Brennan should be hanged for treason.
Comrade John Brennan's security clearance has been revoked
- Thread starter TreeFrogTrader
- Start date
That is quite a statement. I’m thinking you’re a little dizzy with euphoria.
Let’s get this straight: You are telling me the government should, and would be justified, in killing John Brennan?
When we have a new Attorney General to replace Jeff Sessions, maybe, the Deep State guys can be charged for their crimes! I am sure the patriotic members of the intelligence services would not like anything better than to have these guys among them who committed treason to be charged and locked up! They disgrace the men and women of the US intelligence services who are patriots and do their jobs daily to protect the US, not subvert and try to destroy it from within! Other countries treat their traitors harshly, including death by firing squad! We should start doing the same thing in the US! Change the laws to impose harsher penalties on treason!
It's a colloquial expression mr smarty pants. But to be clear, the guillotine would be a better alternative...
It's a colloquial expression mr smarty pants. But to be clear, the guillotine would be a better alternative...
Yeah, not really though. Brennan has not committed any act of treason and there is not single legitimate reason to revoke his Security clearance.
You guys think this is a game but Trump is destroying the presidency. The bar is incredibly low now.
Former Obama officials also lost their White House badges. Is that also a scandal? We had an election. They're out.
There is no reason whatsoever for these former officials to keep their clearances for years. In quite a few cases, they should not have been granted in the first place. Brennan has displayed abysmal judgment and acted bizarrely and in a totally inappropriate manner for a former CIA Director. He'll be lucky if losing his clearance is the only consequence.
Well at least you’re not accusing him of being a threat to national security or treason. However, even the reasons you’ve cited are bogus.
That's not the proper standard. Former officials are allowed to retain their clearances in case their assistance or counsel is needed. No one is going to be asking this nutcase his opinion on anything, except maybe to do the opposite.
Perhaps he should file suit and find some federal judge in Hawaii or Washington state who will take over deciding who gets security clearances.
I didn't rule it out. Your opposition is that former officials, even after taking nakedly partisan roles, have some sort of right to retain their clearances? Could you point me to the law or regulation that says that?
What would be adequate grounds for revoking a former official's clearance? How about lying to congress? Leaking conversations with the president?
The problem with big tech monopolies conspiring to deny access to social media is not remotely analogous. First, they are conspiring to boycott certain types of users, eg conservatives. That raises obvious problems under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Second, it violates the recent law which gives them immunity from libel on the grounds that they are not publishers. Third, it is an unfair trade act, which falls under the FTC's ambit. Fourth, most of their usage is cellular and they are subject to sanction by the FCC for discriminating in access. Fifth, the FCC has jurisdiction over internet usage and can easily require them to stop boycotting users.
By contrast, the president has sole authority over granting or revoking security clearances. Former officials have been allowed to retain them as a matter of courtesy, but in the case of Brennan, Clapper and a number of others, they have forfeited that courtesy by their own outlandish behavior.
By contrast, the president has sole authority over granting or revoking security clearances. Former officials have been allowed to retain them as a matter of courtesy, but in the case of Brennan, Clapper and a number of others, they have forfeited that courtesy by their own outlandish behavior.