Revoke security clearances . . . - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: Revoke security clearances . . . (/Thread-Revoke-security-clearances) |
RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - GMDino - 08-16-2018 (08-16-2018, 10:57 PM)Vlad Wrote: "Partisan" beef with huh? He's going after Melania? It's joke...like most of the post I quoted....put your pencils down. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - BmorePat87 - 08-17-2018 (08-16-2018, 10:57 PM)Vlad Wrote: "Partisan" beef with huh? Damn it, I hope no federal prosecutors read my Bengals Board posts. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - GMDino - 08-17-2018 (08-17-2018, 12:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Damn it, I hope no federal prosecutors read my Bengals Board posts. What I find weird is that everyone who disagree with the POTUS is just a whiny liberal who is wrong. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/16/william-mcraven-osama-bin-laden-raid-admiral-donald-trump-revoke-security-clearance-john-brennan/1015408002/ Quote:Why a retired Navy SEAL commander wants Trump to revoke his security clearance RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - Bengalholic - 08-17-2018 (08-16-2018, 10:57 PM)Vlad Wrote: You have this supposedly full of integrity Robert Mueller who if he really had integrity would have shut this Russian hoax investigation down after 2 weeks...and instead began investigating Brennan, Comey, Strzok, Hillary, the DNC, Clapper, Ohr and his wife, McCabe, the Obama DOJ, the Obama FBI etc...that is were the criminal activity was. This is where the collusion was. That is where attempts to stack the deck against a presidential candidate was. That fake 'witch hunt' that the President talks about all the time has produced indictments of over 30 witches, guilty pleas from 5 witches and cooperation from multiple witches. For a fake witch hunt, it sure has exposed a lot of very real witches. You can dislike the Russia investigation as much as you want, but to say it's a hoax is just purposely turning a blind eye to reality. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - BmorePat87 - 08-17-2018 Trump went on a rant today praising Manafort for being such a good person and saying it is a very sad day for our country that he is being prosecuted for his numerous crimes. He also said ranted about Bruce Ohr and said "Mr. Mueller is highly conflicted. In fact, Comey is like his best friend", seemingly to suggest that there's conflicts of interest. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - PhilHos - 08-17-2018 (08-17-2018, 01:11 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: That fake 'witch hunt' that the President talks about all the time has produced indictments of over 30 witches, guilty pleas from 5 witches and cooperation from multiple witches. For a fake witch hunt, it sure has exposed a lot of very real witches. Of those indictments, how many were of American citizens, and, of those, how many were for something other than lying to the FBI or obstruction of justice? To be sure, the latter are crimes and should be punished, but lying to the FBI does not equal collusion with Russia in order to affect an election. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - BmorePat87 - 08-21-2018 Philip Mudd, a former CIA and FBI official who contributes to CNN, got into it with CNN's resident Trump supporter, Paris Dennard last night, resulting in Mudd shouting down Dennard after Dennard seems to imply that Mudd profits from his security clearance. Trump tweeted about it, suggesting that this cause for Mudd to lose his security clearance. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - PhilHos - 08-21-2018 (08-21-2018, 09:58 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Philip Mudd, a former CIA and FBI official who contributes to CNN, got into it with CNN's resident Trump supporter, Paris Dennard last night, resulting in Mudd shouting down Dennard after Dennard seems to imply that Mudd profits from his security clearance. Couple questions: 1) Should one lose one's security clearance if they profit from it? 2) Couldn't you argue that getting a non-government job that requires security clearance is a way of proftting from one's security clearance? RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - Dill - 08-21-2018 (08-21-2018, 02:03 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Couple questions: 1. no 2. yes, but not necessarily a way of making money, if the position is unpaid. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - fredtoast - 08-21-2018 (08-17-2018, 02:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Of those indictments, how many were of American citizens, and, of those, how many were for something other than lying to the FBI or obstruction of justice? To be sure, the latter are crimes and should be punished, but lying to the FBI does not equal collusion with Russia in order to affect an election. So why does that mean the investigation is a fake? How does this prove it is a "witch hunt"? You do realize that the Presidents original basis for his claim that this was a "witch hunt" was that the Russians did not interfere in any way with the election, don't you? The fact that he was 100% wrong kind of makes his "witch hunt" claim look stupid. Don't know why so many people still take his side when he has said so many stupid things that have been proven wrong. Then of course there is the question of why Trump and everyone around him has lied about pretty much every aspect of their actions that are under investigation. Why lie about things when you didn't do anything wrong? So to re-cap. Trump lies about Russians not interfering with election. Trump lies about the meetings with Russians. Lots of other people involved in investigation are also proven to be liars. But Fox News calls it a "witch hunt" so it must be a "witch hunt", right? RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - Dill - 08-21-2018 (08-17-2018, 02:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Of those indictments, how many were of American citizens, and, of those, how many were for something other than lying to the FBI or obstruction of justice? To be sure, the latter are crimes and should be punished, but lying to the FBI does not equal collusion with Russia in order to affect an election. Only 5--and counting. If you tell the FBI you didn't meet with Russians to work some angle for the Trump campaign, and they find out you did, then lying to the FBI is at least ABOUT collusion. Trump keeps insisting there was no collusion on the part of him or his campaign, despite so much open source evidence to the contrary. And he is obsessed with stopping the investigation--through, if you trust the intel services, Russia continues to meddle in our election processes. Do you ever watch Hannity? Almost every night he insists there is a deep state engaged in a witchhunt to bring Trump down. He insists there Mueller has offered no evidence of collusion and wants the investigation shut down. I wonder--is Mueller supposed to announce whatever evidence he finds whenever he finds it? Do other investigators do that? Seems to me that Trump, Hannity and company are doing their best to cast doubt on the FBI as an institution and to disparage the character of Mueller et al. so that when the special counsels report finally comes out, enough people will be uncertain about it to keep Congress in check. Mueller and Comey are "best friends" now and swamp creatures who have made money of their time in the FBI--just the kind of people who would want to bring down the swamp cleaner Trump. The steady, disciplined and focused Mueller who has served his country honorably for decades is no more trustworthy than an undisciplined, wildly tweeting/lying Trump who appears way more worried than an innocent man should be about "perjury traps" and mob-style fixers who might turn on him. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - PhilHos - 08-21-2018 (08-21-2018, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So why does that mean the investigation is a fake? How does this prove it is a "witch hunt"? I never said it was fake. However, if the goal of the investigation was to find illegal collusion with a foreign entity and the only charges filed are completely unrelated to collusion, one could make the case the investigation was a witch hunt. I personally would not call it (mainly because there HAVE been a couple related charges) that but I could see the argument. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - PhilHos - 08-21-2018 (08-21-2018, 02:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Only 5--and counting. And I would say that should count amongst the charges of collusion (if it's not already). RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - fredtoast - 08-21-2018 (08-21-2018, 03:26 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I never said it was fake. However, if the goal of the investigation was to find illegal collusion with a foreign entity and the only charges filed are completely unrelated to collusion, one could make the case the investigation was a witch hunt. I personally would not call it (mainly because there HAVE been a couple related charges) that but I could see the argument. There is no legitimate argument that this was a witch hunt. The only way it is a witch hunt is if there was not evidence requiring an investigation. Lots of things are investigated that turn out to be false. That does not mean every investigation is a "witch hunt". There was clear evidence that the Russians approached the Trump campaign with offers to interfere with the election. It had to be investigated. Many of those allegations have now been proven true. In fact it has been proven that the Trump campaign lied repeatedly about these meetings. The ONLY people who think this should never have been investigated are Trump loyalist who don't care what illegal activities he takes part in. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - bfine32 - 08-21-2018 (08-21-2018, 09:58 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Philip Mudd, a former CIA and FBI official who contributes to CNN, got into it with CNN's resident Trump supporter, Paris Dennard last night, resulting in Mudd shouting down Dennard after Dennard seems to imply that Mudd profits from his security clearance.No sure if he should lose his clearance because he profits off of it; however, it is true that having a secret clearance can be profitable. I'm not sure if they purposely ignored his point or really didn't understand it; as they kept going back to what they do for government. I will say it seems one person in the exchange was sane; so the unhinged one might be a security risk. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - jj22 - 08-21-2018 (08-16-2018, 10:57 PM)Vlad Wrote: "Partisan" beef with huh? So much fake news in this post. But the user name gives this Russian away so I'm not surprised he's all in protecting Putin/Trump. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - jj22 - 08-21-2018 (08-21-2018, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So why does that mean the investigation is a fake? How does this prove it is a "witch hunt"? Why even bother. These people don't care about America. Ignore all the indictments involving the Russian investigation that is a "witch hunt" but Hillary who has been investigated over 40 years and no indictments anywhere is guilty.... Exactly. Lames. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - BmorePat87 - 08-21-2018 (08-21-2018, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No sure if he should lose his clearance because he profits off of it; however, it is true that having a secret clearance can be profitable. I'm not sure if they purposely ignored his point or really didn't understand it; as they kept going back to what they do for government. I think unhinged accurately describes his behavior in this clip, but I don't know if getting emotional over perceived personal attacks is a security risk. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - BmorePat87 - 08-21-2018 (08-21-2018, 02:03 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Couple questions: I have to answer #2 first and that answer is "yes". So that answer makes my answer to #1 "no" because then many would lose it and many jobs would be unfilled. But obviously abuse of the security clearance would make me support revoking one's security clearance. RE: Revoke security clearances . . . - Dill - 08-21-2018 (08-21-2018, 06:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think unhinged accurately describes his behavior in this clip, but I don't know if getting emotional over perceived personal attacks is a security risk. Guy is just angry because he is falsely accused of "monetizing" his clearance. It was a matter of pride and personal honor, something likely unknown to the Trump surrogates out their sliming honorable men--most conservatives and Republicans as well. I can understand why these ex-military officials fly into rages when their honor is impugned as part of a smear campaign to defend Trump, who avoided service and is now using presidential powers meant to protect the country to protect himself. That seems to be Fox strategy going forward now--constantly talk about how Trump critics are "making money" off their clearances and are part of the Swamp/deep state. Yanking their clearances is deserved punishment from a president who invited Russian diplomats and spies into the Oval Office unescorted and gave away top secret intel in fashion which harmed relation with an ally. Thank you for your service. |