Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    20 Aug '18 16:181 edit
    http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/402521-clapper-brennans-rhetoric-is-becoming-an-issue-in-and-of-itself

    Clapper: Brennan's rhetoric is becoming an issue

    Brennan accused the President of being a traitor.

    Clapper attacks Brennan.

    Brennan apologizes, said the President did no such thing.

    The Senate Intel Committee, whom Brennan illegally spied upon once, rebuked Brennan for going to the public with claims he has evidence against Trump instead of going on record and under oath before the Committee with his evidence:

    “If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office, it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the special counsel, not The New York Times.”


    More than 60 Intel Reps exposed Brennan's rantings as his own OPINION, not fact, by declaring, "We believe equally strongly that former government officials have the right to express their unclassified views on what they see as critical national security issues without fear of being punished for doing so."

    1. No one is stopping Brennan or anyone else from sharing his opinions with anyone or any news agency. A Security Clearance is NOT needed to do that.

    2. Where is the Intel Community attacking Brennan for stripping the Benghazi heroes of their security clearances from coming forward and telling America what really happened?
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    20 Aug '18 16:462 edits
    Brennan keeps whining about Trump silencing his voice by taking his security clearance away, but for the life of me I don't understand how that silences his voice.

    If anything, it gives him a platform to express his views to the press because of all the publicity.

    Now if say Facebook and Twitter and Youtube, etc., censored his words declaring it hate speech, that would be silencing his voice.

    Luckily for him, those corporations are run by the DNC.
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    20 Aug '18 16:591 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/402521-clapper-brennans-rhetoric-is-becoming-an-issue-in-and-of-itself

    Clapper: Brennan's rhetoric is becoming an issue

    Brennan accused the President of being a traitor.

    Clapper attacks Brennan.

    Brennan apologizes, said the President did no such thing.

    The Senate Intel Committee, whom Brennan i ...[text shortened]... eroes of their security clearances from coming forward and telling America what really happened?
    From the Donald himself:

    “Everybody wants to keep their Security Clearance, it’s worth great prestige and big dollars, even board seats,

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-clearances/new-outcry-over-trumps-revocation-of-brennan-security-clearance-idUSKCN1L515D

    So Trump is admitting that security clearances have a clear economic value. Thus, his revocation of Brennan's for the latter's political criticism of the Donald is intended as a government punishment of the ex-CIA director for his protected free speech.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    20 Aug '18 17:01
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Brennan keeps whining about Trump silencing his voice by taking his security clearance away, but for the life of me I don't understand how that silences his voice.

    If anything, it gives him a platform to express his views to the press because of all the publicity.

    Now if say Facebook and Twitter and Youtube, etc., censored his words declaring it hate s ...[text shortened]... h, that would be silencing his voice.

    Luckily for him, those corporations are run by the DNC.
    Understand now?

    Do you also understand the difference between government action intended to punish individuals for their political speech and the editorial decisions of private companies? (HINT: One is a constitutional violation and the other is not).
  5. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    20 Aug '18 17:05
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Brennan keeps whining about Trump silencing his voice by taking his security clearance away, but for the life of me I don't understand how that silences his voice.

    If anything, it gives him a platform to express his views to the press because of all the publicity.

    Now if say Facebook and Twitter and Youtube, etc., censored his words declaring it hate s ...[text shortened]... h, that would be silencing his voice.

    Luckily for him, those corporations are run by the DNC.
    If I charge you $5 for every time you publicly state your opinion, but don't otherwise restrict your expression, am I restricting your freedom of speech or not?
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    20 Aug '18 17:151 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Understand now?

    Do you also understand the difference between government action intended to punish individuals for their political speech and the editorial decisions of private companies? (HINT: One is a constitutional violation and the other is not).
    So I understand it is another government money making scheme.

    I'm sure it's one of many. After all, Obama came out some 30 million dollars richer after being President and being a "public servant'.

    But how does it silence his voice? Why not just come out and say that Trump has taken money out of my bank account by taking away my clearance?
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    20 Aug '18 17:28
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    From the Donald himself:

    “Everybody wants to keep their Security Clearance, it’s worth great prestige and big dollars, even board seats,

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-clearances/new-outcry-over-trumps-revocation-of-brennan-security-clearance-idUSKCN1L515D

    So Trump is admitting that security clearances have a clear economic value. ...[text shortened]... ald is intended as a government punishment of the ex-CIA director for his protected free speech.
    “Everybody wants to keep their Security Clearance, it’s worth great prestige and big dollars, even board seats,"
    --Donald Trump

    That may be true for former directors of the CIA. It's not true for the overwhelming
    majority of retired employees who held security clearances (including top secret).
    They might be offered 'big dollars' for their information only by foreign governments.

    When one of my relatives retired and lost his high level security clearance, he did not
    complain of being deprived of his freedom of speech.
  8. Joined
    15 Dec '03
    Moves
    281496
    20 Aug '18 17:351 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/402521-clapper-brennans-rhetoric-is-becoming-an-issue-in-and-of-itself

    Clapper: Brennan's rhetoric is becoming an issue

    Brennan accused the President of being a traitor.

    Clapper attacks Brennan.

    Brennan apologizes, said the President did no such thing.

    The Senate Intel Committee, whom Brennan i ...[text shortened]... eroes of their security clearances from coming forward and telling America what really happened?
    They are cia rats. Trained to lie. Expect any less? I keep telling you people to read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins, ex cia. Outlines the cia mission all over the world to subvert govts. and steal all the resources. Becthel Corp. being one of the worst. Sad to say I've worked for them on a few projects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    20 Aug '18 17:42
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    “Everybody wants to keep their Security Clearance, it’s worth great prestige and big dollars, even board seats,"
    --Donald Trump

    That may be true for former directors of the CIA. It's not true for the overwhelming
    majority of retired employees who held security clearances (including top secret).
    They might be offered 'big dollars' for their inform ...[text shortened]... high level security clearance, he did not
    complain of being deprived of his freedom of speech.
    IF he had been deprived of his security clearance in a governmental attempt to punish him for his constitutionally protected political speech, he should have.
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    20 Aug '18 17:571 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    IF he had been deprived of his security clearance in a governmental attempt to punish
    him for his constitutionally protected political speech, he should have.
    Earlier in his career, he was temporarily deprived of his security clearance after he dared
    to criticize US policies in the Vietnam War. He was 'prematurely' right; his predictions came true.
    That led to him being investigated in depth as a suspected Communist sympathizer or even agent.

    By the way, he had to obtain approval from US government security before he could marry
    an immigrant (who was not a US citizen). The security people investigated her background.
    If the security people had objected to her, then he could have married her anyway, but he
    would have lost his security clearance and been unable to keep working in his position.
    He might also have become blacklisted from future employment in his field.
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    20 Aug '18 18:12
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    “Everybody wants to keep their Security Clearance, it’s worth great prestige and big dollars, even board seats,"
    --Donald Trump

    That may be true for former directors of the CIA. It's not true for the overwhelming
    majority of retired employees who held security clearances (including top secret).
    They might be offered 'big dollars' for their inform ...[text shortened]... high level security clearance, he did not
    complain of being deprived of his freedom of speech.
    I think what it is, is high ranking officials are well compensated for being a stooge and subsequently reimbursed for their trouble later through such things as this.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    20 Aug '18 19:171 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    I think what it is, is high ranking officials are well compensated for being a stooge
    and subsequently reimbursed for their trouble later through such things as this.
    The highest ranking officials apparently expect different treatment or can play by different rules
    than the overwhelming majority of people who held security clearances (including top secret).
  13. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    138610
    20 Aug '18 19:29
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    From the Donald himself:

    “Everybody wants to keep their Security Clearance, it’s worth great prestige and big dollars, even board seats,

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-clearances/new-outcry-over-trumps-revocation-of-brennan-security-clearance-idUSKCN1L515D

    So Trump is admitting that security clearances have a clear economic value. ...[text shortened]... ald is intended as a government punishment of the ex-CIA director for his protected free speech.
    If there is prestige attached to security clearance, then why does Donald have it ?
Back to Top