TexasCHLforum.com

philbo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:50 pm

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:00 am

dale blanker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:21 pm You've missed the point. High level security officials have clearance to support the ongoing intelligence projects with their experience. But hey, let's just ignore history and see how that goes.

No, I didn't miss the point. Any ex-official who the President no longer needs advice from, for example a guy who is calling for him to be tossed out of office, does not have any further need of a security clearance giving him access to classified information.
The President of the United States has the legal authority and right to revoke former advisors' security clearances.

The point is that trump is revoking clearances for petty political reasons in a vain attempt to distract and/or silence criticism of him personally. While the president doesn't need to give a reason, or has the absolute right to do strip clearances, to do so for the reasons provided goes against the guidelines signed off on by his own administration which lists the following as reasons to grant or revoke clearance:

http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/SEAD4_20170608.pdf
13 guidelines by which national security clearances are typically evaluated and revoked. Those factors:
1. Allegiance to the United States
2. Foreign influence
3. Foreign preference
4. Sexual behavior
5. Personal conduct
6. Financial considerations
7. Alcohol consumption
8. Drug involvement and substance misuse
9. Psychological conditions
10. Criminal conduct
11. Handling protected information
12. Outside activities
13. Use of information technology

To revoke as trump has done for the pettiest of reasons on what are literally trumped on excuses, is petty, churlish and may even be obstruction.

philbo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:08 pm

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:45 am

philbo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:59 am Trump revokes ex-CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08 ... ennan.html

"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." Best example of pot calling the kettle black this week.

Clearly an example of partisan politics and retribution designed to distract and appeal to a base of simple thinkers, especially since several of the names listed by trump under similar consideration (comey, mccabe, strzok) have no clearance to revoke.

If you had ever held a clearance, you would know just how appropriate the President's action is and why it is hardly partisan. But then again, you don't seem to care about anything other than defaming the President.

I have, and I do know about clearances. But then again, you don't seem to care about anything other than defaming someone who doesn't believe what you do... unless of course it's apologizing for the defamer in chief.

philbo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:59 am Trump revokes ex-CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08 ... ennan.html

"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." Best example of pot calling the kettle black this week.

Clearly an example of partisan politics and retribution designed to distract and appeal to a base of simple thinkers, especially since several of the names listed by trump under similar consideration (comey, mccabe, strzok) have no clearance to revoke.

philbo wrote: ↑Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:08 pm

G26ster wrote: ↑Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:38 pmNot shouting anyone down. Just pointing out that Hannity makes no bones about being a commentator and not a reporter. Smith on the other hand claims to be a reporter, but he shows his bias by constant negative Trump comments, angry or disusted facial expressions, etc. during his news program. These are the undeniable facts I pointed out. Tell me where I shouted anyone down, or personally attacked you.

Constant negative trump comments... that must be when someone points out that trump is making things up again without proof? Maybe if trump didn't lie every day he wouldn't be on the receiving end of such "negative" comments on a daily basis. Let's face it, trump lies daily about things both insignificant and important. Yet if one points it out they must be liberals.... not just someone unwilling to buy yet another conspiracy theory with a straight face.

dale blanker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:28 pm

rotor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:46 pm

philbo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:21 am In Ruling Against Trump, Judge Defines Anticorruption Clauses in Constitution for First Time. He ruled that the lawsuit should proceed to the evidence-gathering stage, which could clear the way for an examination of financial records that the president has consistently refused to disclose.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/us/p ... wsuit.html

You make it sound like a crime that he hasn't shown his tax returns. No law requires this disclosure. Congress can pass one if they think it is important. Perhaps Congress will show their tax returns as well. Amazing how people come into Congress broke and leave multi-millionaires. At least Trump came in with money and bragged about it not like Romney who was ashamed of his wealth.

Shouldn't we be interested in the financial obligations, income, investments, and charitable support of all elected and appointed officials??? Shouldn't the president fulfill his promise to provide his tax return when his "audit" was over??? Where's the transparency???

philbo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 8:13 am

rotor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:46 pm

philbo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:21 am In Ruling Against Trump, Judge Defines Anticorruption Clauses in Constitution for First Time. He ruled that the lawsuit should proceed to the evidence-gathering stage, which could clear the way for an examination of financial records that the president has consistently refused to disclose.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/us/p ... wsuit.html

You make it sound like a crime that he hasn't shown his tax returns. No law requires this disclosure. Congress can pass one if they think it is important. Perhaps Congress will show their tax returns as well. Amazing how people come into Congress broke and leave multi-millionaires. At least Trump came in with money and bragged about it not like Romney who was ashamed of his wealth.

Every president since Nixon has released their tax return. The reason Nixon did so (and this tradition began) was to provide transparency and quell questions that existed as to whether he had violated the tax code, and if so could the IRS be trusted to investigate a person independently when that person was their boss. Such transparency has been instrumental for persons in power to quickly quiet questions for ethics violations, or in this case a violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. While no law requires trump to release his returns, there is no law that prevents his doing so... something trump has stated on numerous occasions. The problem is that by refusing to provide transparency, trump provides ammunition for his opponents to attack as they are now doing. Has trump violated the emoluments clause? Perhaps not, but a more savvy politician wouldn't allow such claims to grow to the distractions they obviously are. In this case, trump has created the conditions for his own misery.... but that may well define his entire presidency so far.

dale blanker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:28 pm

rotor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:46 pm

philbo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:21 am In Ruling Against Trump, Judge Defines Anticorruption Clauses in Constitution for First Time. He ruled that the lawsuit should proceed to the evidence-gathering stage, which could clear the way for an examination of financial records that the president has consistently refused to disclose.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/us/p ... wsuit.html

You make it sound like a crime that he hasn't shown his tax returns. No law requires this disclosure. Congress can pass one if they think it is important. Perhaps Congress will show their tax returns as well. Amazing how people come into Congress broke and leave multi-millionaires. At least Trump came in with money and bragged about it not like Romney who was ashamed of his wealth.

Shouldn't we be interested in the financial obligations, income, investments, and charitable support of all elected and appointed officials??? Shouldn't the president fulfill his promise to provide his tax return when his "audit" was over??? Where's the transparency???

mojo84 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:50 pm

philbo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:39 pm

mojo84 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:30 pm

philbo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:23 pm

mojo84 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:18 pmYou don't get satire? Sometimes people need to learn to laugh at themselves. Maybe you progressive liberals should try it. Don't take yourself so serious.

Oh, i get the satire, just thought it odd that you would post something so satirically anti-trump. Admit it, you miss obama don't you?

It isn't anti-Trump. It's a joke. I acknowledge the guy isn't perfect. Unlike Obama and Clinton sychophants.

WOW, and you think I have a problem spotting satire? A survey based on one demographic? Read that article again, it is as satirically anti-trump as anything from late night tv comedians. Although it did make me chuckle considerably more! Good find!

You continue to prove you do not understand satire. Hahahahah!

Satire and irony are usually most appreciated by the intelligent among us. Babylon Bee makes fun of dems, republicans, Cbristians, Baptists etc. It's all in fun unless you are just a hater that has to glob onto anything that promotes o one's hate filled agenda.

philbo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 15, 2018 6:43 pm

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Sun Jul 15, 2018 2:57 pmIf you will lie to and cheat on your wife, then you will lie and cheat on anything, including your oath to your country and its laws and the Constitution.

I agree, now why don't you apply a little of that logic to the present liar in chief siting in the whitehouse? Double standard much?