Brennan To Sue Trump Over Security Clearance

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Talk about Hillarious!

Can we get a gofundme page up and running to get Brennan's suit to court?

So this blooming idiot is going to put himself in to a deposition under oath while Trump's lawyers chew him to sheds.

This is what happens to morons when their self importance convinces them they're above the law. Slander comes to mind.


John Brennan Considers Suing Trump Over Revoked Security Clearance

How do we end up with dopes like Brennan and Comey as the heads of our intelligence agencies?

Because government is corrupt and riddled with stupid shits who couldn't hack it in the private sector.

But the private sector is also corrupt and littered with stupid shits, so.....

Do you work for the government?

No...do you work for Steve Bannon?

 

[mdk]

He will lose this challenge in court. Badly.

On what grounds?

B/c President Trump has the power to revoke his security clearance.

 

[whitehall]

Can you imagine this guy being the head of the CIA? The more he whines the more it vindicates the President's decision to lift his clearance.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He will lose this challenge in court. Badly.

On what grounds?

B/c President Trump has the power to revoke his security clearance.

And that power could be limited by the courts or by congress. Also, it could be that the courts or congress decide that he abused that power.

 

[BluesLegend]

Talk about Hillarious!

Can we get a gofundme page up and running to get Brennan's suit to court?

So this blooming idiot is going to put himself in to a deposition under oath while Trump's lawyers chew him to sheds.

This is what happens to morons when their self importance convinces them they're above the law. Slander comes to mind.


John Brennan Considers Suing Trump Over Revoked Security Clearance

How do we end up with dopes like Brennan and Comey as the heads of our intelligence agencies?

Because government is corrupt and riddled with stupid shits who couldn't hack it in the private sector.

But the private sector is also corrupt and littered with stupid shits, so.....

Do you work for the government?

No...do you work for Steve Bannon?

No...I'm a wealth hoarding executive in a giant corporation. I love me some wealth hoarding.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How do we end up with dopes like Brennan and Comey as the heads of our intelligence agencies?

Because government is corrupt and riddled with stupid shits who couldn't hack it in the private sector.

But the private sector is also corrupt and littered with stupid shits, so.....

Do you work for the government?

No...do you work for Steve Bannon?

No...I'm a wealth hoarding executive in a giant corporation. I love me some wealth hoarding.

Who doesn't? We know people are selfish liars. That's why we try to make a system that reduces moral hazard.

 

[BluesLegend]

Because government is corrupt and riddled with stupid shits who couldn't hack it in the private sector.

But the private sector is also corrupt and littered with stupid shits, so.....

Do you work for the government?

No...do you work for Steve Bannon?

No...I'm a wealth hoarding executive in a giant corporation. I love me some wealth hoarding.

Who doesn't? We know people are selfish liars. That's why we try to make a system that reduces moral hazard.

Who's this "we" lib, 30 states told Hillary and the Dem's to shove it up their ass and elected Trump president in a landslide.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But the private sector is also corrupt and littered with stupid shits, so.....

Do you work for the government?

No...do you work for Steve Bannon?

No...I'm a wealth hoarding executive in a giant corporation. I love me some wealth hoarding.

Who doesn't? We know people are selfish liars. That's why we try to make a system that reduces moral hazard.

Who's this "we" lib, 30 states told Hillary and the Dem's to shove it up their ass and elected Trump president in a landslide.

It is still "we". Peoplebfrom all political stripes support crafting a system that limits moral hazard. Stop with the reflexive, rabid outbursts, and use your head.

 

[mdk]

He will lose this challenge in court. Badly.

On what grounds?

B/c President Trump has the power to revoke his security clearance.

And that power could be limited by the courts or by congress. Also, it could be that the courts or congress decide that he abused that power.

The courts usually give the Executive branch tons of leeway when it comes to matters of security. This would likely be viewed through the lens of separation of powers and the courts would defer judgement to the Executive branch. I just don't see him winning in court if he decides to sue.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He will lose this challenge in court. Badly.

On what grounds?

B/c President Trump has the power to revoke his security clearance.

And that power could be limited by the courts or by congress. Also, it could be that the courts or congress decide that he abused that power.

The courts usually give the Executive branch tons of leeway when it comes to matters of security. This would likely be viewed through the lens of separation of powers and the courts would defer judgement to the Executive branch. I just don't see him winning in court if he decides to sue.

I am not sure I do either, but one can also argue that this abuse of power is harming our national security. When scores of former intelkigence community leaders testify to that fact, it can be a powerful thing that is bigger than any temporary president.

 

[BluesLegend]

Do you work for the government?

No...do you work for Steve Bannon?

No...I'm a wealth hoarding executive in a giant corporation. I love me some wealth hoarding.

Who doesn't? We know people are selfish liars. That's why we try to make a system that reduces moral hazard.

Who's this "we" lib, 30 states told Hillary and the Dem's to shove it up their ass and elected Trump president in a landslide.

It is still "we". Peoplebfrom all political stripes support crafting a system that limits moral hazard. Stop with the reflexive, rabid outbursts, and use your head.

As predicted you can't support your statement of "we". I'll just assume "we" means you and, well nobody else.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As predicted you can't support your statement of "we".

Of course I can. Members of both parties strive against corruption and support enforcement of laws meant to reduce moral hazard. Its not worth arguing over...you are a rabid, thon skinned Trumpkin that perceives an attack where there isn't any, so all I can do is step away until your seizures stop.

 

[Billy_Bob]

He will lose this challenge in court. Badly.

On what grounds?

B/c President Trump has the power to revoke his security clearance.

And he is not required to give any reasoning... He doesn't have too..

 

[mdk]

He will lose this challenge in court. Badly.

On what grounds?

B/c President Trump has the power to revoke his security clearance.

And he is not required to give any reasoning... He doesn't have too..

No, he doesn't.

 

[BluesLegend]

As predicted you can't support your statement of "we".

Of course I can. Members of both parties strive against corruption and support enforcement of laws meant to reduce moral hazard. Its not worth arguing over...you are a rabid, thon skinned Trumpkin that perceives an attack where there isn't any, so all I can do is step away until your seizures stop.

Ahahaha you are living in a fantasy world. You people ran one of the most corrupt politicians in the country for POTUS.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I saw him on Meet the Press this morning, where he said lawyers were reaching out to him trying to convince him to sue. I believe the gist of his position was that he wouldn't rule anything out, but he didn't seem all that interested in the idea. Seems like some lawyers believe he might have a case and they're basically trying to gin up some business for themselves, and are trying to convince him to take an action he isn't really interested in taking. That is very different than Brennan saying he wants to sue.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, he doesn't

*At this time

 

[Billy_Bob]

Trump could remove all those security clearances with a pen stroke and not publish why he did it. They have no legal standing to sue and he does not have to give any reason...

I think that is precisely what he should do.. They can scream all they want.

 

[task0778]

1. There will not be a lawsuit from Brennan, except possibly for political posturing. He has no grounds at all, and I suspect he knows it.

2. The reason why some people are allowed to keep their clearances after they leave the office that required them to have a clearance in the 1st place is so that if needed they could be called in to consult on decisions they made while they were still in office. Which could require them to review classified material that led to the decision(s) they made. That's about it folks, there's no other good reason for anyone to continue to hold a clearance once they leave the job that required it.

3. There is no way on God's green Earth anyone in the Trump administration is going to consult with John Brennan on ANY issue, so he does not need that clearance for any good reason.

4. Revoking that clearance does not in any way, shape, or form, limit Brennan's 1st Amendment Rights. Clearly, he has no restraints about stating his opinion either before or after the clearance has been revoked, as we see in today's Sunday talk shows, where he has appeared I believe 3 times so far. He has every right to say whatever he wants to say about Trump, and that security clearance has absolutely no bearing on that.

5. What we have here is politics, Trump playing to his base and Brennan doing the same thing. It's ugly, but ultimately inconsequential.

6. However, there probably needs to be some attention to the policies behind security clearances once a person leaves the office that required it. Maybe a 1 year temporary status that automatically evokes the clearance unless extended by the President. I read somewhere that there are thousands of clearances out there held by people who no longer should have them, and that probably should change. One wonders how much classified data has been compromised by people who were out of office. Were the means to access and the necessary accounts and passwords changed so that such persons could not access classified information? I'm thinking it's more of a problem than we know.

 

[Billy_Bob]

However, there probably needs to be some attention to the policies behind security clearances once a person leaves the office that required it. Maybe a 1 year temporary status that automatically evokes the clearance unless extended by the President. I read somewhere that there are thousands of clearances out there held by people who no longer should have them, and that probably should change. One wonders how much classified data has been compromised by people who were out of office. Were the means to access and the necessary accounts and passwords changed so that such persons could not access classified information? I'm thinking it's more of a problem than we know.

Regulations need to be addressed! The cluster we have today needs serious attention.. and clean up.. there will be massive screaming when its done to be sure.