midgett said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Brennan's clearance wasn't revoked because he was a security risk but because he publicly criticized der Furor.

---

The reality is that too many people who had clearances when they were an active member of an active administration use their clearances for profit.

They use it as an asset to sell based on the perceived access, source, information, leak, etc. to get a high paying job with a media company, lobbyist, etc.

Why do so many people who no longer serve need to have clearance? If clearances are going to be so prevalent, maybe everyone should have one including the parents of separated immigrant children at the border.

I would have cut the clearances of quite a few people well before now. If you are trying to bring down my administration, you are darn right I'm going to revoke your clearance. It reduces the odds it is abused by those who really have no reason to maintain it.

This is an instance where Trump has been way too nice. He should be criticized for waiting so long not for doing it.

---

The reason you cite is not the reason Trump did this. He did it because he's a 9-year-old pissboy who reacts to criticism like, well, a 9-year-old pissboy.

I guess he could have sicced the IRS on him or manufactured warrants based on contrived evidence like a recent former prez.

I think revoking a security clearance is more above board regardless of the reason.

midgett said:

---

I guess he could have sicced the IRS on him or manufactured warrants based on contrived evidence like a recent former prez.

I think revoking a security clearance is more above board regardless of the reason.

---

Especially if it has a negative financial impact on Brennan as intended.

midgett said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Brennan's clearance wasn't revoked because he was a security risk but because he publicly criticized der Furor.

---

The reality is that too many people who had clearances when they were an active member of an active administration use their clearances for profit.

They use it as an asset to sell based on the perceived access, source, information, leak, etc. to get a high paying job with a media company, lobbyist, etc.

Why do so many people who no longer serve need to have clearance? If clearances are going to be so prevalent, maybe everyone should have one including the parents of separated immigrant children at the border.

I would have cut the clearances of quite a few people well before now. If you are trying to bring down my administration, you are darn right I'm going to revoke your clearance. It reduces the odds it is abused by those who really have no reason to maintain it.

This is an instance where Trump has been way too nice. He should be criticized for waiting so long not for doing it.

---

OMG, so Trump is saying immigrant children don't deserve security clearance because they're brown? What a racist!

cinque said:

---

Especially if it has a negative financial impact on Brennan as intended.

---

You basically just confirmed Brennan's reason for retaining it is financial. So absolutely it should be revoked. Clearances aren't granted for financial purposes.

midgett said:

---

cinque said:

---

Especially if it has a negative financial impact on Brennan as intended.

---

You basically just confirmed Brennan's reason for retaining it is financial. So absolutely it should be revoked. Clearances aren't granted for financial purposes.

---

Was that why Morning Star revoked it?

J.R. said:

---

Petty. Stalin says hi

---

You are showing your ignorance by making this comparison. Stalin would literally be laughing at only removing his security clearance. Stalin did much worse to his enemies.

contrario said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Petty. Stalin says hi

---

You are showing your ignorance by making this comparison. Stalin would literally be laughing at only removing his security clearance. Stalin did much worse to his enemies.

---

.... and then tortured them on to death as examples

Doc Holliday said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Petty. Stalin says hi

---

You do realize that Brennan voted for a communist presidential candidate don't you?

---

I had a communist cook my breakfast this morning. The cleaning lady is also a communist. OMG...

---

Communism has killed over 100 million people.

---

Guess i have just been lucky the last 193 days. i like to live on the edge.

Trump has his list of political enemies in public just like Nixon did in private ie trump equals Nixon on this.

This was only dropped today because omarosa was beating him up in the media focus. Even Brian kilmeade said she was outsmarting him this morning.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Petty. Stalin says hi

---

You do realize that Brennan voted for a communist presidential candidate don't you?

---

I had a communist cook my breakfast this morning. The cleaning lady is also a communist. OMG...

---

Communism has killed over 100 million people.

---

Guess i have just been lucky the last 193 days. i like to live on the edge.

---

You have no chance to survive Monday.

Doc Holliday said:

---

FINALLY!

---

Have you tried an orgone chembuster?

midgett said:

---

cinque said:

---

Especially if it has a negative financial impact on Brennan as intended.

---

You basically just confirmed Brennan's reason for retaining it is financial. So absolutely it should be revoked. Clearances aren't granted for financial purposes.

---

And they aren't revoked for free speech. Until now.

pitchman said:

---

Trump has his list of political enemies in public just like Nixon did in private ie trump equals Nixon on this.

This was only dropped today because omarosa was beating him up in the media focus. Even Brian kilmeade said she was outsmarting him this morning.

---

Yep she has tapes and he is fxcked. Not to mention Mueller has his criminal ass cornered.

J.R. said:

---

riflebear said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

riflebear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Petty. Stalin says hi

---

I'm guessing you have no clue what Brennan was involved in late 2016 and early 2017?

---

I do. Where is Mike Flynn's security clearance. oh, still in tact.

---

Again, u have no clue what is going on. Research what happened to Flynn and you'll be amazed at how he was treated. The FBI even admitted he told the truth. He was framed.

---

No he wasn't. He pleaded guilty for a reason.

---

You are literally 18 months behind the story. They played their dirty game and led him to believe it was just a normal conversation w/out any lawyers present. They went on to say that Flynn didn't lie to the FBI (Comey even said this). But guess who interviewed him? Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who just got fired for extreme bias and is in serious trouble.

This has been discussed 100's of times but you continue to ignore facts. It makes no sense to explain it to you anymore.

---

People who are not guilty do not plead guilty

---

so not true but anyway...

contrario said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Petty. Stalin says hi

---

You are showing your ignorance by making this comparison. Stalin would literally be laughing at only removing his security clearance. Stalin did much worse to his enemies.

---

you are a funny little fella. You and dumbass Mikey obviously are lost on hyperbole. Lighten up Francis.

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

cinque said:

---

Especially if it has a negative financial impact on Brennan as intended.

---

You basically just confirmed Brennan's reason for retaining it is financial. So absolutely it should be revoked. Clearances aren't granted for financial purposes.

---

And they aren't revoked for free speech. Until now.

---

If free speech is using secret information to intentionally damage a person or as currency to be well paid, then free speech should be revoked.

J.R. said:

---

contrario said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Petty. Stalin says hi

---

You are showing your ignorance by making this comparison. Stalin would literally be laughing at only removing his security clearance. Stalin did much worse to his enemies.

---

you are a funny little fella. You and dumbass Mikey obviously are lost on hyperbole. Lighten up Francis.

---

lol now you are backtracking from the comparison. That's even worse. A lot of people on here make hyperbolic comparisons, but they at least stand by them when they are proven to be ignorantly wrong. Don't back down now lol

Then TrUmp's is the one who should have his revoked then.

Would it surprise you to know that DNI, Coats was not consulted about this revocation?

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Petty. Stalin says hi

---

You do realize that Brennan voted for a communist presidential candidate don't you?

---

I had a communist cook my breakfast this morning. The cleaning lady is also a communist. OMG...

---

Communism has killed over 100 million people.

---

Guess i have just been lucky the last 193 days. i like to live on the edge.

---

You have no chance to survive Monday.

---

Pray they dont get to me.

Malbec said:

---

riflebear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Petty. Stalin says hi

---

I'm guessing you have no clue what Brennan was involved in late 2016 and early 2017?

---

Forget that, the more important point is that he has no clue what Stalin was involved in. Drop these people in any year between 1905 and 1953 and they wouldn't last a week. These comparisons of mean talk to ultimate brutality are dangerous.

---

True, wait at least 10 more years until that kinda talk is relevant.

Since Omarosa is scheduled to resume her punking of Trump tomorrow, look for more revocations designed to deflect.

Funny how our petty little anti American democrat socialists sometimes gather around each other like a pack of killer bees here

midgett said:

---

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

cinque said:

---

Especially if it has a negative financial impact on Brennan as intended.

---

You basically just confirmed Brennan's reason for retaining it is financial. So absolutely it should be revoked. Clearances aren't granted for financial purposes.

---

And they aren't revoked for free speech. Until now.

---

If free speech is using secret information to intentionally damage a person or as currency to be well paid, then free speech should be revoked.

---

People have moved from intelligence to private defense contracting for decades. Pay and criticism get your First Amendment protections revoked? Nyet.

Florda_mike said:

---

Funny how our petty little anti American democrat socialists sometimes gather around each other like a pack of killer bees here

---

Yeah, you're more comfortable waving your ponpoms and tossing tin in the air for the reunification of North and South Korea and Nobels.

I'm not understanding. How exactly are Brennan's First Amendment rights affected by revoking his security clearance? Does he have to quit going on television now? Should I be demanding a high-level security clearance of my own? Or is Brennan entitled to a higher level of free speech than the rest of us?

Malbec said:

---

I'm not understanding. How exactly are Brennan's First Amendment rights affected by revoking his security clearance? Does he have to quit going on television now? Should I be demanding a high-level security clearance of my own? Or is Brennan entitled to a higher level of free speech than the rest of us?

---

Leave it to democrats to defend a communist!?

Malbec said:

---

I'm not understanding. How exactly are Brennan's First Amendment rights affected by revoking his security clearance? Does he have to quit going on television now? Should I be demanding a high-level security clearance of my own? Or is Brennan entitled to a higher level of free speech than the rest of us?

---

I never said his rights were affected going forward. I criticized the revocation for how he exercised his rights in the past.

Florda_mike said:

---

Malbec said:

---

I'm not understanding. How exactly are Brennan's First Amendment rights affected by revoking his security clearance? Does he have to quit going on television now? Should I be demanding a high-level security clearance of my own? Or is Brennan entitled to a higher level of free speech than the rest of us?

---

Leave it to democrats to defend a communist!?

---

You are a one trick pony with a stale act. Admire your perfervidity though.

quash said:

---

Malbec said:

---

I'm not understanding. How exactly are Brennan's First Amendment rights affected by revoking his security clearance? Does he have to quit going on television now? Should I be demanding a high-level security clearance of my own? Or is Brennan entitled to a higher level of free speech than the rest of us?

---

I never said his rights were affected going forward. I criticized the revocation for how he exercised his rights in the past.

---

Why are you defending yourself to me? I didn't reply to or about your post. Why do you feel it necessary to explain yourself?

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

cinque said:

---

Especially if it has a negative financial impact on Brennan as intended.

---

You basically just confirmed Brennan's reason for retaining it is financial. So absolutely it should be revoked. Clearances aren't granted for financial purposes.

---

And they aren't revoked for free speech. Until now.

---

If free speech is using secret information to intentionally damage a person or as currency to be well paid, then free speech should be revoked.

---

People have moved from intelligence to private defense contracting for decades. Pay and criticism get your First Amendment protections revoked? Nyet.

---

Security clearance removal is not a free speech issue. While the government is a public entity, this is a private consequence that does not inhibit his free speech. If this were a corporation, this would be the equivalent of a retired executive who still had access to company email and other internal resources, and then had it revoked because he was bad mouthing the new CEO. You can argue whether or not it's an overreaction to criticism, but he's not refrained from continuing to freely speak and criticize whoever he wants. We say it all the time, that free speech is not free from consequence. Here is another example of that.

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

cinque said:

---

Especially if it has a negative financial impact on Brennan as intended.

---

You basically just confirmed Brennan's reason for retaining it is financial. So absolutely it should be revoked. Clearances aren't granted for financial purposes.

---

And they aren't revoked for free speech. Until now.

---

If free speech is using secret information to intentionally damage a person or as currency to be well paid, then free speech should be revoked.

---

People have moved from intelligence to private defense contracting for decades. Pay and criticism get your First Amendment protections revoked? Nyet.

---

Security clearance removal is not a free speech issue. While the government is a public entity, this is a private consequence that does not inhibit his free speech. If this were a corporation, this would be the equivalent of a retired executive who still had access to company email and other internal resources, and then had it revoked because he was bad mouthing the new CEO. You can argue whether or not it's an overreaction to criticism, but he's not refrained from continuing to freely speak and criticize whoever he wants. We say it all the time, that free speech is not free from consequence. Here is another example of that.

---

Again: I never said his rights were affected going forward. I criticized the revocation for how he exercised his rights in the past.

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

cinque said:

---

Especially if it has a negative financial impact on Brennan as intended.

---

You basically just confirmed Brennan's reason for retaining it is financial. So absolutely it should be revoked. Clearances aren't granted for financial purposes.

---

And they aren't revoked for free speech. Until now.

---

If free speech is using secret information to intentionally damage a person or as currency to be well paid, then free speech should be revoked.

---

People have moved from intelligence to private defense contracting for decades. Pay and criticism get your First Amendment protections revoked? Nyet.

---

Security clearance removal is not a free speech issue. While the government is a public entity, this is a private consequence that does not inhibit his free speech. If this were a corporation, this would be the equivalent of a retired executive who still had access to company email and other internal resources, and then had it revoked because he was bad mouthing the new CEO. You can argue whether or not it's an overreaction to criticism, but he's not refrained from continuing to freely speak and criticize whoever he wants. We say it all the time, that free speech is not free from consequence. Here is another example of that.

---

Again: I never said his rights were affected going forward. I criticized the revocation for how he exercised his rights in the past.

---

You said his First Amendment protections were "revoked". Nyet.