CNN’s Philip Mudd Blows Up Tells Trump supporter: We're done. Get out!

This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech

You are playing word games and poorly at that.

 

Perhaps when you are calling for the death penalty.

 

As a lawyer, I assign a very specific definition to the allegation that the right to free speech has been harmed. I am looking for an actionable violation of the first amendment. I do not know, but on first glance do not agree with, the notion that revocation of Brennan's security clearance qualifies as a violation of the first amendment.

But, in the larger and more colloquial understanding of that concept, yes, I do believe that Trump's actions here are part of a broader pattern of silencing criticism and attacking those who criticize Trump and that is part of a broader effort to harm free speech.

 

Under Article II the POTUS makes the determination ... wish granted.

 

Who said without cause?

 

When it criticizes a president with the thinnest skin you can imagine with too much "Executive" time on his hands...

 

Sorry, I meant without supportable cause... I forgot that you support Trump doing anything allowed by his position without actual reasons...

My bad

 

https://shareblue.com/james-stavridis-john-brennan-security-clearances/

 

Sigh... same old bogus argument.... Gets old dude...

If this is your wish, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.... it's not mine...

 

Schrödinger's Nationalism.

whether leftists are nationalists or not depends on what day it is.

 

Nope but nice strawman.. Calling for the President to be charged with Treason and facing a dealth penalty while having no evidence whatsoever of said crimes is a "supportable" cause.

 

What is your point that Brennan through Stavridis would have "advice " for Trump or anyone in the Admin?

 

Equally nice strawman... Not what Brennan said, and technically that's not a "supportable" cause anyway, since none of that can be tied to his security clearance... Many Many non-cleared people have intimated the exact same thing regarding Helsinki...maybe not using the T word, but same thing...

 

You called it part of a broader effort which means it had to be part of that effort of curtailing free speech. You just cannot admit your mistake.

Which is not what you said. You said it was part of a broader effort to curtail free speech meaning it is part of that effort.

Yet you claimed it was part of that effort.

If its part of the effort as you claim then you believe he is trying to silence free speech.

You cannot have it both ways legal. Being part of an effort means it is part of that effort.

You've been busted once again and no amount of hiding behind spelling errors can save you from the written mistakes in your argument.

 

Until very recently ... publication of a petition where in 175 former personnel decried revocation, I assumed residual clearance was a rarity. 175 out of how many 1000's ... a million ... 2 million? This is for sure the tip of the iceberg. I can tell you that once I "slipped in" to Ft. Hood to carouse with my former platoon. When the MP's began disbanding us I was taken into custody. My former standing in the unit didn't give me residual privileges. I assumed that was a "uniform" policy ... U-CMJ.

 

No that is exactly what Brennan said.

 

Tell again how you were right about the travel ban?

 

Do you understand that Brennan said what he said and you and your wonderful lawyer mind not accepting that does not matter? Do you understand you can post a thousand posts of word games and no one cares what you "assign" to his words/thoughts or what you "glance" at?

 

This is right, taking his clearance won't affect him at all if he's not working for the government. So why have one? Well, one might want to work for the government in the future. I could list many job postings that require current or active clearances.

 

No my greater question through out the thread is how anyone would ask for or want Brennan's "advice".

I am not "peeved" stop projecting i am simply furthering the discussion something by your last five words shows you have no interest in..

 

What get's old are redundant laws. Trump can issue an EO. It is the power prescribed to the POTUS under the constitution. No need to further complicate and distort the separation of branches. Liberals, anti-Trump activists who can't unseat Trump, are bent on undermining the constitutional authority of the office itself. You can try and portray that my argument is a defense of Trump, but it's really a defense of constitutional provisions and national security standards. Partisan "debate" isn't the solution, a presidential EO is. Nice uniform revocation across the board.

 

Then he can reapply for it. Easy.

 

I'm wondering what leftists think might constitute a valid reason to revoke a government weenie's security clearance...

completely unhinged pathological liar Brennan publicly accused the President of The United States of committing treason (apparently because he didn't challenge Putin to a fight-to-the-death cage match).
If that bit of lunacy is not reason enough, what is? that rage and hatred...isn't that letting the nation's enemies know that Brennan could possibly be cultivated as an asset?

for comparison, the Navy has been known to revoke security clearances for DUIs, adultery, public drunkenness..

 

Wonderful in the future he can reapply for said clearance.

 

No you're merely tolling for Trump, but have a nice day.