***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Can you imagine the white racists sitting around the table, sipping $100 whiskey and smoking thousand dollar cigars, pointing at the Don laughing their asses off, saying, "I told you not to trust her kind," while deciding how next to manipulate the stock market and which golf course to book a tee time at?
 
dwalk31 said:
In re: Brennan's security clearance, the President clearly has broad presidential powers as it relates to the right to remove security clearances. The argument that it violates the 1st amendment is without merit.
Click to expand...
Would intent play any role in that? Sarah Sanders announced at least 2 individuals (Comey and McCabe) whose security clearances are "under review on a case by case basis" despite them no longer having a security clearance in the first place. McCabe's clearance was terminated and Comey relinquished his by choosing to decline a temporary clearance from the DOJ's disciplinary office regarding the Inspector General report.
Both Comey and McCabe have been involved in the Russia probe and have been interviewed by Mueller. In both cases they handed documents to the Mueller team and Comey plays a key role in Mueller's investigation of the president for obstruction of justice.

Michael Flynn still has his security clearance and was not mentioned in Sanders' list of officials whose clearances are under review. Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and Trump admitted on Twitter that he was aware that Flynn lied to the FBI before he fired him and allegedly told Comey "I hope you can let this go."
Rudy Giuliani confirmed that a one on one discussion between Trump and Comey took place as Comey testified but insisted that Trump was simply telling him to "give Flynn a break" and that it could not be taken as an order.
Trump initially denied knowing Flynn lied to the FBI before blurting it out on Twitter. In spite of that Flynn still maintains a security clearance.


A president has absolute power to pardon anyone (except maybe himself) but he can't dangle pardons in order to influence testimony. Congress identified 4 instances of obstruction of justice by Nixon where he offered illegitimate clemency/pardons to his aides. A bipartisan majority in the House then voted to impeach Nixon.
The power to pardon is absolute, the intent is not and could be subject to obstruction of justice liability.

Would there be any such overlap regarding Trump's power to revoke security clearances and the 1st amendment if based on illicit motive rather than an actual breach of classified information?
Trump is wandering into uncharted territory as he moves towards revoking clearances of other officials, including an active DOJ employee, who have criticized him and/or have some degree of involvement in the Russia investigation.
"We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions" - Supreme Court
Bose Corp vs. Consumers Union of US & Hustler Magazine v. Farwell
REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment


Trump did not cite improper handling of classified information or personal liabilities (financial troubles, ...) that could jeopardize national security when he revoked Brennan's clearance.
Reminiscent of his Lester Holt interview after firing Comey, president Trump directly tied his decision to revoke Brennan's security clearance to the Russia investigation in a subsequent WSJ interview.
  • "I think that whole – I call it the rigged witch hunt – is a sham. And these people led it!"
Perhaps one could argue for revoking Brennan's clearance but what is the argument for "reviewing" security clearances of former officials who no longer have a clearance? As well as a currently active DOJ employee. Coincidentally almost all the names listed by Sarah Sanders have criticized Trump in some shape or form and a number of them have been involved in the Russia probe in which Trump is a 'subject'. Several of them, including Comey and McCabe who no longer have a clearance, have been interviewed by Mueller and have handed documents to the investigation.

Even the president's power to pardon, one of if not the most absolute powers granted to him by the constitution, is subject to some limitations depending on how they were offered and for what purpose. The pardon can not be revoked if executed (unless the recipient declines) but based on the Nixon articles of impeachment relating to the offering of clemency and/or pardons, the president can be liable for obstruction in spite of that absolute power.

At the end of the day Trump is moving into unprecedented territory with the way he is moving to revoke security clearances. A draft to revoke Brennan's clearance had been prepared in July but was held to release during a strongly negative news cycle in light of the Omarosa controversy. According to a Washington Post report from yesterday, the WH has reportedly drafted a number of other security clearance revocations for some of the individuals announced by Sarah Sanders the day she disclosed the revocation of Brennan's clearance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...869fe70a721_story.html?utm_term=.5f180be0f1fd
 
Last edited:
I am laughing. I imagine them eating their $400 eggs
InTheHallway said:
Can you imagine the white racists sitting around the table, sipping $100 whiskey and smoking thousand dollar cigars, pointing at the Don laughing their asses off, saying, "I told you not to trust her kind," while deciding how next to manipulate the stock market and which golf course to book a tee time at?
Click to expand...
what's your favorite whiskey and cigars?
 
Mark Antony said:
Why did Omarosa start recording? What was her reasoning?
Click to expand...
Seems entirely self-serving. During her tenure there were plenty of reports of her slacking on the job, botching an event to honor black history month (not that she needed help given who the president is), ...
She seemed ignorant of potential liability by recording within the WH, including in the situation room, when questioned on MSNBC shortly after she broke the news. When asked about potential liability I recall her looking a bit caught off guard and saying "well I'll have to discuss that with my lawyers" or something to that amount. D.C. has one party consent and thus it is legal to secretly record others without their approval but it's unclear what exactly she recorded. NYT reported that she has around 200 tapes and today AP reported that she has video and texts as well.
Other than that she certainly seems to know what she's doing. She has some reality tv experience after all and this whole controversy is straight out of a ridiculous reality tv plot. She has been all over the news and cleverly baited Trump into issuing a denial about an alleged use of the n-word before releasing a tape that appears to contradict that denial.
 
RustyShackleford said:
My homie stay on that "Pelosi must go" steez, so recently I asked him who he thinks should replace her; and with a straight face he says: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

I waited for him to start chuckling but ole boy was dead serious.

I was so taken aback I had a hard time responding. I was just sitting there like....

giphy.gif
Click to expand...
yeeeeah no. lol.

speakership should be who is good at fundraising and keeping mother ****ers in line for votes, that's it.
 
dwalk31 said:
In re: Brennan's security clearance, the President clearly has broad presidential powers as it relates to the right to remove security clearances. The argument that it violates the 1st amendment is without merit.
Click to expand...

Lets keep it 110. Trump yanked those clearances because he's a petty 70 year old toddler female. And to tell you the truth I don't even care about the people's whose clearances he yanked, they're a bunch of neocons/neolibs anyway. But Trump yanked them because they hurt his feelings, not because they are leaking any classified info. A clearance alone doesn't mean anything. You have to be granted access to relevant (to your job) classified information by your sponsoring agency, all a clearance means is that you are cleared to access and communicate about the information with other cleared individuals who need to know that information. Even when you leave your job, you sign a release saying you will keep your mouth shut about anything you used to know because that information could change the minute you walk out of the front door.

Do you know how many former government employees and government contractors are running around with active security clearances? A whole lot. Why? Because your clearance remains until it expires. Your agency doesn't take it away when you are no longer employed unless they fired you for a security violation. Those people were not charged with committing security violations, Trump is just a beotch.

Another thing, the media likes to make a big deal about security clearances. It doesn't matter. Ivanka has a clearance, Ivanka doesn't have access to spit. She has no access to military information, whats going on with the nuclear weapons, law enforcement information, or homeland security information. Her clearance just lets her walk around the White House un-escorted. She has access to whatever she needs to do her job, whatever that happens to be. Kushner has a clearance, he doesn't have access to spit. Same as above.
 
“Security clearance” was just his way of having some type of control without continuing firing the “best people” he claims to have
 
Belgium said:
Would intent play any role in that? Sarah Sanders announced at least 2 individuals (Comey and McCabe) whose security clearances are "under review on a case by case basis" despite them no longer having a security clearance in the first place. McCabe's clearance was terminated and Comey relinquished his by choosing to decline a temporary clearance from the DOJ's disciplinary office regarding the Inspector General report.
Both Comey and McCabe have been involved in the Russia probe and have been interviewed by Mueller. In both cases they handed documents to the Mueller team and Comey plays a key role in Mueller's investigation of the president for obstruction of justice.

Michael Flynn still has his security clearance and was not mentioned in Sanders' list of officials whose clearances are under review. Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and Trump admitted on Twitter that he was aware that Flynn lied to the FBI before he fired him and allegedly told Comey "I hope you can let this go."
Rudy Giuliani confirmed that a one on one discussion between Trump and Comey took place as Comey testified but insisted that Trump was simply telling him to "give Flynn a break" and that it could not be taken as an order.
Trump initially denied knowing Flynn lied to the FBI before blurting it out on Twitter. In spite of that Flynn still maintains a security clearance.


A president has absolute power to pardon anyone (except maybe himself) but he can't dangle pardons in order to influence testimony. Congress identified 4 instances of obstruction of justice by Nixon where he offered illegitimate clemency/pardons to his aides. A bipartisan majority in the House then voted to impeach Nixon.
The power to pardon is absolute, the intent is not and could be subject to obstruction of justice liability.

Would there be any such overlap regarding Trump's power to revoke security clearances and the 1st amendment if based on illicit motive rather than an actual breach of classified information?
Trump is wandering into uncharted territory as he moves towards revoking clearances of other officials, including an active DOJ employee, who have criticized him and/or have some degree of involvement in the Russia investigation.
"We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions" - Supreme Court
Bose Corp vs. Consumers Union of US & Hustler Magazine v. Farwell
REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment


Trump did not cite improper handling of classified information or personal liabilities (financial troubles, ...) that could jeopardize national security when he revoked Brennan's clearance.
Reminiscent of his Lester Holt interview after firing Comey, president Trump directly tied his decision to revoke Brennan's security clearance to the Russia investigation in a subsequent WSJ interview.
  • "I think that whole – I call it the rigged witch hunt – is a sham. And these people led it!"
Perhaps one could argue for revoking Brennan's clearance but what is the argument for "reviewing" security clearances of former officials who no longer have a clearance? As well as a currently active DOJ employee. Coincidentally almost all the names listed by Sarah Sanders have criticized Trump in some shape or form and a number of them have been involved in the Russia probe in which Trump is a 'subject'. Several of them, including Comey and McCabe who no longer have a clearance, have been interviewed by Mueller and have handed documents to the investigation.

Even the president's power to pardon, one of if not the most absolute powers granted to him by the constitution, is subject to some limitations depending on how they were offered and for what purpose. The pardon can not be revoked if executed (unless the recipient declines) but based on the Nixon articles of impeachment relating to the offering of clemency and/or pardons, the president can be liable for obstruction in spite of that absolute power.

At the end of the day Trump is moving into unprecedented territory with the way he is moving to revoke security clearances. A draft to revoke Brennan's clearance had been prepared in July but was held to release during a strongly negative news cycle in light of the Omarosa controversy. According to a Washington Post report from yesterday, the WH has reportedly drafted a number of other security clearance revocations for some of the individuals announced by Sarah Sanders the day she disclosed the revocation of Brennan's clearance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...869fe70a721_story.html?utm_term=.5f180be0f1fd
Click to expand...

In my opinion, intent would not matter. And with the current make up of SCOTUS and the pending confirmation of Kavanaugh, the Court will likely agree. And when you think about it, that makes sense. A president should be able to take away the security clearance of any justice official that he wants as the leader of the executive branch. And Presidents have relatively short terms. The next president could simply restore the security clearances. Any attempt to erode the Presidential Powers would be a disservice to the opposing party when their President gets into office.

President Trump is, undoubtedly, changing the norms of Washington. That is what he ran on.
 
MalcolmNewton said:
Lets keep it 110. Trump yanked those clearances because he's a petty 70 year old toddler female. And to tell you the truth I don't even care about the people's whose clearances he yanked, they're a bunch of neocons/neolibs anyway. But Trump yanked them because they hurt his feelings, not because they are leaking any classified info. A clearance alone doesn't mean anything. You have to be granted access to relevant (to your job) classified information by your sponsoring agency, all a clearance means is that you are cleared to access and communicate about the information with other cleared individuals who need to know that information. Even when you leave your job, you sign a release saying you will keep your mouth shut about anything you used to know because that information could change the minute you walk out of the front door.

Do you know how many former government employees and government contractors are running around with active security clearances? A whole lot. Why? Because your clearance remains until it expires. Your agency doesn't take it away when you are no longer employed unless they fired you for a security violation. Those people were not charged with committing security violations, Trump is just a beotch.

Another thing, the media likes to make a big deal about security clearances. It doesn't matter. Ivanka has a clearance, Ivanka doesn't have access to spit. She has no access to military information, whats going on with the nuclear weapons, law enforcement information, or homeland security information. Her clearance just lets her walk around the White House un-escorted. She has access to whatever she needs to do her job, whatever that happens to be. Kushner has a clearance, he doesn't have access to spit. Same as above.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you wrote including the reason why Trump removed the clearance. My only point is that it is well within his Presidential Power to remove security clearances to "be petty."
 
I have made a new book reservation today for some September reading material.
"Fear: Trump in The White House" by the famed journalist and author Bob Woodward.
71650afea446afa9a00988bcd0aa9299.png

a54f7817eb1d4780f553cfbb9760e41f.png

Relevant article from July:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/31/trump-woodward-book-white-house-reporters-press-753109
'Everyone talked with Woodward': Trump White House braces for new book
Unlike previous administrations, this White House had no process for making officials available to the legendary reporter.
Bob Woodward, the legendary Washington Post journalist, was sitting on the couch in press secretary Jay Carney’s office, presenting Obama administration officials with an offer they couldn’t refuse.

It was 2011, and Woodward was working on a book chronicling President Barack Obama’s debt-ceiling negotiations. He pulled out a secret memo written by Peter Orszag, the former budget director, that Woodward had obtained and which held potentially damaging revelations about the administration.


Participating in his project, Woodward said, would give people like Carney the opportunity to respond to such memos. Woodward then pointed to a safe that is kept in the press secretary’s office, which holds classified documents. “I’d like access to everything, including what’s in there,” he said, “some of which I might have already.”

The impression he left on the people in the room that day, according to a person familiar with the episode, was that they didn’t have much of a choice: Woodward knew everything, and if you didn’t participate, you were screwed.

The result was that the Obama administration cooperated in an attempt to shape the narrative to be more favorable to the president.

“We decided to put it all above board so that we at least had some visibility into it,” recalled Dan Pfeiffer, a former communications director for Obama, who said press aides would often sit in on interviews Woodward conducted with senior officials. “We put in place a process to facilitate cooperation to help shape a book that was going to be written.”

Now Woodward is taking on the Trump administration. Simon & Schuster, Woodward’s publisher, announced Monday that it plans to release his 19th book, titled “Fear: Trump in the White House,” on Sept. 11.

But the process for managing the book has not been as formal in President Donald Trump’s White House — in fact, there hasn’t been any process at all. According to half a dozen former administration officials and people close to the administration, Woodward was never officially granted access to the White House or to the president, and the communications department did nothing to help him in researching or writing his book.

For example, when Woodward approached then-National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton, with whom Woodward had worked closely on his books about the George W. Bush administration, about an interview with national security adviser H.R. McMaster, he was officially turned down, according to a person familiar with the request.

The result is what often happens in Trump world: Senior officials, acting as lone wolves concerned with preserving their own reputations, spoke to Woodward on their own — with some granting him hours of their time out of a fear of being the last person in the room to offer his or her viewpoint.

As one former administration official put it: “He hooked somebody, and that put the fear of God in everyone else.”

Another former official added: “It’s gonna be killer. Everyone talked with Woodward.”

According to Simon & Schuster, the book will reveal “the harrowing life inside Donald Trump’s White House and how the president makes decisions on major foreign and domestic policies.” The cover is a striking red wash over an uncomfortably close close-up of Trump’s face.

The book has been kept under wraps, which one publishing source said was the typical MO for the release of a Woodward book: quiet followed by a publicity blast beginning the month before publication.

But it has also stayed secret in a White House where everything seems to leak. Over the past 18 months of the Trump administration, Woodward has not been spotted often on the White House campus, officials said. He did not camp out in anyone’s office, a la author Michael Wolff, author of the best-selling “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.”

Instead, two interview subjects said, he offered Trump officials and outside sources the classic Woodward treatment — inviting them to his home, where he showed them his fabled study and his Pulitzers, and then pressed them to hand over schedules, diaries and notebooks and other documents he needed.

In previous administrations that he’s written about, Woodward has instead been a regular presence in the White House. The past three presidents — Obama, Bush and Bill Clinton — all participated in Woodward projects.

“We cooperated fully, from the president on down, in his first book on the Bush administration,” recalled former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, who said he was interviewed by Woodward in his West Wing office. “That set the tone. The president is talking, the vice president is talking, we’re all talking.”

The Trump administration was officially participating in another project — a book by the journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. Their “inside the room” books on the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns relied on methods similar to Woodward’s — conducting hours of interviews on background, and then using an omniscient voice to recreate scenes that put readers in the room where the decision-making happened.

Their book on 2016, however, was canceled after sexual harassment allegations were made against Halperin.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders did not respond to a request for comment about the Woodward book. Woodward’s agent, Bob Barnett, declined to comment beyond the publisher’s official release.

Trump allies said they are bracing themselves for a book that will enrage the president — and that he will therefore promote, intentionally or not. Trump’s rage tweets, in the past, have helped to boost book sales, while his promotional tweets about books that depict the administration in a positive light — including those by former aides like Sean Spicer and Fox News allies like Judge Jeanine Pirro, as well as lesser-known fans — have failed to move the needle in the same way.

His tweets about people like Wolff, who he called “a total loser who made up stories in order to sell this really boring and untruthful book” and former FBI Director James Comey, who he deemed an “untruthful slime ball,” are credited with helping those books become international best-sellers. Wolff’s book sold 1.2 million hardcover copies and has been translated into 35 languages. Comey’s memoir, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership,” sold more than 600,000 copies in its first week on sale.

“By virtue of it being a Bob Woodward book, it will be an instant best-seller,” said literary agent Keith Urbahn, whose clients include Comey. “The smartest thing Trump could do is to give Woodward the silent treatment. But we know that’s unlikely. So if I’m Bob Woodward, I’m feeling good about things.”

Woodward has been quietly plugging away at his book since before Trump took office. During the campaign, Woodward and Washington Post reporter Robert Costa sat down together for an extended interview with Trump — an interaction that gave Woodward some visibility and entree into Trump world, as well as the imprimatur of being around.

Weeks before Trump’s inauguration, Woodward was also spotted in the lobby of Trump Tower, entering the elevator bank to go meet with senior campaign officials who would soon be making the trek to Washington.

“There’s no secrecy about it,” Woodward said at the time when pressed by reporters about what he was doing. “It’s just that I’m doing my work. It’s something I’m working on long term. I hope you’ll understand.”
Click to expand...
 
dwalk31 said:
I agree with everything you wrote including the reason why Trump removed the clearance. My only point is that it is well within his Presidential Power to remove security clearances to "be petty."
Click to expand...
He has the power but what is your opinion on the precedent he is setting by using that power to selectively target what is a bit reminiscent of a public 'Nixonian enemy list'?. National security and improper disclosure of classified information is of no concern, otherwise Flynn would be on the list given that the president admitted knowing he lied to the FBI and fired him for that reason. And president Trump himself made it quite clear by directly tying his decision to revoke Brennan's clearance to the Russia investigation.

As part of the Mueller probe, the president is under investigation for obstruction of justice. Now he is using his clearance revocation power to selectively target a list of people who have criticized him in some shape or form and/or have involvement in the Russia investigation.

To be clear, I'm not asking you now whether or not Trump has the power to do so. I'm asking what your opinion is on the way he is selectively using and threatening to use that power and the president's admitted petty motives.
 
Belgium said:
He has the power but what is your opinion on the precedent he is setting by using that power to selectively target what is a bit reminiscent of a public 'Nixonian enemy list'?. National security and improper disclosure of classified information is of no concern, otherwise Flynn would be on the list given that the president admitted knowing he lied to the FBI and fired him for that reason. And president Trump himself made it quite clear by directly tying his decision to revoke Brennan's clearance to the Russia investigation.

As part of the Mueller probe, the president is under investigation for obstruction of justice. Now he is using his clearance revocation power to selectively target a list of people who have criticized him in some shape or form and/or have involvement in the Russia investigation.

To be clear, I'm not asking you now whether or not Trump has the power to do so. I'm asking what your opinion is on the way he is selectively using and threatening to use that power and the president's admitted petty motives.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Like another poster mentioned, it is not that serious.
 
So we are just going to completely ignore the pettiness shown by the Left stemming from the bitterness of a lost election?

From Struckout and his little text messages to the entire Mueller probe, **** is a joke forreal ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaboozy
What's your NT routine?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
ogbobbyjohnson773
ogbobbyjohnson773
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
chezzer10
chezzer10
datznasty
Official Niketalk Custom Basketball Shorts Thread
Replies
5
Views
1K
MakeNTGreatAgain
MakeNTGreatAgain

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom