaning it can be reinstated if they get another job requiring it without having to reapply.
An entitlement to "reinstate" if need be without having to reapply, is not the same thing as having an active security clearance, which is what we're talking about. They aren't able to have information given to them which requires clearance.
No Forty Two, I'm talking about clearances of the rank and file. You made an erroneous statement and I corrected you. You're welcome.
Actually, you didn't, because you referred to an entitlment to reinstate. You said "the typical working stiff doesn't 'lose' their clearance....the clearance stays current for 2 years, meaning it can be reinstated...without the need to reapply." That means when they leave the job they don't have the clearance active after they leave. However, if they get another job needing security clearance, it can be "reinstated" without the need to reapply. I didn't say otherwise. So, you corrected nothing.
Yes, and that corrected this misstatement, "the typical 'working stiff' who leaves the CIA loses their clearance the minute they walk out the door. It's the elite who get to keep their clearances." I'll give you points for pedantic hairsplitting, Forty Two, but it's not an entitlement. it's called a current clearance, as opposed to an active clearance, and neither is lost.

So, I corrected you. Again, you're welcome.
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:50 pm
Joe wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:39 am
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:44 pm
Trump didn't screw up. He's allowed to revoke anyone's security clearance, for crying out loud. These spooks are not entitled to security clearance when they leave their jobs. It became a custom in order to help the administration and successors after one administration leaves and another takes over. It's not a gold watch to the exiting CIA chief. If in 2016 the former CIA head started calling Obama "treasonous" for trying to cut a deal with Iran, I wouldn't expect Obama to let the guy have security clearance either - the guy isn't going to be consulted any longer, because he chose to become a political opponent.

Brennan is allowed to enter the political fray and say whatever he wants. But he doesn't have a right to retain his security clearance. If the President determines that he wouldn't trust the judgment or recommendations, or advice, of a person who has chosen to become a political adversary, then I would expect the clearance to be revoked. It would be stupid not to do so. Security clearance gives someone access to information. Why give a political opponent that access?

It's just as traditional for exiting CIA directors to stay out of the political game as it is for them to keep security clearance. They're supposed to help Presidents of either party.

And, anyway, up until Trump was elected, Brennan was on the left's shit list, as per the articles I've posted from 2016 and prior. The guy lied to Congress under oath, bugged senate offices improperly, designed the drone program, and participated in the torture programs - and now he's a fucking hero to the left? Because Trump took away his security clearance? Come off it.
Trump screwed up. I pointed out how a couple of posts ago, but you weren't able to address it, consumed by Brennan Derangement Syndrome as you are.
I did address it. I pointed out how he did not screw up above, but you weren't able to address it.
Yeah, I did. Remember "Humping Brennan's leg doesn't change the fact that Trump screwed up again. As usual, you're trying to deflect attention from the issue. Pitiful argument." If it wasn't enough for you, you could have asked for clarification.
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:50 pm
Joe wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:39 am
Perhaps when you get your senses back, you can go back in the thread and we can have a nice talk about Presidential leadership and the impact his bad decision might have on the 4 million or so Americans who have some level of clearance.
It's not a bad decision, because 4 million or so Americans do not have the level of clearance the former CIA director had, and did not make the public statements that the former CIA Director did, accusing the president of being a traitor, calling him "despicable," "narcissistic," "vengeful," "venal," "treasonous," “small, petty, banal, mean-spirited, nasty, naïve, unsophisticated . . . a charlatan, a snake-oil salesman, a schoolyard bully . . . an emperor with no clothes." He asserted that Trump colluded with Russia, and said that Trump's denials were "hogwash," and he presented no evidence to support that claim. Any President referred to in those terms would fire the employee - imagine if it's the CIA director currently? Would you expect him to still have a job? I think nobody would - imagine if Brennan had said under Obama that Obama's denial of being born outside the US was "hogwash" and the Obama was a charlatan and treasonous? Would you expect him to still have a job? Would you expect him to still have clearance? If not, why not?

If your answer is, well, if he said those things about Obama they would have been false or unwarranted, then you're missing the point. Trump thinks they're false and unwarranted, and he doesn't have to put up with them, nor does he have to subscribe to the viewpoints of those who think what Brennan is saying is true and warranted.
It sounds like you're arguing with yourself Forty Two; however, you're wrong again. According to USA Today, 1.4 million Americans have top secret security clearances, which is what Brennan apparently had. Again, you're welcome, and again you're argument is irrelevant to my criticism. Perhaps you should go back and and actually read what I wrote. :bored:
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:50 pm
'
Joe wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:39 am
But I doubt I'll hear from you in that way. It seems that Trump isn't the only thin-skinned little darling having a tanty because some has-been talking head said something mean.

Well, carry on then. At least you're entertaining in a superficial way. :martini:
Stupid commentary is stupid.
Agreed, but I think "entertaining in a superficial way" is a more charitable way to put it. :tut:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:07 pm

Joe wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:56 am

Yes, and that corrected this misstatement, "the typical 'working stiff' who leaves the CIA loses their clearance the minute they walk out the door. It's the elite who get to keep their clearances."
The typical working stiff does not have clearance when they're out the door - they have a right of reinstatement without an new application if they get a new government job requiring clearance within 2 years. That's not keeping your clearance. John Brennan, on the other hand, still has his clearance access current, even after he left - he doesn't just have a right to reinstatement.

Those are two different things, and one does not "correct" the other.
Joe wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:56 am

Brennan had active clearance. The run of the mill employee does not - he just has right to reinstate (saves time and paperwork when the clearance is not all that old).

If an employee is fired, security clearance is automatically revoked. If a person resigns, then the security clearance eligibility remains, but the clearance itself ends (no access to information). Eligibility is not the same as having clearance. Brennan had clearance, not just eligibility.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4975
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Joe » Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:12 am

Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:07 pm
Joe wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:56 am

Yes, and that corrected this misstatement, "the typical 'working stiff' who leaves the CIA loses their clearance the minute they walk out the door. It's the elite who get to keep their clearances."
The typical working stiff does not have clearance when they're out the door - they have a right of reinstatement without an new application if they get a new government job requiring clearance within 2 years. That's not keeping your clearance. John Brennan, on the other hand, still has his clearance access current, even after he left - he doesn't just have a right to reinstatement.

Those are two different things, and one does not "correct" the other.
Ah, your usual pedantic and irrelevant quibbling when you've been corrected and are unhappy about it. The reality is your statement is wrong, and I corrected it. Nobody familiar with clearances says you lose your clearance if you leave your job. They say it's current, instead of active. That is the term my friends who have these jobs use, as do the agencies they work for. You used lose incorrectly in this context, although you did lose the argument.

However, I'm sure you'll post a wailing wall of text to save face for your embarrassing illogic. Since you like meme's, here's one to warm you up.

Image
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Scot Dutchy » Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:13 am

"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:23 pm

Joe wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:12 am
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:07 pm
Joe wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:56 am

Yes, and that corrected this misstatement, "the typical 'working stiff' who leaves the CIA loses their clearance the minute they walk out the door. It's the elite who get to keep their clearances."
The typical working stiff does not have clearance when they're out the door - they have a right of reinstatement without an new application if they get a new government job requiring clearance within 2 years. That's not keeping your clearance. John Brennan, on the other hand, still has his clearance access current, even after he left - he doesn't just have a right to reinstatement.

Those are two different things, and one does not "correct" the other.
Ah, your usual pedantic and irrelevant quibbling when you've been corrected and are unhappy about it. The reality is your statement is wrong, and I corrected it. Nobody familiar with clearances says you lose your clearance if you leave your job. They say it's current, instead of active. That is the term my friends who have these jobs use, as do the agencies they work for. You used lose incorrectly in this context, although you did lose the argument.

However, I'm sure you'll post a wailing wall of text to save face for your embarrassing illogic. Since you like meme's, here's one to warm you up.

[/img]

Your post was longer than mine. And, you didn't correct anything. You're the one quibbling here. The difference is that Brennan had active clearance after he left (not just the right of reinstatement). The common employee does not have that, they have merely the right of reinstatement, which goes away after 2 years. So, the common employee does lose his clearance when he leaves - he has no access, just a right of reinstatement, even though he can say my clearance is current (so that if I get a job requiring clearance I can have it REINSTATED). Brennan could say much more than that - that not only could he do that if he got a new job, but he had clearance access even after he was not employed. To say that they both had "current clearance" after leaving employ is wrong, because clearly - whatever you call it - Brennan had actual, active, clearance access to information and such, and the common employee doesn't.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:31 pm

So what?

What are we going to do about Russians publishing messages?

And, the bust of the accused murderer came out right at the same time of the Manafort Cohen stuff. Surely people can be interested in more than one thing at a time?

Who did something wrong here?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4975
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Joe » Sat Aug 25, 2018 2:02 am

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:23 pm
Joe wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:12 am
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:07 pm
Joe wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:56 am

Yes, and that corrected this misstatement, "the typical 'working stiff' who leaves the CIA loses their clearance the minute they walk out the door. It's the elite who get to keep their clearances."
The typical working stiff does not have clearance when they're out the door - they have a right of reinstatement without an new application if they get a new government job requiring clearance within 2 years. That's not keeping your clearance. John Brennan, on the other hand, still has his clearance access current, even after he left - he doesn't just have a right to reinstatement.

Those are two different things, and one does not "correct" the other.
Ah, your usual pedantic and irrelevant quibbling when you've been corrected and are unhappy about it. The reality is your statement is wrong, and I corrected it. Nobody familiar with clearances says you lose your clearance if you leave your job. They say it's current, instead of active. That is the term my friends who have these jobs use, as do the agencies they work for. You used lose incorrectly in this context, although you did lose the argument.

However, I'm sure you'll post a wailing wall of text to save face for your embarrassing illogic. Since you like meme's, here's one to warm you up.

Image

Your post was longer than mine. And, you didn't correct anything. You're the one quibbling here. The difference is that Brennan had active clearance after he left (not just the right of reinstatement). The common employee does not have that, they have merely the right of reinstatement, which goes away after 2 years. So, the common employee does lose his clearance when he leaves - he has no access, just a right of reinstatement, even though he can say my clearance is current (so that if I get a job requiring clearance I can have it REINSTATED). Brennan could say much more than that - that not only could he do that if he got a new job, but he had clearance access even after he was not employed. To say that they both had "current clearance" after leaving employ is wrong, because clearly - whatever you call it - Brennan had actual, active, clearance access to information and such, and the common employee doesn't.
Wow Forty Two, you're babbling petulantly and repeating yourself. You still don't know what you're talking about, and you can't bear to admit you were wrong. So I'll let the Army crush your bullshit.

Image

Now, support our troops, admit your mistake, and move on. :funny:

As for Brennan, fuck him! He's irrelevant to the discussion, as is the President's authority. The topic, which so far has been over your head, is Trump's bad judgement. You're still trying to deflect from that, probably because you can't defend it in any logical way.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:10 pm

Animavore wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:55 pm
Cohen's lawyer says his client has information on the Russian collusion affair ...

Cohen has information on a Russian conspiracy, says lawyer

Michael Cohen’s lawyer Lanny Davis has come out all guns blazing on a tour of the broadcast studios in the US today. He has reiterated the guilt of the president regarding the hush money paid to two women, and stressed his client possesses information about Russian interference that would be of interest to investigators.

He told MSNBC and Cohen knows information that would be of interest to special counsel Robert Mueller about a Russian conspiracy to “corrupt American democracy” and “a failure to report that knowledge to the FBI.”
Lanny Davis, lol. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... p-tower-s/ - twas all more BS.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:16 pm

Joe wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 2:02 am
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:23 pm
Joe wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:12 am
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:07 pm
Joe wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:56 am

Yes, and that corrected this misstatement, "the typical 'working stiff' who leaves the CIA loses their clearance the minute they walk out the door. It's the elite who get to keep their clearances."
The typical working stiff does not have clearance when they're out the door - they have a right of reinstatement without an new application if they get a new government job requiring clearance within 2 years. That's not keeping your clearance. John Brennan, on the other hand, still has his clearance access current, even after he left - he doesn't just have a right to reinstatement.

Those are two different things, and one does not "correct" the other.
Ah, your usual pedantic and irrelevant quibbling when you've been corrected and are unhappy about it. The reality is your statement is wrong, and I corrected it. Nobody familiar with clearances says you lose your clearance if you leave your job. They say it's current, instead of active. That is the term my friends who have these jobs use, as do the agencies they work for. You used lose incorrectly in this context, although you did lose the argument.

However, I'm sure you'll post a wailing wall of text to save face for your embarrassing illogic. Since you like meme's, here's one to warm you up.

Image

Your post was longer than mine. And, you didn't correct anything. You're the one quibbling here. The difference is that Brennan had active clearance after he left (not just the right of reinstatement). The common employee does not have that, they have merely the right of reinstatement, which goes away after 2 years. So, the common employee does lose his clearance when he leaves - he has no access, just a right of reinstatement, even though he can say my clearance is current (so that if I get a job requiring clearance I can have it REINSTATED). Brennan could say much more than that - that not only could he do that if he got a new job, but he had clearance access even after he was not employed. To say that they both had "current clearance" after leaving employ is wrong, because clearly - whatever you call it - Brennan had actual, active, clearance access to information and such, and the common employee doesn't.
Wow Forty Two, you're babbling petulantly and repeating yourself. You still don't know what you're talking about, and you can't bear to admit you were wrong. So I'll let the Army crush your bullshit.

Image

Now, support our troops, admit your mistake, and move on. :funny:

As for Brennan, fuck him! He's irrelevant to the discussion, as is the President's authority. The topic, which so far has been over your head, is Trump's bad judgement. You're still trying to deflect from that, probably because you can't defend it in any logical way.
Having clearance and having "clearance eligibility" is not the same thing. A former employee has eligibility. Brennan had current clearly as if he was still an active employee.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37941
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:24 pm

He's irrelevant until he's consulted about something which happened under his tenure, in which case I'm sure his clearance will be quickly reinstated - if only for a day.

The point is not whether his ongoing clearance was problematic or whether its revocation is technically irrelevant - the point is that a truculent, thin-skinned president used his powers in retribution against legitimate and informed public criticism from a certain individual.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4975
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Joe » Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:48 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:16 pm
Joe wrote:
Sat Aug 25, 2018 2:02 am
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:23 pm
Joe wrote:
Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:12 am
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:07 pm


The typical working stiff does not have clearance when they're out the door - they have a right of reinstatement without an new application if they get a new government job requiring clearance within 2 years. That's not keeping your clearance. John Brennan, on the other hand, still has his clearance access current, even after he left - he doesn't just have a right to reinstatement.

Those are two different things, and one does not "correct" the other.
Ah, your usual pedantic and irrelevant quibbling when you've been corrected and are unhappy about it. The reality is your statement is wrong, and I corrected it. Nobody familiar with clearances says you lose your clearance if you leave your job. They say it's current, instead of active. That is the term my friends who have these jobs use, as do the agencies they work for. You used lose incorrectly in this context, although you did lose the argument.

However, I'm sure you'll post a wailing wall of text to save face for your embarrassing illogic. Since you like meme's, here's one to warm you up.

Image

Your post was longer than mine. And, you didn't correct anything. You're the one quibbling here. The difference is that Brennan had active clearance after he left (not just the right of reinstatement). The common employee does not have that, they have merely the right of reinstatement, which goes away after 2 years. So, the common employee does lose his clearance when he leaves - he has no access, just a right of reinstatement, even though he can say my clearance is current (so that if I get a job requiring clearance I can have it REINSTATED). Brennan could say much more than that - that not only could he do that if he got a new job, but he had clearance access even after he was not employed. To say that they both had "current clearance" after leaving employ is wrong, because clearly - whatever you call it - Brennan had actual, active, clearance access to information and such, and the common employee doesn't.
Wow Forty Two, you're babbling petulantly and repeating yourself. You still don't know what you're talking about, and you can't bear to admit you were wrong. So I'll let the Army crush your bullshit.

Image

Now, support our troops, admit your mistake, and move on. :funny:

As for Brennan, fuck him! He's irrelevant to the discussion, as is the President's authority. The topic, which so far has been over your head, is Trump's bad judgement. You're still trying to deflect from that, probably because you can't defend it in any logical way.
Having clearance and having "clearance eligibility" is not the same thing. A former employee has eligibility. Brennan had current clearly as if he was still an active employee.
Neither is the same thing as "loses their clearance." Moving the goalposts doesn't make you any less wrong. :bored:

Trump's decision was stupid, and was strongly criticized by the intelligence community, blowback he could have avoided by following the established process for revoking clearances. Then the damn fool blabbed to the Wall Street Journal that it was political retaliation for the Russia. investigation, which fired up the obstruction crowd. And, on top of it all, by revoking Brennan's clearance, he made a hero out of a hack.

You can't defend him on this one, can you Forty Two?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Seabass » Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:16 am

Joe wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:48 am
You can't defend him on this one, can you Forty Two?
If he can defend baby snatching, he can defend anything.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4975
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Joe » Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:35 am

He's been running from it so far.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests