Politics Imma Need the Trump Supporters to Explain This

[MARIS61]

you mean Dick Cheney and Haliburton? That's not the CIA....you think Amarossa, Kushner, Bannon, Ivanka, Amarossa, Sessions or Flynn would be trustworthy though right? Trump is such a great judge of character... I had a top secret clearance in the Navy....I didn't get these "forever" benefits for having one though..I got the same benefits as any other vet that didn't have the clearance.

Who the fuck is this Amarossa you keep dropping?

 

[MARIS61]

Without security clearances they are prevented from discussing or testifying to congress top secret things they may have seen during the russian investigation.

Security clearance may be granted or revoked, temporarily or permanently, or even intermittently, so if needed to testify or advise all it takes is a stroke of the President's pen.

It is highly likely though, that the next time Brennan is required to testify it will be to the Inspector General and he''l likely take the 5th. He's going to be looking at some serious charges soon.

 

[MARIS61]

Joke's on Brennan for failing to find humor in Trump's remark, 'Dilbert' cartoonist says
By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News

'Dilbert' creator Scott Adams on understanding Trump tweets
Imagine a scenario in which a top intelligence officer places the U.S. at risk all because he couldn't discern when the president was joking. It almost sounds like the plot for a comic strip.

Well, that's exactly what happened in the case of former CIA Director John Brennan, according to Scott Adams, creator of the popular “Dilbert” strip.

In a Twitter message Thursday, Adams slammed Brennan, asserting that the former CIA chief in 2016 didn't realize that President Trump was joking when the then-candidate urged Russia to find Hillary Clinton's missing emails.

“So Brennan may have started one of the most important political witch hunts in history based on not recognizing a joke — and I’m not even making that up,” Adams wrote.

“So Brennan may have started one of the most important political witch hunts in history based on not recognizing a joke — and I’m not even making that up.”

- Scott Adams, creator of "Dilbert."
“I feel fairly confident in saying that what I just said is literally true: that the head of the CIA has almost destroyed the United States because he didn’t understand that an obvious joke was a joke.”

The comments came after Brennan lashed out at the White House for stripping him of his top security clearance Wednesday following a review of access granted to several top Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials.

The former CIA boss authored an explosive op-ed for the New York Times, saying that the president – by making the comment about Russia finding Clinton’s emails in July 2016 – encouraged and authorized his followers to collude with the Kremlin.

“The already challenging work of the American intelligence and law enforcement communities was made more difficult in late July 2016 … when Mr. Trump, then a presidential candidate, publicly called upon Russia to find the missing emails of Mrs. Clinton,” Brennan wrote.

“By issuing such a statement, Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent,” he added.

The Trump administration justified the decision to revoke the security clearance of Brennan, saying he “has a history that calls his credibility into question,” and accused him of “leveraging” the clearance to make “wild outbursts” and claims about the current administration.

“The president has a constitutional responsibility to protect classified information and who has access to it, and that’s what he’s doing is fulfilling that responsibility in this action,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Wednesday.

But the cartoonist said Brennan deserved to lose the security clearance for not being able to distinguish an obvious joke at the height of a political race, a mistake that eventually led to efforts to investigate the Trump campaign.

“Now, if you’ve got a guy who’s willing to put the entire stability at risk because he can’t tell the difference between a joke and a serious statement, then that guy has got to lose his security clearance at least,” Adams said.

“I wouldn’t want him anywhere near a decision. Would you? After seeing how Brennan responded to a public joke would you want him to make any important decisions about anything?

"I mean, that’s some scary stuff,” Adams wrote.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...in-trumps-remark-dilbert-cartoonist-says.html

 

[Chris Craig]

Brennan illegally lied to Congress.

Brennan illegally spied on Congress.

Brennan illegally lied to Americans.

Brennan illegally spied on Americans.

Brennan continually leaked classified information to his employer for money, which aided and abetted our adversaries.

Brennan illegally outed a US agent in Yemen for money.

Brennan started the whole Russian Collusion nonsense because he's so dense he didn't know Trump was joking about asking Russia to find Hillary's emails and it threw him into a panic.

Brennan is a Communist.

Brennan is bipolar.

Brennan should die in prison, with Clapper, Rice, McCabe, Comey, Mueller, the Ohrs, the Clintons, Strozk and Page, Reid, Lynch, Holder,Biden, Kerry...

Sounds like you're bipolar

 

[dviss1]

Nope. Not necessary if you arent actively in government. This notion that people in the government need to be there or get benefits forever is bullshit.

They should not have access once out of the government.

You don't have a clue of what you're talking about right now.

 

[H.C.]

They should not have access once out of the government.

And they don't have access to NEW intelligence.
But if you honestly believe someone forgets simply because their security clearance was revoked. Then I have a timeshare in Puerto Rico to sell you.

 

[Lanny]

People no longer working in the government don't need security clearance.

Yes they do. What if a situation develops where you need to consult someone with relevant experience? This is why they give and maintain those clearances.

 

[Lanny]

Nope. Not necessary if you arent actively in government. This notion that people in the government need to be there or get benefits forever is bullshit.

It's not a benefit. How did you come up with that conclusion? Please explain.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

You don't have a clue of what you're talking about right now.

Security Clearance primarily means having access to classified information.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Yes they do. What if a situation develops where you need to consult someone with relevant experience? This is why they give and maintain those clearances.

It should be reinstated on a case by case basis then.

 

[yankeesince59]

...lol...Trumpets, posting much like Trump tweets.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

It's not a benefit. How did you come up with that conclusion? Please explain.

What is it then. A burden? Its an ability that most citizens do not get. I would call that a benefit

 

[yankeesince59]

It should be reinstated on a case by case basis then.

...there are different levels of security clearance...and though it can be canceled with a stroke of a pen, gaining security clearance takes time.

 

[Lanny]

It should be reinstated on a case by case basis then.

That takes time.

 

[yankeesince59]

What is it then. A burden? Its an ability that most citizens do not get. I would call that a benefit

...you could/should have stopped right there...please explain how it is "a benefit".

...most citizens don't get drafted either...but using your logic, getting drafted is a "benefit".

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

...you could/should have stopped right there...please explain how it is "a benefit".

...most citizens don't get drafted either...but using your logic, getting drafted is a "benefit".

It is something you or I don't get. Of it isn't a benefit, why the big deal about brennan losing it?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

That takes time.

So what?

 

[yankeesince59]

It is something you or I don't get.

...hopefully, you nor I get the clap either...but I wouldn't call it "a benefit" if we did.

...you are really grasping at straws at this point.

 

[yankeesince59]

So what?

...Sigh...if someone is summoned for advice on a crisis or to go before the Senate/House, they typically have to have clearance...if they don't have said clearance they'd have to wait until the do.
...does this really need explaining?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

...Sigh...if someone is summoned for advice on a crisis or to go before the Senate/House, they typically have to have clearance...if they don't have said clearance they'd have to wait until the do.
...does this really need explaining?

We shouldn't have to rely on people not actively in the government for advice on how to handle a situation. Especially people that suck at their job. The Systems should be in place to prevent such a reliance.

 

[Lanny]

What is it then. A burden? Its an ability that most citizens do not get. I would call that a benefit

Where is the explanation? How does one benefit from it when one is no longer paid for doing a secure job? I suppose you might view it as a benefit that a person could brag about their clearance at a party or request a better seat at a restaurant but even that would be quite a stretch. It certainly doesn't increase someone's retirement pay. It doesn't get them an account at the Congressional cafeteria. No, I know of no benefit.

I guess someone somewhere might think it a benefit to get to testify in a closed hearing. Or perhaps the free coffee and donuts are a benefit in giving advise on a sensitive matter concerning the government of the United States. Is that a benefit?

 

[Lanny]

We shouldn't have to rely on people not actively in the government for advice on how to handle a situation. Systems should be in place to prevent such a reliance.

Apparently, those in power past and present disagree with you. Should they disregard past behavior and start heeding your advice.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Apparently, those in power past and present disagree with you. Should they disregard past behavior and start heeding your advice.

Sure, why not. Drain the swamp.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Where is the explanation? How does one benefit from it when one is no longer paid for doing a secure job? I suppose you might view it as a benefit that a person could brag about their clearance at a party or request a better seat at a restaurant but even that would be quite a stretch. It certainly doesn't increase someone's retirement pay. It doesn't get them an account at the Congressional cafeteria. No, I know of no benefit.

I guess someone somewhere might think it a benefit to get to testify in a closed hearing. Or perhaps the free coffee and donuts are a benefit in giving advise on a sensitive matter concerning the government of the United States. Is that a benefit?

Yes.

 

[Lanny]

What is it then. A burden? Its an ability that most citizens do not get. I would call that a benefit

If it's not a burden then should we consider it a benefit? The Andromeda galaxy is many light years away so it's certainly no burden, does that make it a benefit?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

If it's not a burden then should we consider it a benefit? The Andromeda galaxy is many light years away so it's certainly no burden, does that make it a benefit?

Probably, its a benefit humans live far away so they don't fuck it up

 

[Lanny]

Sure, why not. Drain the swamp.

What swamp? Do you mean you and your appointees could do a better job of running the government than those trained to do so? You and your followers must be geniuses.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

What swamp? Do you mean you and your appointees could do a better job of running the government than those trained to do so? You and your followers must be geniuses.

This whole Russian shit happened right under his nose.

 

[Lanny]

Yes.

Well, I'm gonna disagree and say that the revoking of the Director's clearance was solely intended as a slap in the face. And now Trump is gonna get two slaps in the face, one this November and another exactly two years after this November.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Well, I'm gonna disagree and say that the revoking of the Director's clearance was solely intended as a slap in the face. And now Trump is gonna get two slaps in the face, one this November and another exactly two years after this November.

You slap people in the face when they get out of line, which Brennan clearly is. Gotta go down the list of people who deserve to get it yanked. And he is former director.