Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12128
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:31 pm

Joe wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:17 am
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:59 pm
Oh, fiddlesticks. Who gives a fuck?

John Brennan? Confirmed liar and obvious partisan?

Look, the guy is not in government anymore. He works for MSNBC and NBC, which are partisan networks. The only reason to leave former spooks with security clearance is so current government officials can consult with them. The custom of leaving a CIA head with clearance after they leave is to benefit the administration, not as some sort of honory gift or gold watch to the former employee. Why in the world would Brennan need clearance now? And, clearance is on a need to know basis.

Brennan misused his power and lied about it - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ied-senate (I know the Guardian is an unreliable right-wing source, but it came up first in the googles...)''

Fuck John Brennan and the only reason anyone is pretending to be up in arms that his clearance is gone is because they lose a guy who can poke his nose around the inside of the administration and leak shit to the press.
No Forty Two, the working stiffs who need a clearance to do their jobs give a fuck because the President used the clearance process as a tool to punish a political enemy. Not only that, he did it in response to someone exercising his 1st Amendment rights.

That might make private sector jobs look a little more attractive. The clearance process is intrusive enough without having to worry about losing your job by pissing off some ass clown politician.

That's poor leadership at best, and has probably lowered the bar in DC another notch.

I don't care about Brennan, but Trump messed up again.
Brennan is not a working stiff, and 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.

And, Brennan has a right to speak his mind, and he still has that right. He just doesn't have the right to security clearance, and he never had that right. This is the guy who bugged Senate offices and lied about it to Congress. LOL. Sure, he gets the gold watch.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 8588
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Sean Hayden » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:19 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:58 pm
I've traditionally had a low opinion of journalists and reporters. I find them rarely to be particularly discerning. They're sloppy. They're imprecise. And, I have found that on close inspection, any technical, legal, scientific, or generally complex issue will, almost always, be wrong in some demonstrable, factual way.

Yeah, that's a common complaint. But I was thinking more about how the press is portrayed as being in cahoots with corporations. I'm pretty sure people have been speaking out against that for years now. But to suggest the press may have a political agenda which distorts reality is beyond the pale. :roll:
Men we shall have only as we make manhood the object of the work of the schools—intelligence, broad sympathy, knowledge of the world that was and is, and of the relation of men to it—this is the curriculum of that Higher Education which must underlie true life. On this foundation we may build bread winning, skill of hand and quickness of brain, with never a fear lest the child and man mistake the means of living for the object of life. . . .

W.E.B Du Bois

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 8479
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijk beschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Scot Dutchy » Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:09 pm

It is only wrong when it suits Trump.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12128
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:06 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:19 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:58 pm
I've traditionally had a low opinion of journalists and reporters. I find them rarely to be particularly discerning. They're sloppy. They're imprecise. And, I have found that on close inspection, any technical, legal, scientific, or generally complex issue will, almost always, be wrong in some demonstrable, factual way.

Yeah, that's a common complaint. But I was thinking more about how the press is portrayed as being in cahoots with corporations. I'm pretty sure people have been speaking out against that for years now. But to suggest the press may have a political agenda which distorts reality is beyond the pale. :roll:
To suggest that Fox News, CNN and MSNBC don't have a political agenda respectively would be naive. They distort reality all the time.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 8588
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Sean Hayden » Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:16 pm

Is my sarcasm not working?
Men we shall have only as we make manhood the object of the work of the schools—intelligence, broad sympathy, knowledge of the world that was and is, and of the relation of men to it—this is the curriculum of that Higher Education which must underlie true life. On this foundation we may build bread winning, skill of hand and quickness of brain, with never a fear lest the child and man mistake the means of living for the object of life. . . .

W.E.B Du Bois

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 853
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 18, 2018 2:30 am

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:31 pm
Joe wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:17 am
Forty Two wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:59 pm
Oh, fiddlesticks. Who gives a fuck?

John Brennan? Confirmed liar and obvious partisan?

Look, the guy is not in government anymore. He works for MSNBC and NBC, which are partisan networks. The only reason to leave former spooks with security clearance is so current government officials can consult with them. The custom of leaving a CIA head with clearance after they leave is to benefit the administration, not as some sort of honory gift or gold watch to the former employee. Why in the world would Brennan need clearance now? And, clearance is on a need to know basis.

Brennan misused his power and lied about it - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ied-senate (I know the Guardian is an unreliable right-wing source, but it came up first in the googles...)''

Fuck John Brennan and the only reason anyone is pretending to be up in arms that his clearance is gone is because they lose a guy who can poke his nose around the inside of the administration and leak shit to the press.
No Forty Two, the working stiffs who need a clearance to do their jobs give a fuck because the President used the clearance process as a tool to punish a political enemy. Not only that, he did it in response to someone exercising his 1st Amendment rights.

That might make private sector jobs look a little more attractive. The clearance process is intrusive enough without having to worry about losing your job by pissing off some ass clown politician.

That's poor leadership at best, and has probably lowered the bar in DC another notch.

I don't care about Brennan, but Trump messed up again.
Brennan is not a working stiff, and 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.

And, Brennan has a right to speak his mind, and he still has that right. He just doesn't have the right to security clearance, and he never had that right. This is the guy who bugged Senate offices and lied about it to Congress. LOL. Sure, he gets the gold watch.
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.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 1543
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:44 am

Microsoft got a court order, then 'liberated' six spoofing websites from the Russian GRU.

'The Russians tried to hack the Senate and conservative think tanks, Microsoft says'
Parts of an operation linked to Russian military intelligence targeting the US Senate and conservative think tanks were thwarted last week, Microsoft announced early Tuesday.

The company said it executed a court order giving it control of six websites created by a group known as Fancy Bear. The group was behind the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee and directed by the GRU, the Russian military intelligence unit, according to cybersecurity firms.

The websites could have been used to launch cyberattacks on candidates and other political groups ahead of November's elections, the company said.

Among the websites a judge in the Eastern District of Virginia granted Microsoft control of were those with domain names designed to resemble sites used by congressional staff. They include "senate.group," and "adfs-senate.email."

Other domains were designed to look like they were related to the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, and the International Republican Institute, whose board includes six serving senators, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Gen. H.R. McMaster.

Microsoft said the domains were "associated with the Russian government and known as Strontium, or alternatively Fancy Bear or APT28." The company said it has no evidence that the domains were used in successful attacks but that it was working with the potential target organizations.
Also, Twitter link to Wall Street Journal piece about this story.
Microsoft has historically been able to gain control of phishing domains such as these by claiming trademark violations when the domains masquerade as the firm’s websites.

Microsoft hasn’t seen as many attempted intrusions as it did during the 2016 presidential cycle, [president and chief legal officer of Microsoft Brad] Smith said, though he cautioned that could be due in part to Russia relying on more sophisticated tools.

“At the same time given that we have developed this tactic, we have to assume there are smart people on the other side who are shifting tactics or at least finding new ways to elude this type of response,” Mr. Smith said.

Microsoft is taking new steps to give candidates, political groups and think tanks more information on cyberthreats and how to protect from them, Mr. Smith said.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 1543
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:59 pm

Christopher Steele prevails in court.

'Author of Trump-Russia dossier wins libel case in US court'
The former MI6 officer Christopher Steele has won a legal battle in the United States against three Russian oligarchs who sued him over allegations made in his dossier about the Trump campaign and its links with Moscow.

The oligarchs – Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and German Khan – claimed that Steele and his intelligence firm, Orbis, defamed them in the dossier, which was leaked and published in early 2017. The Russians own stakes in Moscow-based Alfa Bank. All are billionaires.

On Monday, a judge in the District of Columbia, Anthony C Epstein, upheld a motion by Steele to have the oligarchs’ case thrown out. Epstein did not determine whether the dossier – which Donald Trump has repeatedly dismissed as “fake” – was “accurate or not accurate”.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12128
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:34 pm

I wish they would cite the case in articles like that. I have been searching for it, and I can't find a case before Judge Epstein. I found one before a different judge with the same parties - defendant Bean, LLC aka Fusion GPS is the defendant and the named Russians are plaintiffs. Looks like there is a motion to dismiss filed, but there wasn't a hearing on Monday. So, I must be missing the case. If anyone finds a case number, post it.

Since it was a libel case, it was probably dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which are often granted in libel cases because US law on the issue of libel and public figures is very protective of free speech, even for false statements. The court would review the matter asking itself "if everything in the complaint were taken as true, would there be liability for libel?" If the court's answer is no, they toss it out. So, it's not a determination that there were no false statements - it's a determination that even if all the statements challenged by the plaintiffs were proven to be false, there still would be no liability.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12128
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » 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.

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.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12128
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:46 pm

Sean Hayden wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:16 pm
Is my sarcasm not working?
Image
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 1543
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am

Forty Two wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:34 pm
I wish they would cite the case in articles like that.
Yeah, well, I don't mind sharing access to this sort of document with you. Your attempts to re-litigate decisions can be mildly entertaining, if not particularly effective or convincing. You could search the court website yourself using the case number given below, if you don't trust the link I supply.

Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division Case No. 2018 CA 002667 B: Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

Note that the lawyers for the Russians lied in their post-trial spin.
"We are, however, pleased that the Court agreed that we have adequately proved Mr. Steele’s negligence in making unsupported accusations that our clients had something to do with alleged efforts to interfere in the 2016 election – which they did not."

[source]
Nowhere does Epstein make any such statement.

The same lawyers claim that they will appeal. Given that Epstein dismissed with prejudice, it seems that they're milking their Russian clients but what the hell, those clients have rubles to burn.

On Brennan, criticism of Trump's action is warranted. He used his power as president to gratify his desire to strike at a political opponent. Whether it's the norm for former high-ranking intelligence officials to refrain from criticizing any president while in office or not is irrelevant: Trump has made it blatantly clear that previous norms and niceties are out the window as long as he's in office.

While I'm not a defender of Brennan's past actions, I think the truth about them is worthwhile. He didn't bug Senate offices. What the CIA did was circumvent a firewall, which allowed them to search Senate staff documents and emails. I'm unaware of any evidence that Brennan signed off on this intrusion, but maybe you can cite any such evidence or reports. The reports I read stated that Brennan actually ordered the operation to cease when he learned about it.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 853
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Joe » 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.
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. 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.

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:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12128
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:33 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am
Forty Two wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:34 pm
I wish they would cite the case in articles like that.
Yeah, well, I don't mind sharing access to this sort of document with you. Your attempts to re-litigate decisions can be mildly entertaining, if not particularly effective or convincing.
Just stop with making threads about personal attacks on me. Attempts to relitigate? Dude, the article did not provide the legal basis for the motion, or the rationale for the decision. My post was speculation as to what the motion was about, and what the order of dismissal means.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am

You could search the court website yourself using the case number given below, if you don't trust the link I supply.
Excellent, thanks. The article refered a "US court" - so, I had searched the US district courts for the case. There is one, but it

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am

Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division Case No. 2018 CA 002667 B: Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

Note that the lawyers for the Russians lied in their post-trial spin.
There was no trial. But, and my speculation as to what the court's reasoning would be on a motion to dismiss was basically correct. The court ruled on a motion to dismiss which required the Plaintiff to offer evidence that the Defendants made a false and defamatory statement with malice aforethought (meaning knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard to the falsity). The court did not rule on whether the statements were false, or whether the statements were defamatory. The court simply ruled that even if false, no evidence was produced as to the Defendant's knowledge/reckless disregard, and therefore failed to meet the burden to produce clear and convincing evidence on which a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant's subjective knowledge was that it was false, or that they acted with "reckless disregard" of the truth. The court ruled, for example, that wasn't sufficient that the Defendant "should have known better" than to publish the statements -- the test is whether Plaintiff can offer proof that the Defendant harbored "subjective doubt." That's a hugely difficult standard to meet. It's a function of US law on defamation.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am
"We are, however, pleased that the Court agreed that we have adequately proved Mr. Steele’s negligence in making unsupported accusations that our clients had something to do with alleged efforts to interfere in the 2016 election – which they did not."

[source]
Nowhere does Epstein make any such statement.

The same lawyers claim that they will appeal. Given that Epstein dismissed with prejudice, it seems that they're milking their Russian clients but what the hell, those clients have rubles to burn.
I haven't parsed the opinion to see if the PR statement about what the court agreed with is true or false. And, it doesn't matter. The opinion is the opinion. However, dismissals with prejudice just relate to whether they can file the same lawsuit again. A dismissal without prejudice means that they cannot file a new lawsuit to try to allege with greater or more specific allegations in order to state a claim on which relief can be granted. A dismissal with prejudice means they cannot refile a new case, and their only recourse is via appeal. An appeal is, however, an uphill battle, to say the least. The trial court level standard was high enough, and then add to that that the appellate court's determination of whether judge Epstein made an error is going to be an "abuse of discretion" standard (which means that deference is given to the judge's findings of fact, and they will only be overturned if found to be unreasonable conclusions and that no reasonable finder of fact could conclude as he did under the given facts and evidence).
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am

On Brennan, criticism of Trump's action is warranted.
Whether it is, or isn't, is itself a matter of opinion. Some people think it's "warranted." Other people think it's "unwarranted" (meaning not justified). Whether warranted or unwarranted in terms of "authorized," under the US system, no criticism requires authorization or warrant. All criticism is in that respect "warranted," by the right of every citizen to criticize the President of the US. That does not mean, however, that appointed officials, or retired appointed officials, get to keep their security clearance when they call the President a traitor, vile, venal, etc.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am

He used his power as president to gratify his desire to strike at a political opponent. Whether it's the norm for former high-ranking intelligence officials to refrain from criticizing any president while in office or not is irrelevant: Trump has made it blatantly clear that previous norms and niceties are out the window as long as he's in office.
Brennan used his power as a former CIA director to strongly imply that he has secret, incriminating information regarding the President, and that the President is committing treason by being friendly to Russia (verbally, even though the policies of the US administration are quite strongly ant-Russian these days, as we are sending more troops to the Russian border, bombed Russian assets in Syria, and imposed strong sanctions against Russia). Brennan is entitled to do that, but he's not entitled to have security clearance, and if the President is not comfortable with him having security clearance - because of Brennan's animus toward the President and desire to see the President impeached, arrested, or tried for Treason, and therefore will not be seeking Brennan's input on policy or intelligence matters, then it stands to reason that the clearance would be removed.
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:28 am

While I'm not a defender of Brennan's past actions, I think the truth about them is worthwhile. He didn't bug Senate offices. What the CIA did was circumvent a firewall, which allowed them to search Senate staff documents and emails. I'm unaware of any evidence that Brennan signed off on this intrusion, but maybe you can cite any such evidence or reports. The reports I read stated that Brennan actually ordered the operation to cease when he learned about it.
He lied to Congress, and under the Obama Administration, there were serious efforts on the left to see him fired.

I want to add that the accusation that the President is a traitor should be enough to get him fired, if he were still employed, and it should be enough to get his clearance revoked. These kinds of allegations from CIA director level people can have serious policy and international relations consequences. They can effect the way the President has to deal with other countries, and can effect how they deal with him. The President is the one who sets executive policy toward any country, and Brennan doesn't. Brennan has a right to an opinion as to who the President should be friendly to, and what the President should say to "call out" Vladimir Putin when they meet. He can say all he wants about it. But, the President has the constitutional authority to revoke security clearance, and to otherwise assert the actual policies of the executive branch, which can be diametrically opposed to what Brennan thinks is best. If the President decided to enter into a treaty of frienship with Russia, and ally with Russia outright, calling it the sense of the US administration that Russia is a fast and true friend to the US, lowering tariff barriers, and removing sanctions, then the President has the power to do so. He could sign such a treaty, subject to the ratification power of the Senate. He would not be a traitor for doing so. Why? Because no matter what the CIA Director or former CIA director thinks about Russia, in the final analysis they are advisors to the President, and they are not the President.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 12128
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Trump and Russia; Spasiba, Harasho!

Post by Forty Two » 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.
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.
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.


'
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.
"Every socialistic type of government… produces bad art, produces social inertia, produces really unhappy people, and it's more repressive than any other kind of government." Frank Zappa.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests