John Brennan bad? Trump good?

the janitor

Tom Curren status
Mar 28, 2003
12,340
1,737
113
north of the bridge
frvcvs said:
the janitor said:
frvcvs said:
Surfdog said:
Once Brennan (and Clapper) became a talking heads for CNN and MSNBC, security clearances needed to be cut. He and Clapper are likely sources of many leaks and innuendo that had no business being made public. Then giving their own personal commentary/opinion/speculation/spin to the MSM on what info they've garnered (feeding the Resistance). They're toxic being former Obama/Hillary loyalists, but allowed to spew in the media at the same time. I have a feeling down the road these guys will be facing a court for their actions.

This should've happen the day Trump was elected. Obama cleaned house when he was elected, Trump should've done the same, but probably didn't know better to do so. :shrug:
There’s a difference between replacing heads of the intel community and stripping away security clearances. Can you name anyone who Obama stripped of their clearance?
ok, let's play

Can you name anyone from the Bush Administration with a security clearance or a Bush intel appointee who was constantly piliorying Obama on social media like Brennan has been?
How about POTUS? He has a security clearance and he’s constantly pillorying his political opponents on Twitter. :pokestick:
yes, but again, he's shameless. Brennan stooped repeatedly into the mud to engage, so whatever.
 

the janitor

Tom Curren status
Mar 28, 2003
12,340
1,737
113
north of the bridge
FecalFace said:
the janitor said:
frvcvs said:
Surfdog said:
Once Brennan (and Clapper) became a talking heads for CNN and MSNBC, security clearances needed to be cut. He and Clapper are likely sources of many leaks and innuendo that had no business being made public. Then giving their own personal commentary/opinion/speculation/spin to the MSM on what info they've garnered (feeding the Resistance). They're toxic being former Obama/Hillary loyalists, but allowed to spew in the media at the same time. I have a feeling down the road these guys will be facing a court for their actions.

This should've happen the day Trump was elected. Obama cleaned house when he was elected, Trump should've done the same, but probably didn't know better to do so. :shrug:
There’s a difference between replacing heads of the intel community and stripping away security clearances. Can you name anyone who Obama stripped of their clearance?
ok, let's play

Can you name anyone from the Bush Administration with a security clearance or a Bush intel appointee who was constantly piliorying Obama on social media like Brennan has been?
I'll play.

Can you name any president that has been as petty, vindictive, narcissistic and stupid towards citizens or this country, press as well as be openly mysygonistic, uncivil, xenophobic and racist?

Trump is "piliorying" private citizens on social media 10 times before breakfast and 48 times on the weekend.

This is the bed he made for himself and now that he's diarrheaed all over it, he's blaming everyone but himself.

And even more stupidly you do too.
I blame Brennan for his actions. He knows what he is doing and the likely repercussions. He is sullying his former office in the same way that Trump is lowering the bar for the President. He chose to roll in the mud with a pig.

To answer your first question...


 

FecalFace

Duke status
Nov 21, 2008
42,338
2,105
113
The Californias
the janitor said:
FecalFace said:
the janitor said:
frvcvs said:
Surfdog said:
Once Brennan (and Clapper) became a talking heads for CNN and MSNBC, security clearances needed to be cut. He and Clapper are likely sources of many leaks and innuendo that had no business being made public. Then giving their own personal commentary/opinion/speculation/spin to the MSM on what info they've garnered (feeding the Resistance). They're toxic being former Obama/Hillary loyalists, but allowed to spew in the media at the same time. I have a feeling down the road these guys will be facing a court for their actions.

This should've happen the day Trump was elected. Obama cleaned house when he was elected, Trump should've done the same, but probably didn't know better to do so. :shrug:
There’s a difference between replacing heads of the intel community and stripping away security clearances. Can you name anyone who Obama stripped of their clearance?
ok, let's play

Can you name anyone from the Bush Administration with a security clearance or a Bush intel appointee who was constantly piliorying Obama on social media like Brennan has been?
I'll play.

Can you name any president that has been as petty, vindictive, narcissistic and stupid towards citizens or this country, press as well as be openly mysygonistic, uncivil, xenophobic and racist?

Trump is "piliorying" private citizens on social media 10 times before breakfast and 48 times on the weekend.

This is the bed he made for himself and now that he's diarrheaed all over it, he's blaming everyone but himself.

And even more stupidly you do too.
I blame Brennan for his actions. He knows what he is doing and the likely repercussions. He is sullying his former office in the same way that Trump is lowering the bar for the President. He chose to roll in the mud with a pig.

To answer your first question...


Nixon doesn't even come close. I mean, miles away from what Trump is doing.

Nixon was a crook and a racist, Trump is all that and 100 other vile things and he's PROUD of it.

At least Nixon had the balls to step down, Trump will hang on until he goes down in flames as a piece of sh!t con-man that he is.

This is 100% about Trump being a vindictive man-baby.

The appropriate response would have been to ignore Brennan - not seek revenge because Brennan personally insulted him on Twitter.

Lastly, Brennan was 100% correct in his assessment of Trump, shouldn't that make the difference?
 

GromsDad

Duke status
Jan 21, 2014
55,097
16,881
113
West of the Atlantic. East of the ICW.
Brennan doesn't have any need to have current security clearance to voice his opinions about Trump on television. Any administration would be foolish to let such a former employee to have access to current inside information when there is no need and there clearly is an ax to grind.

Who remembers the time that a former Clinton official got caught using his security clearance to sneak documents out of the National archives to hide and destroy their content?

The swamp protected the swamp in that case. In case some of you don't remember what I am referring to:

Sandy Berger's Little Mistake
by Bob Wilson
Sandy Berger the former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor, said he made a "mistake" and was just "sloppy" when an FBI investigation revealed that he had stolen Top Secret memos and documents from the National Archives relating to the events surrounding al-Qaida attacks on America during the 1990s and in the year 2000. Archive security notified the FBI when they discovered documents missing, and saw Berger stuffing papers into his pants, socks, and a leather briefcase.

Upon investigation, Berger admitted that he had "made a mistake," and took them. Unfortunately, Berger says he "lost" some of the documents, but that he returned some of them after his the FBI searched his home. Amazingly, he even returned some documents that the Archive hadn't yet noted were missing! He apologized and said he had just been "sloppy." This, from the former "National Security" advisor to the previous President of the United States, and security advisor to the current Democratic candidate for president.

A "mistake" is not a crime in most instances. Theft of Top Secret documents is a Federal crime that is supposed to carry extremely serious consequences. Being "sloppy" isn't a crime. Clinton's affairs might be described as "sloppy." Lying under oath about them IS a crime worthy of impeachment, depending apparently upon one's definition of the word "is." Mr. Burger would have us believe that he was simply unaware of the procedures surrounding the security of Top Secret documents. He says he should have known that stuffing them in his pants and walking out might be a breach of security. For his "mistake" Mr. Berger has resigned as John Kerry's advisor on national security affairs.

The truly amazing fact is that, in the context of political scandals, Watergate pales by comparison! The Watergate scandal that resulted in Nixon resigning from office was essentially trivial in comparison. Nixon was (and still is) vilified for pondering a cover up of a break-in by low level political operatives into the files of a left-wing political supporter of the Democratic presidential nominee. They were looking for evidence of Communist ties to the McGovern campaign, and this transgression lives on as the Democrat's ultimate immortal example of Republican "dirty tricks."

Democrats are defending Mr. Berger by attacking the "timing" of the revelation that he was, ah, "sloppy." They stand behind his contention that he didn't really commit a crime, by stuffing Top Secret material in his pants and removing them from Federal custody. The Democrat spinmasters say that the revelation that Mr. Berger had "mistakenly" stuffed certain documents in his pants relating to how Clinton handled terrorism prior to 9/11 is just Republican trickery and an attempt by Bush to divert American's attention from his failures in the unjust war in Iraq.

So, ultimately it comes down to whether you accept the Democrat's spin that Mr. Berger was just "sloppy" and "mistakenly" stuffed Top Secret documents relating to terrorism threats into his pants prior to the 9/11 Commission investigation, or whether you have at least a minimal grasp of the obvious. With that, you would have to conclude that Sandy Berger attempted to keep information about terrorism, and the previous administration's approach to it, from the American people and the 9/11 Commission. Of course, you "middle-of-the-road" folks might just choose to believe that Sandy Berger was merely gathering material for a book.
 

sussle

Rabbitt Bartholomew status
Oct 11, 2009
8,439
7,832
113
the janitor said:
FecalFace said:
the janitor said:
frvcvs said:
Surfdog said:
Once Brennan (and Clapper) became a talking heads for CNN and MSNBC, security clearances needed to be cut. He and Clapper are likely sources of many leaks and innuendo that had no business being made public. Then giving their own personal commentary/opinion/speculation/spin to the MSM on what info they've garnered (feeding the Resistance). They're toxic being former Obama/Hillary loyalists, but allowed to spew in the media at the same time. I have a feeling down the road these guys will be facing a court for their actions.

This should've happen the day Trump was elected. Obama cleaned house when he was elected, Trump should've done the same, but probably didn't know better to do so. :shrug:
There’s a difference between replacing heads of the intel community and stripping away security clearances. Can you name anyone who Obama stripped of their clearance?
ok, let's play

Can you name anyone from the Bush Administration with a security clearance or a Bush intel appointee who was constantly piliorying Obama on social media like Brennan has been?
I'll play.

Can you name any president that has been as petty, vindictive, narcissistic and stupid towards citizens or this country, press as well as be openly mysygonistic, uncivil, xenophobic and racist?

Trump is "piliorying" private citizens on social media 10 times before breakfast and 48 times on the weekend.

This is the bed he made for himself and now that he's diarrheaed all over it, he's blaming everyone but himself.

And even more stupidly you do too.
I blame Brennan for his actions. He knows what he is doing and the likely repercussions. He is sullying his former office in the same way that Trump is lowering the bar for the President. He chose to roll in the mud with a pig.

To answer your first question...


they both had an enemies list....
 

Billy Ocean

Duke status
Jan 7, 2017
19,330
2,636
113
Brennan is a former clerk, not some titled aristocrat

F this guy

He’s lucky he’s not in Gitmo
 

kidfury

Duke status
Oct 14, 2017
25,144
10,846
113
BillyOcean said:
Brennan is a former clerk, not some titled aristocrat

F this guy

He’s lucky he’s not in Gitmo
Sounds like something trump would say. Congrats! (I guess)
 

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,810
19,749
113
Jacksonville Beach
the janitor said:
frvcvs said:
Surfdog said:
Once Brennan (and Clapper) became a talking heads for CNN and MSNBC, security clearances needed to be cut. He and Clapper are likely sources of many leaks and innuendo that had no business being made public. Then giving their own personal commentary/opinion/speculation/spin to the MSM on what info they've garnered (feeding the Resistance). They're toxic being former Obama/Hillary loyalists, but allowed to spew in the media at the same time. I have a feeling down the road these guys will be facing a court for their actions.

This should've happen the day Trump was elected. Obama cleaned house when he was elected, Trump should've done the same, but probably didn't know better to do so. :shrug:
There’s a difference between replacing heads of the intel community and stripping away security clearances. Can you name anyone who Obama stripped of their clearance?
ok, let's play

Can you name anyone from the Bush Administration with a security clearance or a Bush intel appointee who was constantly piliorying Obama on social media like Brennan has been?
You've got a point here.

I bet can find a few that pillory on Trump. :wink2:

Can you name anyone from the Obama Administration who who met with Kislyak and Lavrov in the Oval Office, and on-the-fly declassified intelligence to them?
 

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
68,902
23,511
113
62
Vagina Point
casa_mugrienta said:
Autoprax said:
casa_mugrienta said:
Apparently Autoprax never lived through the Clinton years.
WHATABOUT CLINTON!
About Clinton? :confused2:

About the Republicans and their endless investigations of all the Clintons' "criminal activities" culminating in a perjury charge obstruction of justice once they got the President under oath because they had nothing on him despite having stuff on his associates...
I don't believe that Trump = Clinton.

I could be wrong.

 

casa_mugrienta

Duke status
Apr 13, 2008
43,836
18,403
113
Petak Island
Autoprax said:
casa_mugrienta said:
Autoprax said:
casa_mugrienta said:
Apparently Autoprax never lived through the Clinton years.
WHATABOUT CLINTON!
About Clinton? :confused2:

About the Republicans and their endless investigations of all the Clintons' "criminal activities" culminating in a perjury charge obstruction of justice once they got the President under oath because they had nothing on him despite having stuff on his associates...
I don't believe that Trump = Clinton.

I could be wrong.
Yeah, right.

Maybe you weren't paying attention to the news through those years...or maybe it's cognitive bias not permitting you to see the whole picture.

I remember

Slick Willy:
Liar, womanizer, rapist, financial fraudster, murderer, drug smuggler etc.<<<culminating in>>>grand jury/ blowjob/perjury/obstruction of justice.

The sh!t I'm hearing today sounds exactly like the above sh!t people were saying about Clintons during those years.

We're going down the exact same road, and it will produce the exact same results. Manafort is the Jim McDougal in all this.

 

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
68,902
23,511
113
62
Vagina Point
casa_mugrienta said:
Autoprax said:
casa_mugrienta said:
Autoprax said:
casa_mugrienta said:
Apparently Autoprax never lived through the Clinton years.
WHATABOUT CLINTON!
About Clinton? :confused2:

About the Republicans and their endless investigations of all the Clintons' "criminal activities" culminating in a perjury charge obstruction of justice once they got the President under oath because they had nothing on him despite having stuff on his associates...
I don't believe that Trump = Clinton.

I could be wrong.
Yeah, right.

Maybe you weren't paying attention to the news through those years...or maybe it's cognitive bias not permitting you to see the whole picture.

I remember

Slick Willy:
Liar, womanizer, rapist, financial fraudster, murderer, drug smuggler etc.<<<culminating in>>>grand jury/ blowjob/perjury/obstruction of justice.

The sh!t I'm hearing today sounds exactly like the above sh!t people were saying about Clintons during those years.

We're going down the exact same road, and it will produce the exact same results. Manafort is the Jim McDougal in all this.
In this analogy who is Clinton's Putin and Clinton's Russia?

Those vehicles in your metaphor matter if you hope to make any kind of valid comparison.

 

casa_mugrienta

Duke status
Apr 13, 2008
43,836
18,403
113
Petak Island
Autoprax said:
casa_mugrienta said:
Autoprax said:
casa_mugrienta said:
Autoprax said:
WHATABOUT CLINTON!
About Clinton? :confused2:

About the Republicans and their endless investigations of all the Clintons' "criminal activities" culminating in a perjury charge obstruction of justice once they got the President under oath because they had nothing on him despite having stuff on his associates...
I don't believe that Trump = Clinton.

I could be wrong.
Yeah, right.

Maybe you weren't paying attention to the news through those years...or maybe it's cognitive bias not permitting you to see the whole picture.

I remember

Slick Willy:
Liar, womanizer, rapist, financial fraudster, murderer, drug smuggler etc.<<<culminating in>>>grand jury/ blowjob/perjury/obstruction of justice.

The sh!t I'm hearing today sounds exactly like the above sh!t people were saying about Clintons during those years.

We're going down the exact same road, and it will produce the exact same results. Manafort is the Jim McDougal in all this.
In this analogy who is Clinton's Putin and Clinton's Russia?

Those vehicles in your metaphor matter if you hope to make any kind of valid comparison.
The Russian claims are dubious at best.
As were the claims about the Clintons.

Your biases are getting in the way of your understanding of this.
 

afoaf

Duke status
Jun 25, 2008
49,834
23,457
113
there are certainly some parallels

I think that what we know about the financial motivations and actions of the Russians
during the time period in question potentiates the case for collusion.

 

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
68,902
23,511
113
62
Vagina Point
Maybe.

Remember that biases don't automatically mean I am coming to the wrong conclusion.

Time will tell.

I have no problem being proven wrong and making the correction.

What do you make of Trump's fawn response when it comes to dealing with Putin?

That doesn't strike you as a little bit incongruent?
 

casa_mugrienta

Duke status
Apr 13, 2008
43,836
18,403
113
Petak Island
Autoprax said:
Maybe.

Remember that biases don't automatically mean I am coming to the wrong conclusion.

Time will tell.

I have no problem being proven wrong and making the correction.

What do you make of Trump's fawn response when it comes to dealing with Putin?

That doesn't strike you as a little bit incongruent?
It is no more incongruent

then the fact Trump is treated as both the dumbest and the smartest guy in the room.





 

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
26,810
19,749
113
Jacksonville Beach
afoaf said:
there are certainly some parallels

I think that what we know about the financial motivations and actions of the Russians
during the time period in question potentiates the case for collusion.
No. The parallels are exactly the same. Across the board. Whitewater was 20 years before Clinton was in office; the Russia probe is about a real estate deal Trump did in the 90s. Manafort wasn't trying to get whole with a Russian oligarch by cutting the City of Greenbow's grass for free. He's just that kind of down-to-earth, yo soy un hombre sincero de donde crece la palma kinda guy.
 

afoaf

Duke status
Jun 25, 2008
49,834
23,457
113
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/opinion/john-brennan-trump-russia-collusion-security-clearance.html

Such a public clarion call certainly makes one wonder what Mr. Trump privately encouraged his advisers to do — and what they actually did — to win the election. While I had deep insight into Russian activities during the 2016 election, I now am aware — thanks to the reporting of an open and free press — of many more of the highly suspicious dalliances of some American citizens with people affiliated with the Russian intelligence services.

Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash.

if you are at your article limit, you can open the link in an incognito window (chrome)

 

obslop

Rabbitt Bartholomew status
Feb 4, 2002
8,044
1,512
113
san diego, CA
FecalFace said:
It's now apparently okay to wield presidential powers over somebody who disagrees with you.

While granting security clearance to your children and son in law who have financial and other interest in presidents business

America is becoming an Authoritarian Banana Republic and people love it.
trump cloaks himself in faux patriotism and his supporters lurp it up with glee.
 

casa_mugrienta

Duke status
Apr 13, 2008
43,836
18,403
113
Petak Island
Sharkbiscuit said:
afoaf said:
there are certainly some parallels

I think that what we know about the financial motivations and actions of the Russians
during the time period in question potentiates the case for collusion.
No. The parallels are exactly the same. Across the board. Whitewater was 20 years before Clinton was in office; the Russia probe is about a real estate deal Trump did in the 90s. Manafort wasn't trying to get whole with a Russian oligarch by cutting the City of Greenbow's grass for free. He's just that kind of down-to-earth, yo soy un hombre sincero de donde crece la palma kinda guy.

Micro it's different.
Macro its the same.
 

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
68,902
23,511
113
62
Vagina Point
casa_mugrienta said:
Autoprax said:
Maybe.

Remember that biases don't automatically mean I am coming to the wrong conclusion.

Time will tell.

I have no problem being proven wrong and making the correction.

What do you make of Trump's fawn response when it comes to dealing with Putin?

That doesn't strike you as a little bit incongruent?
It is no more incongruent

then the fact Trump is treated as both the dumbest and the smartest guy in the room.
I'm confused.

You don't think it incongruent?

Or it is but it doesn't matter?