Trump Revokes Clearance Of John Brennan and Orders Review Of Other Former Officials

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedIn a highly controversial move, President Donald Trump has revoked the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan and ordered the review of other officials who all share one obvious distinguishing characteristic: they are all fierce critics of Trump.  The move has been widely condemned as Nixonian and amounting to a black or enemies list.  While I have been highly critical of everyone on the list (and called for some to be fired and, in a couple cases, prosecuted), I find the move very troubling from a free speech perspective.  Indeed, I am still uncertain about the rationale for the actions and why the list would be composed entirely of Trump critics if based on a consistent, apolitical basis.

The press conference only served magnify these concerns.  Sarah Huckabee Sanders read a letter from Trump dated three weeks ago but only now announced to the world.  Brennan was singled out as using his status “to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations” and “wild outbursts on the Internet and television about this administration.”

The letter appears to have been written around the time when this idea was first made public on July 23rd but nothing was said about its implementation.  Even stranger is the issuing of the letter today with the July 26th date and then the reissuing of the letter without the date with no explanation. It is another example of the poor record of rollouts for this Administration. These are basic errors that seem to plague this Administration.

The list itself however is the most curious. The letter calls for the review of former FBI director director James Comey, former national intelligence director James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser Susan Rice and former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe. former acting attorney general Sally Yates, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI counsel Lisa Page, and FBI agent Bruce Ohr.

Former high ranking officials are allowed to maintain access to classified information to allow them to consult on matters that arose during their tenures as well as a simple professional courtesy.  Frankly, most do not use the clearances after leaving the government and this is not likely to have a pronounced effect.  Indeed, Comey and McCabe already lost their clearances — a point that was repeatedly made back in July when this idea was first aired.

However, the greatest question remains the reason for those specific individuals.  Ohr and Page have not gone public.  Yates (who I agreed with Trump in firing) achieved notoriety because of her stand against the travel ban.  She was wrong in the action that she took, but that hardly distinguishes her from other prior officials in terms of her clearance.  She is also a vocal critic of the President’s.

It is difficult not to see this list as reflecting the criticism of the President.  Lines like this one seems less than objective in describing Brennan’s public commentary: “Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets, and facilities [facilitates] the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos.”

Indeed, it would have been an easy thing to add other officials who committed the predicate acts  — once the Administration clearly states what those acts or criteria may be.  It does not help matters that the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats was reportedly not consulted on unprecedented order.

Having stated the obvious free speech concerns, this order (like such many in this Administration) would push us into uncharted legal waters if challenged.  Trump has the clear advantage.  The assumption is that a challenge could be raised for a clearly unconstitutional purpose like banning African-Americans from holding clearances.  However, the White House has emphasized that this is a case-by-case determination with only Brennan being revoked thus far.  Clearances are a privilege controlled ultimately by the President.  Courts are loathe micromanage who can hold clearances in the Executive Branch.  Most cases focus on procedural rights in being allowed to challenge such decisions. There is currently no case that would directly contravene Trump’s authority in barring access to former officials on a case-by-case basis.

Here is the letter read by Sanders:

As the head of the executive branch and Commander-in-Chief, I have a unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nation’s classified information, including by controlling access to it.  Today, in fulfilling that responsibility, I have decided to revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Historically, former heads of intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been allowed to retain access to classified information after their government service so that they can consult with their successors regarding matters about which they may have special insights and as a professional courtesy.

Neither of these justifications supports Mr. Brennan’s continued access to classified information.  First, at this point in my administration, any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with Mr. Brennan are now outweighed by the risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior.  Second, that conduct and behavior has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him.

Mr. Brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.  In 2014, for example, he denied to Congress that CIA officials, under his supervision, had improperly accessed the computer files of congressional staffers.  He told the Council of Foreign Relations that the CIA would never do such a thing.  The CIA’s Inspector General, however, contradicted Mr. Brennan directly, concluding unequivocally that agency officials had indeed improperly accessed congressional staffers’ files.  More recently, Mr. Brennan told Congress that the intelligence community did not make use of the so-called Steele dossier in an assessment regarding the 2016 election, an assertion contradicted by at least two other senior officials in the intelligence community and all of the facts.

Additionally, Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations — wild outbursts on the Internet and television — about this administration.  Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets, and facilities [facilitates] the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos.

More broadly, the issue of Mr. Brennan’s security clearance raises larger questions about the practice of former officials maintaining access to our nation’s most sensitive secrets long after their time in government has ended.

Such access is particularly inappropriate when former officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate their political attacks.  Any access granted to our nation’s secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal, interests.  For this reason, I’ve also begun to review the more general question of the access to classified information by government officials.

As part of this review, I am evaluating action with respect to the following individuals: James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr.

Security clearances for those who still have them may be revoked, and those who have already lost their security clearance may not be able to have it reinstated.

It is for the foregoing reasons that I have exercised my constitutional authority to deny Mr. Brennan access to classified information, and I will direct appropriate staff of the National Security Council to make the necessary arrangements with the appropriate agencies to implement this determination.

450 thoughts on “Trump Revokes Clearance Of John Brennan and Orders Review Of Other Former Officials”

    1. Excerpted from the article to which Mark M. kindly linked us above:

      You don’t need a secret decoder ring to see what’s happening here. John Brennan, who knows whereof he speaks, believes that the president is a threat to the security of the United States — a counterintelligence threat, no less, in thrall to President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The president attacks him, severing Mr. Brennan’s access to classified information. The deans of national security rise up to defend him — and, by implication, intelligence officers and federal investigators who are closing in on the White House.

      They are sending a message to active-duty generals and admirals, soldiers and spies. Remember your oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Think twice before following this man’s orders in a crisis. You might first consider throwing down your stars

    2. The article’s name is so apropos: Tim WEINER.

      If any member of the armed forces fails to follow the lawful orders of a superior officer (including the CINC) **during a period of war**, they are subject to court martial under articles 90 and 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The burden of proof in a military court martial is a far lower threshold than a civilian court. If convicted, they lose all rank and privileges and are subject to the death penalty. As a minimum, they would lose everything, be incarcerated at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, and issued a dishonorable discharge. If not during a period of war, only the death penalty is excluded.

      Retired members of the military should take heed. Article 2 of provides that you are still subject to UCMJ and could be subject to court martial for what you have already done by verbally supporting these clowns..

      Article 134 (Disloyal Statements) provides: Any person, subject to the UCMJ, who, at an alleged place and time, has made a statement on or about a particular subject, so as to encourage disaffection, disloyalty or both, or to interfere with or impair the loyalty and morale among the members of the armed forces, the civilian population or both, would be violating the Article 134 and shall be punished as deemed fit through a court martial. The statement thus made by the accused person is considered an offense, if it is in anyway disloyal to the United States. If convicted, the retired member, would lose all retired pay/privileges, be stripped of their former rank, and imprisoned at Leavenworth for up to 3 years.

      1. I guess you never got the memo that the “Nuremburg Defense” didn’t stop the hangman. Have faith in your “UCMJ” nonsense though; it looks good on you. Pro tip: those who forget the past (or in your case, never learned it) are doomed to repeat it. So sorry for your loss.

        this is to “but honestly, I was just following orders” gomer pyle blainie

        1. I guess you never got the memo that the “Nuremburg Defense” didn’t stop the hangman.

          Pro Tip: It is childishly illogical to believe every action by President Trump is wrong.

          At about 5:45 p.m. EDT on Monday, May 7, just before the evening newscasts, John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s top White House adviser on counter-terrorism, held a small, private teleconference to brief former counter-terrorism advisers who have become frequent commentators on TV news shows.

          According to five people familiar with the call, Brennan stressed that the plot was never a threat to the U.S. public or air safety because Washington had “inside control” over it.

          Brennan’s comment appears unintentionally to have helped lead to disclosure of the secret at the heart of a joint U.S.-British-Saudi undercover counter-terrorism operation.

          A few minutes after Brennan’s teleconference, on ABC’s World News Tonight, Richard Clarke, former chief of counter-terrorism in the Clinton White House and a participant on the Brennan call, said the underwear bomb plot “never came close because they had insider information, insider control.”

          https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-plot-spin-idUSBRE84H0OZ20120518

    1. It is a privilege and not a right to work for the government, and therefore, the perk that comes with holding security clearance after leaving the government is also a privilege.

      A former government employee who has lost security clearance can continue to speak, and so, the loss of clearance has no First Amendment implications.

      According to CBS, the following governs former CIA directors holding on to security clearance: “In the case of former CIA directors, the agency “holds” their security clearance and renews it every five years for the rest of their lives. However, that requires former CIA directors to behave like current CIA employees if they want to keep their clearance, which means avoiding travel to certain countries and generally living in a manner above reproach.”

      I am not sure some of the things Mr. Brennan has said about the president are consistent with behaving like current CIA employees.

      Of course, the revocation of Mr. Brennan’s clearance might just be politics, but to make a case beyond that, there must arise a situation in which a former high-ranking official says nice things about the president, but in other spheres, is not behaving as current employee, and the president does not revoke the clearance.

      Whatever Mr. Brennan has said before the loss of clearance, he can say again after the loss. I suppose holding a clearance could be seen by some as a sign of prestige, and thus may not want to lose clearance. Someone troubled by this may not want to speak out, but that hobbling of speech would be a personal choice to yield to vanity. This I think would weaken the case that the president withdrawing clearance is an attack on speech.

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/security-clearances-how-do-they-work/

      1. Steve,
        I don’t believe this has anything to do with free speech. It has everything to do with the impact on their income potential. Who would want to hire an ex-bureaucrat that has lost the access the clearance provides?

        1. Olly:

          I do not believe that a private entity that would have hired Brennan before the loss of clearance would refuse to hire him after the loss of clearance. And if a clearance for private job becomes an issue, I do not think there is anything that would prevent Mr. Brennan from going through the clearance process again. But I suspect that under President Trump, Mr. Brennan would be blocked from any classified government material.

            1. Excellent, Olly. I like Chris Farrell who is always very clear. It’s a nonpartisan statement showing why ex-agency officials should not have security clearance except on a need basis. I don’t know how anyone can disagree.

              1. Logically, ending this practice should have massive support from those screeching about lobbyists and the “oligarchy.” This is just more evidence these people stand for nothing other than opposing anything this President does.

                1. Olly:

                  Sorry, I initially read your response as suggesting that the president really wanted to bring harm to Mr. Brennan and a good way to do that, was to revoke the clearance.

  1. I don’t know if this has already been posted, so if I am duplicating, apologies. This is from Jim Hinson, the guy behind the Muppets:

    “Some are claiming this is political retribution, but the overtly political nature of Brennan’s attempts to undermine the Trump administration are a real problem. And even if he had a reason to keep his clearance, his actions and statements are grounds to cut him off.

    Extending Brennan’s clearance was a privilege no longer justified by any value he provides to the government. His unhinged rants against President Trump would land any serving clearance holder with a suspension and possibly even a referral for psychiatric evaluation.

    These include an unfounded claim on television that President Trump is being blackmailed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying the Russians “may have something” on President Trump, and tweets that do not represent the communications of a stable person.”

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/an_embarrassment_to_the_cia.html

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Did I misunderstand? Jim Henson, the puppeteer, died years ago of a massive bacterial infection. Jim Hanson, Fox News, wrote an opinion supporting the revocation of Brennan’s clearance – the John Brennan who is an integral co-conspirator in the Obama Coup D’etat in America.

    2. Squeeky – Jim Henson, the creator of the Muppets, died in 1990. I do not know who Jim Hinson is.

    3. I think you got momentarily confused.
      John Brennan is the puppeteer behind the failed coup. Jim Hanson works for Fox

  2. Jonathan, the TRUE reason these bureaucrats in Washington want to keep their security clearances is because U.S. government contractors are willing to pay big bucks for people with Top Secret security clearances and because it adds to their value on the speaking circuit. I was an Army Group and Battalion Commander and served on the general staff of the U.S. Atlantic Command, U.S. Northern Command, and Army Forces Command where I worked for years in Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facilities handling super sensitive info. I was granted an interim Top Secret clearance but, despite the fact that all the commands requested I be granted a permanent Top Secret clearance and having successfully gone through all the background checks and investigator interviews, the request languished for years. I retired without ever being granted the Top Secret clearance. The excuse given was there was a backlog in processing the requests. Hog wash!

    This is a DC perk, plain and simple. All that talk about how they need to keep their security clearances IN CASE they are needed to discuss top secret info with their successor is a big load of horse ca-ca. Staffers remain in those INTEL agencies that still have Top Secret clearances and know far more about specific situations and events than these former appointees. Who the heck do you think briefed these clowns about the specifics? Name an instance where any of these former agency heads were called back in to discuss top secret info. Their successor has at their disposal the same knowledge base that briefed the former agency head.

    These people should surrender their security clearances once they leave the job. After all, how much security do we really have over the nation’s secrets when so many needlessly have access to them?

    1. Blaine, thank you for your service and thank you for explaining your view of what is going on. The greater the number that share secrets the more likely the secret will be disclosed.

    2. Well stated Blaine.

      For a man who has “lost” his free speech, it’s awfully strange that he is able to write an editorial in the NYTimes and is still a commentator at CNN. Too bad Occupy London w/150,000 members was removed from FB yesterday, for what reason, Mort just can’t say.

      In the meantime, we’re getting another TV show hosted by Mike Morell which will present the news from the IC’s point of view. Because, we all know, we never get to hear that!

  3. This post reflects the bizarre values and assumptions only held in the swamp.

    1) No one is entitled to a security clearance for life.

    2) this decision by the government’s elected chief executive is “controversial” in the same way the shape of the earth is. You can find people to manufacture controversy out of anything.

    “who all share one obvious distinguishing characteristic: they are all fierce critics of Trump.”

    More importantly, each is, at most, a participant in a criminal conspiracy to weaponize the bureaucracy against Trump; at the very least, I formenting and atmosphere of gross insubordination amongst those still in government service, and a general atmosphere of hatred, violence, paranoia, and insurrection in the nation.

    “The move has been widely condemned as Nixonian and amounting to a black or enemies list. ”

    To adopt that condemnation or even to insinuate a comparison between the two situations is as odious as it is ludicrous as it is totally ass backwards.

    ” I find the move very troubling from a free speech perspective.”

    Another ludicrous statement. No one’s speech is violated by losing the extreme privilege of access to government secrets while no longer having a need to know — indeed, no longer even serving in the government.

    This is akin to a fired bank executive, under investigation for embezzlement, claiming a lifelong right to his executive salary, perks, expense account, private club membership, and town car service for life. Do you Beltway people even have a clue how bizarre and out-of-touch such assumptions sound to us out here in America?

    “Indeed, I am still uncertain about the rationale for the actions and why the list would be composed entirely of Trump critics if based on a consistent, apolitical basis.”

    The chief executive’s rationale is his oath to protect the national security.

    “The letter appears to have been written around the time …..”

    Who cares?

    “Howeverhe greatest question remains the reason for those specific individuals.”

    Again, no reason is needed beyond his constitutional obligation and authority. Once again, access to the nation’s secrets is not a right — especially for bad actors who have proven they will use them in nefarious ways.

    Yates ” was wrong in the action that she took”

    It’s called gross insubordination; encouraging an unelected-government mutiny against the elected chief executive sworn to protect the security of the United States. Is this, too, a “right” in your book?
    In the normal world where most of us live, that sort of behavior gets you instantly s*** canned.

    “Indeed, it would have been an easy thing to add other officials who committed the predicate acts — once the Administration clearly states what those acts or criteria may be.”

    Unlike FBI and DOJ officials opening a FISA surveillance for a special prosecutor trying to build an obstruction case, Trump doesn’t need a predicate. Once again: free access to the nation’s secrets is not a constitutional right.

    Finally, after all that trolling, we reach the truth — buried several paragraphs down:

    Clearances are a privilege ……There is currently no case that would directly contravene Trump’s authority in barring access to former officials on a case-by-case basis.”

    1. “More importantly, each is, at most, a participant in a criminal conspiracy to weaponize the bureaucracy against Trump; at the very least, I formenting and atmosphere of gross insubordination amongst those still in government service, and a general atmosphere of hatred, violence, paranoia, and insurrection in the nation.”
      This is unsupported nonsense. We are not dealing with a normal POTUS. We are dealing with the Payback President. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/opinion/donald-trump-john-brennan-security-clearance.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

      1. Does it makes sense from Trump’s perspective to antagonize personnel in the intelligence agencies? Does he really want enemies in those departments?
        We can only hope that Trump provokes some ‘intriguing’ blowback.

        1. I’d say that people like Peter Strzok may have “antagonized” Trump, and that Brennan’s “treason” comment may have done the same.
          This isn’t exactly a one-way street.

        2. Trump is only denying security clearance for those that have or appeared to have acted inappropriately. That is what the President and the head of the FBI should be doing. I don’t think even you want people in the FBI that have violated their oath of office.

          1. I don’t think even you want people in the FBI that have violated their oath of office.

            That was an awfully generous carrot you just handed out.

          2. “…those that have or appeared to have acted inappropriately.”

            – Allen

            To wit,

            Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Steele,

            Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Brennan, Clapper, Farkas, Power,

            Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Obama et al.

      2. Anybody who at this late date, with all the information available, quotes the f****ing New York Slimes as if it were an authoritative source of journalistic truth is delusional or part of the disinfo crew.

  4. A lot of Trump’s salient personal qualities are on display here.
    His thin skin, the vindictiveness and the pettiness, the authoritarian bend.

    MAGA.

        1. Yeah Pete, yer rite! Obama was much worse. Nothing Trump has done comes close to that. Kudos for noticing.

      1. Jacques….No points for originality.
        Plus it would be nice to write something critical of Trump and elicit something other than “But…but…but….Whatabout Obama and/or Hillary?”

        Other than that you’re spot on.🙂

        1. WB,
          You can whine all you want about whataboutism, but precedent is exactly the point. In our system of government, we either have constitutional standards or we don’t. If you support policy by a President that defies the separation of powers (unconstitutional), then you’ve set a precedent, a new standard that is apparently acceptable to you. Then, when a different President carries out a policy you don’t like, you’ve lost all legitimate basis to argue against it. Had you held true to the rule of law and separation of powers, then whataboutism is the constitutional precedent and that is the only legitimate basis we can reasonably rely on.

          1. I’m more concerned about the President we have in office now, with his assault on a Free Press and his willingness to use his office to punish his critics, than I am about whatever transgressions were committed by the last administration.

            1. “willingness to use his office to punish his critics”

              Sounds like the opposite. Brennan is willing to sell his security clearance to CNN. Of course that is the type of cr-p wildbull, a know nothing, supports.

            2. than I am about whatever transgressions were committed by the last administration.

              Your duty is to be principled enough to be concerned about every President, every administration, every member of Congress and every bureaucrat to uphold the rule of law and separation of powers. The reason should be obvious. If you fail, then you set a precedent that future administrations should expect and you would have no reasonable basis to object. It would be like Dr. Frankenstein objecting to the monster he just created. Anyway, James Garfield said it better than I can:

              Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature … If the next centennial does not find us a great nation…it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

        2. Billy, and no points to you for missing the point: Obama was way worse, but you were silent and let is pass. Shame is all yours brother! Welcome to the world you created. Enjoy!!

      2. Jacques,
        I recall that post and discussion. I just went back to reread the thread. My concern at the time about the uber presidency has not changed. The Democrats whined about all the opposition Obama received from Congress and they fully supported Obama’s unilateral actions. I fully expected and I still expect our current President to follow in his predecessors footsteps.

        So far, the mass hysteria and outrage towards President Trump is based on what? He looks weird? Speaks ineloquently? Conservative nominations for the courts? Border security? Economy? Taxes? Immigration? Healthcare? NATO? The Media?

        Seriously, what has this President done that every President hasn’t done before him? Every President is elected because enough people wanted what they were selling. The people also have the opportunity to elect a congress that will work with the president’s agenda or opposes it. The Uber President that we had with Obama completely ignored the will of the people. He bypassed congress to move his own agenda. That’s not how our system is designed to work. If Congress checks the President and stops his agenda, that’s the will of the people speaking. If Congress checks the President but cannot stop his agenda, that is also the people speaking.

        So assuming everyone here knows or cares what is a legitimate (constitutional) action by the President; what actions by President Trump have been unconstitutional?

      3. Olly and Jaques, both of you are providing facts and truth that some don’t like to hear because they believe their viewpoints should prevail over all others. They have totalitarian mindsets.

        1. They have totalitarian mindsets.

          Thank you. I don’t believe these people or anyone consciously desires a totalitarian President. If everyone was being honest, they would first say they demand security for their own right to life, liberty and property. The purpose then of entering into civil society and our form of government is to take the desire for the individual’s security of rights and provide that security for all. We should all be able to agree on that.

          If anyone supports a government that operates inconsistent with that, then they are denying their own rights. They may not feel it, especially if the government doesn’t do them any harm…currently. But what they’ve done is empower the government to put chains on everyone and only the government supporters get to hold their own key. This is why elections have consequences was such an important statement. Lose an election and you lose your key…or at least that’s what you’ll fear.

          1. When a person is willing to use violence or other tactics to prevent freedom of speech, that represents an active totalitarian mindset. That type of mindset is ingrained in all of us one way or the other and has to be controlled.

            1. When a person is willing to use violence or other tactics to prevent freedom of speech, that represents an active totalitarian mindset.

              I understand what your saying Allan and I don’t disagree with your conclusion. However, this is what sets apart those clamoring for the rule of law and those clamoring whataboutism. Bastiat does a great job explaining the difference:

              According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

              Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

              It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

        2. Exactly. Their one law seems to be: “we can do anything; you can do nothing.” By sheer repetition and volume, they seek to make this the new normal.

    1. Those characteristics of Trump were on full display during the long campaign, and for decades prior to that.
      And with those known characteristics, he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016.
      It’s possible that Hillary’s unfavorability numbers were undestated.

  5. Imagine if you will, and submitting for your approval a place of smoke and mirrors in the world of a bubble of their own making.You’re moving into a land of where the sky is green, and the grass is blue, where only right turns are used and obeyed so they move only to the place where they have been before. Where truth and facts are not wanted or needed, Where moral compasses are not used, as to have their ignorance justified in their own minds. Where indefensible, morally complicit behavior is rejoiced and cheered. You are entering a world of alternate universe and reality that pulls a person into a void of pathological lies and deceit………you are now entering the Trump Zone.

      1. Believe what you will, but I would not say what you believe in public, not without a lawyer. My guess is you run around wearing T-shirts that say, I rather be a Russian than a Democrat?

        1. Fishwings, today this comment thread is the real Twilight Zone. The level of denial by commenters here is terrifying. Whatever Trump says they will blindly parrot.

          And again, as I noted Sunday, Professor Turley himself is often the target of attacks. Just for having the independence of mind to point out flaws in Trump’s thinking, Professor Turley is viewed with deep suspicion by the rabble he hosts.

          1. Don’t it crack ya up, that the same crowd that talks law and order and respect are the same ones that will bend their beliefs to fit their belief in THIS President?

            1. “There was imperative need to be constantly alert; for these dogs and men were not town dogs and men. They were savages, all of them, who knew no law but the law of club and fang.” — JACK LONDON

          2. Peter,…
            There was actually a time when JT himself would comment in this section….I noticed that going way back in the archives, and there were typically 2-3 dizen comments back then, v. 200-300 currently.
            It wouldn’t be practical for him to do so today.
            I may have missed some of the comments that you mentioned Sunday and today where you say that “Turley himself is often the target of attacks”.
            Were it practical for him to jump into the comments pit, I’m sure he’d have a few interesting things to say in reply to some of those comments.
            That would be especially true of the comments made here by Late4 Dinner, who regulary writes her reviews of JT on her website that she’s established here.
            As with the words of other commentators, LateFoolDinner will distort and misrepresent what is written in the columns, she will tell us what “Turley really means”; and more than anyone else her, feels a compulsion to “correct” and “rephrase” what was actually written in the columns.
            Having little or no intergrity and as an anonymous propagandist, she is not constrained by normal conventions, like not lying, or grossly distorting what others say to score points.
            To the extent that JT is “the target of attacks”, the most consistent offender in that area is our early AM Clown, aka “Late4Dinner/Diane”.
            I don’t particularly care if her views often “align” with those here in her Fan Club, and that they are therefore more than willing to accept and encourage “their liar”, and “their propagandists”…and they don’t seem to mind going on record ( anonymously, of course) suporting and encouraging that loon.

              1. Peter,..
                There a reason why I focused on the worst offender here.
                You and others are certainly free to focus on others, and ignore the worst offender, or make lame excuses for her should you choose to do so.

                1. What’s your excuse, Mr. Nash? Other than name calling and piling on, what do you add of substance to the discussion?

                  1. I mentioned on several occasions that Hollywood saved time by revealing his/ her status as a liar and a whiner.
                    With respect to substance, that liar and whiner can read my comments, and perhaps have a remedial reading tutor assist in comprehension.
                    I reviewed and commented on the Benghazi issue, I’ve commented on the Brennan issue….those comments are very recent, and they are right here.
                    Those substantive comments do not rule out calling a fool like Hollywood a liar and a whiner, and supporting those accusations by what he has written.
                    So if that clown decides to pop off to me, I’ll take a bit of time reminding him/ her that I have no respect…none…for a LSOS like Hollywood.

        2. I don’t wear tshirts in public. I only wear golf shirts and collared shirts. But you can do as you like. Spasiba

    1. I thought you were describing the world inhabited by pathological Trump haters and Deep State traitors.

    1. Wouldn’t surprise me; it’s about all they’ve got left. Wild animals are at their most vicious when cornered.

  6. “…HOPING THAT IMPORTANT FIREWALLS WILL HOLD.”

    “In the text two days before Comey testified to Congress, Christopher Steele, former British spy, writes Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr,

    “Hi! Just wondering if you had any news? Obviously, we’re a bit apprehensive given scheduled appearance at Congress on Monday. Hoping that important firewalls will hold. Many thanks.”

    Ohr writes back later that day, saying

    “Sorry, no new news. I believe my earlier information is still accurate. I will let you know immediately if there is any change.”

    It is not certain, based on the limited communications obtained by Congress between the pair, what Ohr was referring to when he discussed “earlier information” that he delivered to Steele.”

    – Sara Carter

    1. Someone call up the French and ask them where the guillotines are stored.

      They need to be rolled out, sharpened and oiled well.

      Standby…
      __________________________________

      Co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America:

      Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr,

      Nellie Ohr, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary, Huma,

      Brennan, Clapper, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Obama et al.

          1. Whoops. the Magnitsky Act documentary debunking the master anti-Russia propagandist Browder has already been pulled from that site due to “copyright violation.”

            For now, until able to find it again online, check out the reviews and trailer.

            “Despite all the threats of lawsuits and physical intimidation which hedge fund executive William Browder brought to bear over the past couple of months to ensure that a remarkable investigative film about the so-called Magnitsky case would not be screened anywhere, it was shown privately in a museum of journalism in Washington, D.C., last week. …

            We see how well-known names in the European Parliament, in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and in NGOs that are reputed to be watchdogs have taken on faith the arguments and documentation (largely in Russian and inaccessible to them) which they received from William Browder and then rubber-stamped his story as validated without making any attempt to weigh the evidence.

            Nekrasov largely allows William Browder to self-destruct under the weight of his own lies and the contradictions in his story-telling at various times.

            … At the end of the twists and turns in this expose, the viewer is ready to see Browder sink through the floor on a direct transfer to hell like Don Giovanni in the closing scene of Mozart’s opera….”

            — Gilbert Doctorow,
            republished
            at

            https://www.newcoldwar.org/film-andrei-nekrasov-magnitsky-act-behind-scenes/

            consortiumnews.com/2017/08/02/a-blacklisted-film-and-the-new-cold-war” rel=”nofollow”>Review by the late, great Robert Parry, from last year:
            https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/02/a-blacklisted-film-and-the-new-cold-war/

        1. [So, apparently, this comment was going to be stuck in “moderation” forever. I am reposting with links removed to see if that helps]

          The Magnitsky Act documentary debunking the master anti-Russia propagandist Browder has already been pulled from that site due to “copyright violation.”

          For now, until able to find it again online, check out the reviews and trailer.

          “Despite all the threats of lawsuits and physical intimidation which hedge fund executive William Browder brought to bear over the past couple of months to ensure that a remarkable investigative film about the so-called Magnitsky case would not be screened anywhere, it was shown privately in a museum of journalism in Washington, D.C., last week. …

          We see how well-known names in the European Parliament, in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and in NGOs that are reputed to be watchdogs have taken on faith the arguments and documentation (largely in Russian and inaccessible to them) which they received from William Browder and then rubber-stamped his story as validated without making any attempt to weigh the evidence.

          Nekrasov largely allows William Browder to self-destruct under the weight of his own lies and the contradictions in his story-telling at various times.

          … At the end of the twists and turns in this expose, the viewer is ready to see Browder sink through the floor on a direct transfer to hell like Don Giovanni in the closing scene of Mozart’s opera….”

          — Gilbert Doctorow,
          republished at new Cold War, dot org

          Review by the late, great Robert Parry, from last year — see: “a blacklisted film and the new Cold War” at Consortium news d o t com

      1. Wasn’t helper a British agent, or connected to Britain in some way?
        How many British agents so far involved or suspected involved in this attempted coup? Then we have Ukrainian, Estonian, Australian, Russian — a veritable Clinton Global Initiative of treason.

    2. Crazy George, Sara Carter is not a Holocaust denier like your friend Hal Turner, are you sure she can be trusted?

    1. ” any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with Mr. Brennan are now outweighed by the risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior. Second, that conduct and behavior has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him. Mr. Brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility. In 2014, for example, he denied to Congress that CIA officials under his supervision had improperly accessed the computer files of congressional staffers.

      He told the Council of Foreign Relations that the CIA would never do such a thing. The CIA’s Inspector General, however, contradicted Mr. Brennan directly, concluding unequivocally that agency officials had indeed improperly accessed congressional staffers’ files. More recently, Mr. Brennan told Congress that the intelligence community did not make use of the so-called Steele Dossier in an assessment regarding the 2016 election, an assertion contradicted by at least two other senior officials in the intelligence community and all of the facts.

      Additionally, Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations – wild outbursts on the internet and television – about this Administration. Mr. Brennan’s lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the Nation’s most closely held secrets and facilitates the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos.”

      1. It’s indicative of Obama’s expectations of him that he wasn’t canned when it was revealed the agency had spied on Congress and he’d then lied about it.

        1. Obama was a weak President. Putting aside usual criticisms, he was a good speaker and won elections, he lacked a strong base of support (compared to the Clintons) and not very experienced in executive action. And quite seriously I believe he was very afraid of them. Trump is experienced, and strong, and fully prepared in life to exercise power. And he does. And some hate him for it. Those who voted for him I suspect enjoy it.

    2. Communist Brennan must have lied on applications and in interviews about ever being in the Communist party.

  7. OT

    I agree with Rand Paul – let’s hear what Assange has to say – televise it on CSpan for the public. But then that would destroy the Russiagate narrative wouldn’t it?

    “I think that he should be given immunity from prosecution in exchange for coming to the United States and testifying,” Senator Paul told the Gateway Pundit. “I think he’s been someone who has released a lot of information, and you can debate whether or not any of that has caused harm, but I think really he has information that is probably pertinent to the hacking of the Democratic emails that would be nice to hear.”

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/exclusive-senator-rand-paul-thinks-julian-assange-should-be-granted-immunity-for-testimony/

      1. He’s never had to issue a redaction — unlike the rest of the MSM.

        We need to know if the files he received were from Seth Rich or Russia Russia Russia.

          1. He’s not being used at all. People are asking questions because the circumstances of his death are quite odd.

            1. Since when does law enforcement stop asking questions on an unsolved murder especially when there are strong motives and the circumstances are odd?

              1. I don’t find the circumstances of his death particularly odd. Young white guys walking through D.C. at night get killed. The assailants don’t care if they’re liberals. Nor do I think that law enforcement has stopped asking questions. I’m sure the D.C. police would live to solve the murder, but they don’t have much to go on. Plus the D.C. police just aren’t that good. They’re not in the ranks of NYPD or LAPD. So if you want to risk your life walking through an “edgy” neighborhood in the middle of the night, and think you’re impervious to crime because you’re a male and a liberal and cool with the brothas, do it in NY or L.A. At least your murderer will likely be caught and your family will see that it was just one of “the usual suspects” committing a robbery and murder, and that you weren’t involved in some nutty conspiracy with Hillary.

                1. “I don’t find the circumstances of his death particularly odd. ”

                  No one is asking you to find the circumstances odd or asking you to draw any conclusions. I myself have no conclusions but a lot of questions I might not have for another murder. Though they might have little meaning I find person, place and time adding to the mystery of a person supposedly robbed but his wallet not missing while he was beaten yet had two shots in his back.

                  By the way, I have often walked the streets of NYC at night and I still have my life. How many times have you seen a man severely beaten, shot twice in the back yet his wallet remains in his possession?

                  1. Actually a young man, a recent American Univ grad, was stabbed to death not long ago on Metro (DC’s subway) because he resisted handing over his wallet to one of the usual suspects. This was done in full view of a trainload of shocked commuters. Then the thug calmly walked through the train collecting wallets and phones, and nobody hesitated to hand their possessions over quickly. In another incident, a 28 y/o father of a baby girl was walking home at night from watching a baseball game at RFK Stadium. Three thugs beat him to a pulp and took only his phone. He was found in a fetal position the next morning on someone’s porch. He has severe brain damage and cannot talk or communicate. His life is basically over. His young wife is now essentially caring for two infants. Another man was shot and killed in downtown DC and his body left on the divider in the middle of the street. His wallet was gone but earphones were still plugged in. The police do not know why he was killed, but speculate his earphones prevented him from hearing the demand for his wallet so he was shot. Every one of these victims was a white male under 30. Every one of the killers convicted so far has been a black male between 17 and 25. There’s a reason why virtually all of the govt workers clear out of DC at night and go home to the suburbs of Maryland and Virginia. Many of the younger workers think it’s hip to live in “edgy” DC. They’re the ones getting killed if they don’t respond fast enough to a demand for their possessions.

                    1. TIN:
                      Yours is the best argument I’ve seen for running like Hell from any jurisdiction that fails to let you protect yourself from thugs with concealed weapons. In each case, the sheep could have avoided decimation by a snub-nosed .38 caliber, well-exercised and ruthlessly used in self-defense.

                    2. Tin, I’m familiar with bad streets and bad areas and I recognize people get killed in certain locations. I knew how to blend in and a few things not to do. Fortunately, I haven’t been robbed or beaten, but I know a number of times I and later my wife and I were being watched as prey.

                      You point out examples of typical attacks in DC. The problem with the Rich case is that there were circumstances that cause concern. In front of his building, wallet still present, beaten up and shot in the back twice!!. One has to include social and business factors in any murder and it seems they existed. As the unexpected variables increase in number so does the oddity of the crime.

                2. Young white guys walking through D.C. at night get killed.

                  Not often. The overwhelming majority of homicide victims in DC are minorities. Rich lived in a sketchy neighborhood, not a bad neighborhood. He was shot for no apparent reason outside his apartment building. Nothing was stolen from him. Nothing’s been gleaned from commercial security cameras in the area that anyone knows about.

            2. Odd..???

              ‘I’ could easily wind up dead walking around my neighborhood at 5 am. S**t happens in dense urban communities in the hours after bar time.

              1. He was shot dead. At 4:00 am. Smack outside his apartment building. Nothing was stolen from him. He lived in a sketchy neighborhood, not a slum neighborhood. Somehow, no security cameras at commercial businesses in the area picked up anything.

                S**t happens in dense urban communities

                Supercilious twerp.

                1. Slum, sketchy, upscale; it doesn’t matter. Thugs frequently go to tony Georgetown looking for victims. In another case, a highly respected reporter for the Washington Post was walking his dog one evening in his upscale NW DC neighborhood. Two thugs drove up and bashed his head in with an iron pipe. He was found on the sidewalk by a passerby, who called for an ambulance. On the way to the hospital, the driver stopped at her personal residence to take care of some errand while he laying dying in the back. When he finally arrived at Howard Univ Hospital, he lay on the gurney in the hall for several hours because the hospital staff assumed an older white man was drunk and didn’t bother to check him. An intern eventually noticed a pool of blood on the floor, turned him and saw the massive gash in the back of his head. He was rushed into surgery, but it was too late and he died. The killers were identified because they had used his credit card at CVS to buy a jug of Tide. The DC police found that the killers already had outstanding warrants for another robbery, committed a week earlier, but the police hadn’t bothered to pick them up, even though they had their home address. When the police kicked in the door on this warrant, the killers were watching t.v., while eating a hoard they had purchased from Wendy’s with the victim’s credit card, and still had his blood on their t-shirts. It turned out both of these guys were employed with the Sanitation Dept, in well paying union jobs, and lived rent free with their grandmother in a home she had owned for decades. Robbery was just a way to supplement their income. All in all, a DC story of violent crime followed by municipal indifference and incompetence, from the ambulance service, to the hospital, to the police. You can’t compare DC to any other city in the US. In terms of local government, it is probably closest to New Orleans.

              2. It’s of those whacky conspiracy theories that will never completely die as long as there are whackos pushing it, not unlike the moon landing was faked nonsense.

          2. They resent it or they are scared out of their wits and want to move on with life and not be under threat of extreme prejudice themselves?

          3. Something wrong with the parents not wanting to find out who his killers were. But that’s on them – others are very interested.

            1. trust me if your kid got killed under these circumstances you would be playing dumb too.

              look the other way and play dumb is always the rule for a witness who doesnt want to get whacked

          1. PCS, assuming that is literally true, then the question is did he get the emails from somebody who got the emails from the Russians. Games will be played.

              1. say, like, Seth Rich, who was pissed at how Bernie got screwed, and downloaded them onto a thrumb drive, and then transmitted them to wiki? Crazy conspiracy theory you.

            1. HW,

              Games are already being played.

              The e-mails were accurate. People had to resign over them. What Democrats are arguing is this: Russia gave accurate information to wikileaks who then distributed that accurate information to voters. Voters were allowed to see and hear things we (Democrats) didn’t want them to see or hear. Hillary didn’t get elected because people were allowed to see and hear truthful things about her.

              If you think about it, that is a really weird thing to argue!

              1. What Democrats are arguing is this: Russia gave accurate information to wikileaks who then distributed that accurate information to voters. Voters were allowed to see and hear things we (Democrats) didn’t want them to see or hear. Hillary didn’t get elected because people were allowed to see and hear truthful things about her.

                That’s a very important point that most on the Left will not engage.

                So go figure:
                Clinton/DNC/ETC want everyone to focus on the Russians and not the actual evidence Wikileaks exposed. So the FBI/Mueller and company go after Trump and anyone else that pops up on their radar.

                Manafort wants the same defense: to him, it’s not important whether the alleged crimes are true or not, the focus should be on how and why that information came into the possession of the FBI.

                But Clinton/DNC (other than losing an election) get a pass by the FBI/DOJ, while Trump’s entourage get the full court press.

                Clinton/DNC: Leaked information: forget about it. Go after the source.
                Trump/Manafort: Source of the information: forget about it. Prosecute the victim.

          2. Paul, I know that – you know that – but the vast majority of Americans do not – especially the Liberals who listen to MadCow

        1. It will be a truth akin to the truth that Jenny Moore, investigative journalist, was killed 3 days ago in Washington D.C. after completing an account of alleged child assault and molestation by Bill Clinton. The allegations apparently got Jen Moore killed. The police said it was a murder. A dead body is irrefutable truth and fact.

          https://truepundit.com/listen-haunting-final-interview-surfaces-of-dead-journalist-jen-moore-her-chilling-details-of-abuse-of-alleged-clinton-rape-victim/

          1. I read this article and you know what? I don’t know anyone who won’t at least wonder if maybe it could be true? I’ve always thought there could be some truth to the Clinton Body Count stories that have followed the Clintons for decades. The corruption in Washington is real. The corruption of the Clintons is verifiable. And that’s enough for me to wonder…

              1. mena arkansas, 17-year-old Kevin Ives and 16-year-old Don Henry, only stupid people asked about them. only stupids, yeah

          2. I haven’t read the Moore story yet. I have read far too many similar ones.
            Two types of people who frequent this blog will scoff at the idea that people are being killed because they’re causing trouble to the Clinton crime family (which apparently includes very shadowy, very powerful interests that have apparently sponsored the Clintons since their college days — think John Brennan types). 1) The naive, and 2) the deliberate disinformers who are here because they’re paid to lie and misdirect.
            Years ago, as a much younger man, i was a reporter working on a story about the Clintons and the whirlwind of crime, corruption and scandal that constantly swirled around them. One of my sources warned me by phone: “Better watch the back of your head.”

            He didn’t need to explain to me about all the Arkansas “suicides” by gunshot to the back of the head.
            I didn’t much worry about it because I knew I would be mainly re-reporting what other people had already covered, with some new quotes and my own analysis. I wasn’t expecting to uncover fresh documents or witnesses.
            Later on, I heard it said on a nationally syndicated radio show that that source was telling people close to him that he feared “they” were going to get him, and that they would make it look like a natural death.
            Within a couple of months, that source was dead. Of “natural causes” — naturally.

      2. hw,

        The good thing about Assange is he uses evidence to back up what he says.

        You may notice that IC officials generally don’t provide evidence for their claims.

          1. HW,

            That lie has been around for a long time and was disproved long ago. Even USGinc. itself had to admit that was not true.

          1. That’s the great thing about providing actual evidence which Assange can do. It’s no belief based. It just is what it is.

              1. Absolutely, call Wildbull prejudiced, that is indeed what he is. Also call him conflicting as one comment conflicts with another.

    1. Just like Kim Dotcom, just like the alleged Russian trolls, nobody wants him publicly testifying about anything.

  8. Mr. Brennan has demonstrated a visceral hatred time and time again. It is personal towards him. While I understand the argument for keeping it, would you really want your Administration asking for advice or giving you any information from Brennan? This is not just partisan politics, Brennan has called Trump treasonous, and made other “colorful statements,” towards the President.

    There is a national security aspect to this. If the Admin were to consult with Brennan (a man with a visceral hatred for the President) you run the risk of becoming a party to a poison pill, a personal vendetta. What if Brennan were to take the opportunity and slip something in that could be a product of wanting to see Mr. Trump fail? Some might say, “Oh Brennan is a patriot. He would never do that,” but remember that before the Clinton e-mail investigation Mr. Comey was the pillar of righteousness. We know now that he was far from that.

  9. Major kudos to the LA TImes for not going along with group think! LA Times was also the ONLY newspaper that published Tulsi’s endorsement of Sanders… and published unbiased polls during 2016 election

    “The Los Angeles times has refused to participate in the Boston Globe’s coordinated ‘call to action’ in which they have colluded with over 400 newspapers to publish anti-Trump editorials.”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-16/la-times-refuses-participate-boston-globes-groupthink-war-trump

    1. Good for LA Times. It’s funny how the news media acts so outraged at Trump calling them out for the “fake news” they constantly churn out as if this criticism is something new under the sun. It’s not.

    2. oh yeah. Got to read that ZH post.
      About that mass editorial attack: Pompous, self-important, and beyond ridiculous. Proving the president’s very point. With respect to their political coverage — especially of Trump — these organizations are no longer even in the ballpark of actual journalism. These guys said it all today:

      Today 300 newspapers coordinated articles criticizing President Trump, just after he’d accused them of . . . . coordinating articles criticizing President Trump. . . . Trump accuses them of groupthink — and they respond, with groupthink. . . since the election the media’s been one malfunctioning car alarm — loud, relentless and broken.”

      https://youtu.be/lx2lfZfO3LM

  10. BRENNAN’S OWN WORDS FROM N.Y. TIMES EDITORIAL

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

    The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of “Trump Incorporated” attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets. A jury is about to deliberate bank and tax fraud charges against one of those people, Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman. And the campaign’s former deputy chairman, Rick Gates, has pleaded guilty to financial fraud and lying to investigators.

    Mr. Trump clearly has become more desperate to protect himself and those close to him, which is why he made the politically motivated decision to revoke my security clearance in an attempt to scare into silence others who might dare to challenge him. Now more than ever, it is critically important that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and his team of investigators be allowed to complete their work without interference — from Mr. Trump or anyone else — so that all Americans can get the answers they so rightly deserve.

    Edited from: “John Brennan: President Trump’s Claims Of Now Collusion Are Hogwash”

    Today’s NEW YORK TIMES

    1. Brennan says Trump’s “decision to revoke my security clearance in an attempt to scare into silence others who might dare to challenge him.”

      Since Brennan is clearly not “silenced” in any way, it would suggest that his security clearance was, as Rand Paul suggested, quite valuable to him in other ways?

      Brennan knows better than most exactly how ‘retaliation’ works. Now he gets a taste of it. Good.

    2. Brennan is full of it. He has lied before Congress and has tried to interfere with the Presidency. If justice was to occur Brennan would end up in jail, perhaps for the rest of his life.

      1. Ha ha ha “justice” what a novel concept! Obama protected him — Brennan probably has dirt on everyone.

        Former NSA guy “says the intelligence agencies are out of control and seek to become an American “Praetorian Guard,” referring to the personal guards of the Roman Emperor, who as the empire gradually decayed, began to kill emperors who got a little too crazy or too ambitious, and replace them with whoever could pay the most.”

    1. It’s not illegal to be a communist.

      It is illegal to participate in the extrajudicial drone killing of American citizens as Brennan and Obama have done.

      It is not legal to lie to Congress as Brennan did.

      It is not legal to spy on American citizens and set up a mass surveillance network to take in everything we do.

      David Axelrod has a truly distorted world view in thinking that Brennan is a fine example of a good public servant. I also have no idea what his idea of “honorable” means. Flunkies like David think people will just listen to their crap and buy it.

      No Sale!

      1. @Jill

        “It is not legal to spy on American citizens and set up a mass surveillance network to take in everything we do.”

        And the full extent of the spying still hasn’t come to light, as I think you know.

        1. anonymous,

          Agreed. Everything on everyone.

          Gina lied as well. The documents are out that she did participate directly in torture. (See wikileaks twitter for those.) If Trump was a person who cared he would never have put her in the job in the first place. Now that it’s clear she lied about her role in torturing others, he should fire her and revoke her clearance. You know he won’t do that.

          This situation illustrates one of the most important problems facing our nation. We only have a few people in the govt. or media representing the people and the Constitution. Trump, Hillary and The mcResistance would all like to kill one of the few journalists who report accurately on matters of life and death. That’s a very scary thing.

          1. Whoa what? Most of what you’ve said has made sense. But…. Evidence that Trump wants to kill journalists?

  11. TRUMP ADMITS RUSSIA PROBE IS REASON FOR REVOCATION OF SECURITY CLEARANCES

    It really was the Russia investigation all along.

    In an interview with the Wall Street Journal posted late Wednesday, President Trump once again gave away the ballgame when it comes to his efforts to affect the probe and tear down its leaders (both current and former). He confessed that his true motivation for revoking former CIA director John Brennan’s security clearance was the “rigged witch hunt” that Brennan once “led.”

    “I call it the rigged witch hunt; [it] is a sham,” Trump told the Journal’s Peter Nicholas and Michael C. Bender. “And these people led it!”

    He added: “So I think it’s something that had to be done.”

    You could be forgiven for having flashbacks to Trump’s interview with NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt in the aftermath of his firing last year of James B. Comey as FBI director. Then, as now, the White House offered a series of motivations for the crackdown on a person who was a liability in the Russia probe. Then, as now, it seemed clear what the actual motivation was. And then, as now, Trump appeared to go out and just admit the actual motivation.

    Edited from: “Trump Blurts Out Another Lester Holt Moment”.

    Today’s WASHINGTON POST

      1. Why Trump keeps blurting out his real motive

        Why does Trump keep admitting to his real motive in such cases? The best answer is that Trump sees nothing whatsoever wrong with trying to derail the investigation.

        Trump and the White House have repeatedly described his efforts to scuttle the investigation as “fighting back.” By all indications, Trump’s stated belief that his attorney general’s proper function is to defend him from the probe — and his rage at Jeff Sessions for failing to carry out that task — appear entirely heartfelt. He plainly believes it would be entirely within his rights to remove Mueller if he could get away with it, and he has only backed off his efforts to do this when faced with internal resistance. Trump has told us, over and over, that he views law enforcement as merely an instrument of his political will, and the totality of his behavior underscores that he simply doesn’t believe rules and laws should apply to him.

        Edited from: “Once Again Trump Blows Up His Own Lies”.

        Today’s WASHINGTON POST

    1. “It really was the Russia investigation all along.”

      Was it? We really don’t know based on what the WSJ writes. He said a lot of things that would be a reason for them to lose security clearance.

      “In some cases, they’ve lied before Congress.”

      “I don’t trust many of those people on that list,”

      “I think that they’re very duplicitous. I think they’re not good people.”

      These are all good reasons to deny them security clearance whether or not they were involved in the Russia investigation. Spin, spin spin. Peter the shill can’t live without the spin.

      Tell us about JFK and Trump.

      1. Mr. Kurtz, Peter Shill gets along with liars. It seems both Peter and Brennan have something in common. “CIA director John Brennan lied to you and to the Senate.”

    2. No woke person believes in the Russiagate narrative – veteran intelligence professionals for sanity especially.

      NSA Whistleblower & VIPS Founder Bill Binney confirms that the DNC Server was never inspected By the FBI and that the “server image” argument is nonsense and the FBI should have had direct access to the DNC Server.

      1. Love those Crazy Youtube videos and their whacky conspiracies.!

        Interesting Fact: Jimmy Dore is a 9-11 Truther, LOL!

      2. Looks like the deep staitors have been working overtime to discredit Binney and the VIPS analysis. Note how, at pivotal times where the cryptocracy finds itself under duress,
        certain reputed muckraking investigators unmask and come out with guns blazing in defense of the cryptocracy.
        To follow those developments in all their details, see recent articles at disobedientmedia.Com.

    3. Said as if it’s just fine, and totally legal, to rig the scales of justice, weaponize the intelligence and police powers and the media, to politically persecute and destroy one’s opponents.

      1. Haha. Excellent. What else did hannity tell you to think?

        this is to “ya, he’s an imbecile and probably a traitor, but at least he’s an old white guy” davie

  12. All those complicit in the Obama Coup D’etat in America must have their clearances revoked:

    Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Steele, Simpson, Joseph

    Mifsud, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Brennan, Clapper, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Obama et al.

      1. “It’s time for the FBI to come clean: Who was Mifsud, and what was his role in the launch of Crossfire Hurricane? And did the State Department assist the FBI in handling Mifsud? Congress and the president supposedly hold power over these agencies. They, and we, need the answers.”

        By Margot Cleveland
        August 2, 2018

        1. Please post more opinion and “facts” on Uranium One, and the foreign chick with the computers, or some such. Thanks, I’ll hang up and listen.

          this is to “I have internet privileges back!” georgie

        1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

          Retired Navy Adm. William McRaven on Thursday wrote in an op-ed that he would “consider it an honor” to have his clearance revoked so that he could add his “name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.”

          [edit]

          On Thursday, McRaven wrote that Brennan “is one of the finest public servants I have ever known.”

          “Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John,” he wrote. “He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.”

          The retired admiral wrote that he had hoped Trump would “rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs.” Instead, McRaven, said Trump has failed to do so.

          “Through your actions,” he wrote, “you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.”

        2. For those who are wondering who Admiral McCraven is, the first sentence from the article linked above explains:

          The former commander of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command, who also oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, has a request for President Donald Trump: Revoke his security clearance.

          1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – anyone who thinks someone who spies on Congress and lies to Congress is a great and honorable person deserves to have his security clearance revoked. Geez, what an idiot.

            1. Paul,
              No sane person would even attempt to make that argument. And I don’t believe for a moment the Admiral is insane. So where does that lead us? What other motivation would the Admiral have to make such an obviously untrue statement? It is either self-serving, or serving an unknown power.

              1. In what way would Adm. McCraven serve his own interests by supporting Brennan while harshly criticizing Trump?

                Your conjecture about Adm. McCraven serving “an unknown power” is . . . [I won’t say it. You know what that is, Chief.]

                P. S. Your argument is a false dichotomy. There’s at least one more possibility besides either Adm. McCraven is “self-serving” or “serving an unknown power.”

                  1. Freudian slips? That’s not funny, Tom. I am afflicted with irregular astigmatism due to an old injury from my volleyball days. Was my brain adversely impacted by the same injury? No. My brain has been a juke-box crossed wired to pinball machine since long before I ever played volleyball. Trust me.

                1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – we can assume that McCraven is part of the Resistance. It is nice of him to out himself.

              2. Why is Trump so hell-fired important to you, Chief? Trump’s not worth your effort. Trump hasn’t earned your respect. Trump does not deserve your support. I truly do not understand your position on Trump.

              3. Olly, Isn’t it possible that Admiral McCraven simply disagrees with you?
                Why jump to the “serving an unknown power” insinuation?

                I expect that from someone like Infowars Loony Oxy, but you’re smarter than that.

                1. For some reason my comment is awaiting moderation. So I will try to make it post another way:

                  Why jump to the “serving an unknown power” insinuation?

                  Wildbill,
                  The Admiral’s following statement immediately made me question his motive.

                  “Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him,” McRaven wrote.

                  The Admiral’s statement reads like a Navy Fitness Report. They are always written in a manner that would give the reader no doubt the subject is of the highest caliber. Usually they have this glowing language and then the writer cites specific examples of how the subject reflected that endorsement. The Admiral’s tell was what I bolded.

                  whose honesty and character have never been in question,

                  That is a flat out lie. He tries to qualify it by saying except by those who don’t know him. However the entire world got the opportunity to know him and he and his agencies were proven to have done exactly the things he said were not done.

                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/07/31/obama-should-fire-john-brennan/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.55422415c93b

                  So, we get this headline Architect of bin Laden raid… which is intended to give the reader the immediate impression the Admiral’s judgment is pure and correct. It’s supposed to setup the reader to emotionally align with the Admiral and not question his glowing opinion of Brennan. Except he made the mistake of lying to the reader. In reality, the only people that would applaud that statement have had their head in the sand for the last 10 years. So, what was his motivation to make such a blatant lie? Do you think for a nanosecond he actually believes what he wrote? I don’t.

                  The list of ex IC bureaucrats coming to the defense of Brennan is not surprising. They are folks that have served in various administrations and the military. They are not aligned politically. What do they all have in common? Their oath? Sure. Unquestioned judgment? Not even close. Service to our country? Sure. Lifetime pensions? Yes. Lifetime security clearances? Yes. So what is the root of their motivation to defend Brennan? What would make the Admiral lie so blatantly? What is the root cause of most bad actors? Power and Money.

                  Those former IC bureaucrats had 2 choices; defend Brennan, or defend the President. Sure, they could have gone with a 3rd choice, condemn Brennan for his history, but defend themselves on the need for access. The problem with that is that would subject what has to this point been an unquestioned honorary title of nobility when they leave the position to a clearance review and possible loss of their clearance. And in their minds they’ve earned this title, so no one will take it from them. Horse-hockey! It’s their Headline on every board, every contract, every party, every meeting, every trip, every speech, every everything they do until they die. That’s Power, that’s Money, that’s Prestige.

                  This is the decision point for all of us. This is the root of all what is wrong with government. If we are concerned at all with the bogeymen like the Koch’s and Soros’ of the world, if we are concerned with lobbyists and corporations manipulating our government. If we are concerned with the MIC, and every other bad entity that we can conger up is threatening our national security, then this is the moment to end this practice of believing in a nobility class that is above the law and out of reach of the commoners.

                  1. Olly,….
                    There was an article in The Observer ( Nov. 4, 2015), that contained this statement; “It has long been rumored that
                    McRaven resigned his position in Special Ops to be considered as a Vice-Presidential candidate on a Hillary ticket”.
                    If anyone looks back beyond the headlines of the past few days, and looks back years, it puts his political showmanship in a somewhat different light.
                    The op ed he wrote was a win-win situation for McRaven; loss of security clearance, which McRAVEN HIMSELF requested, is inconsequential to him.
                    But his “offer” raises his profile and is represented as the concerns of an ex-Admiral, rather than the political amibitions of a partisan hack.

                    1. A CLINTON-McRAVEN TICKET IN 2016?–from THE HILL, JULY 7, 2014
                      All kinds of interesting background available on McCraven

                1. The anti-conspiracy theorists want us to believe:
                  – only foreign governments like Russia would put together a compromising dossier on our own political actors.

                  – our IC would put together a compromising dossier only on foreign government actors.

                  – But if anyone dares to put forward that our own IC would put together a compromising dossier against our own political actors; well that’s just crazy talk.

                  Who wouldn’t want intel on every political actor and bureaucrat?

Leave a Reply