It makes sense that if Brennan sues to get his security clearance back, the Trump administration would have to provide evidence of the reasons why it was revoked in the first place. That means the Trump administration could sue to turn over documents to bolster their case.

Doc Holliday said:

---

It makes sense that if Brennan sues to get his security clearance back, the Trump administration would have to provide evidence of the reasons why it was revoked in the first place. That means the Trump administration could sue to turn over documents to bolster their case.

---

The evidence is in the tweets.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

It makes sense that if Brennan sues to get his security clearance back, the Trump administration would have to provide evidence of the reasons why it was revoked in the first place. That means the Trump administration could sue to turn over documents to bolster their case.

---

The evidence is in the tweets.

---

Which is also where the obstruction of justice case can be made. Why would Mueller need to interview Trump as long as he can keep the tweets coming? Trump has been making a confession a few hundred characters at a time.

bubbadog said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

It makes sense that if Brennan sues to get his security clearance back, the Trump administration would have to provide evidence of the reasons why it was revoked in the first place. That means the Trump administration could sue to turn over documents to bolster their case.

---

The evidence is in the tweets.

---

Which is also where the obstruction of justice case can be made. Why would Mueller need to interview Trump as long as he can keep the tweets coming? Trump has been making a confession a few hundred characters at a time.

---

I know you're smarter than this...at least I hope you are.

In a statement to SaraACarter.com, the Vaughns wrote:
Mr. McRaven has publicly exposed his true colors. While most see him as an esteemed man in uniform, our personal experience led us to view him through a much different light

When we began to speak publicly about the facts we had collected regarding the shoot down, we experienced severe intimidation from military leadership who, at that time, served at the pleasure of Admiral McRaven. The accusation? We were being "political." And you never mix military service and politics. Never. Imagine the irony, in our eyes, to read McRaven's current letter to our President, using his voice as the former Commander of USJSOC.

riflebear said:

---

In a statement to SaraACarter.com, the Vaughns wrote:
Mr. McRaven has publicly exposed his true colors. While most see him as an esteemed man in uniform, our personal experience led us to view him through a much different light

When we began to speak publicly about the facts we had collected regarding the shoot down, we experienced severe intimidation from military leadership who, at that time, served at the pleasure of Admiral McRaven. The accusation? We were being "political." And you never mix military service and politics. Never. Imagine the irony, in our eyes, to read McRaven's current letter to our President, using his voice as the former Commander of USJSOC.

---

Lol there it is like clockwork. Does it ever make y'all feel slimy when supporting Trump forces you to attack honorable men for serving their country? McRaven is in the top tier in terms of integrity and credibility, take off the MAGA blinders and it's not hard to see which side to be on.

HuMcK said:

---

riflebear said:

---

In a statement to SaraACarter.com, the Vaughns wrote:
Mr. McRaven has publicly exposed his true colors. While most see him as an esteemed man in uniform, our personal experience led us to view him through a much different light

When we began to speak publicly about the facts we had collected regarding the shoot down, we experienced severe intimidation from military leadership who, at that time, served at the pleasure of Admiral McRaven. The accusation? We were being "political." And you never mix military service and politics. Never. Imagine the irony, in our eyes, to read McRaven's current letter to our President, using his voice as the former Commander of USJSOC.

---

Lol there it is like clockwork. Does it ever make y'all feel slimy when supporting Trump forces you to attack honorable men for serving their country? McRaven is in the top tier in terms of integrity and credibility, take off the MAGA blinders and it's not hard to see which side to be on.

---

I'm not attacking him, just posting an article from people who had first hand knowledge.

There is a pattern of military personnel who were silenced under the Obama Administration. I wonder why.

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

These never get old

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

Yelling "FAKE NEWS!" on a daily basis is not exposing corrupt media.

quash said:

---

Yelling "FAKE NEWS!" on a daily basis is not exposing corrupt media.

---

But it is a form of exposing yourself--not in the gross way, but as a dupe.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

riflebear said:

---

---

Hillary needs taken for a long one way ride

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

Cheering? No. Awaiting the outcome? Yes.

This is "enemy of the people" different. Attacking institutions different. It is NOT reform. Not yet anyway.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

Cheering? No. Awaiting the outcome? Yes.

This is "enemy of the people" different. Attacking institutions different. It is NOT reform. Not yet anyway.

---

At this stage, there's no scenario where re-thinking our policies won't be considered an attack on our institutions. The threat is not to the institutions, but to the personal and political interests embedded within them.

---

Nope. This guy is corrosive to the press, to the rule of law, to the concept of objective truth (sharing that one leftist elements) and to the scientific method (getting help from judges like in the Monsanto case). And his white supremacist leanings are repulsive. There are institutions affected and we may lose a generation.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Neither of the Benghazi or Fast and Furious investigations involved collusion with a foreign government or concerns about interference in U.S. elections.

Both were political motivated--brought by partisan congressmen against a president and secretary of state of the opposing party. Investigations in both cases were warranted, but they should have been aimed at figuring out what went wrong so we could avoid those mistakes in the future, not hanging Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And neither succeeded if that was the main goal, although the Benghazi investigation and the sustained Fox News campaign of branding Hillary as a pathological liar obfuscated the fact that her opponent, Trump, really is one. I'd compare Hillary's level of duplicity with Mitch McConnell's; she's no better, but no worse, and both are ruthless politicians advocating for their party and specific agendas. McConnell has been much more successful, however.

I suspect the thing that bothers Trump the most about Mueller's investigation is that he thought, with a government controlled by the GOP, the party would quash an investigation. But too many Republicans are too uncomfortable with being so nakedly partisan as to shut down a legitimate investigation of Russian interference in our elections. Did Trump's organization collude? I suspect so; Don Jr. just isn't very smart. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? People of both parties are clear that happened; the major deniers are Trump and his loyal supporters. The big indicator is that Republicans have not shut down this investigation.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Neither of the Benghazi or Fast and Furious investigations involved collusion with a foreign government or concerns about interference in U.S. elections.

Both were political motivated--brought by partisan congressmen against a president and secretary of state of the opposing party. Investigations in both cases were warranted, but they should have been aimed at figuring out what went wrong so we could avoid those mistakes in the future, not hanging Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And neither succeeded if that was the main goal, although the Benghazi investigation and the sustained Fox News campaign of branding Hillary as a pathological liar obfuscated the fact that her opponent, Trump, really is one. I'd compare Hillary's level of duplicity with Mitch McConnell's; she's no better, but no worse, and both are ruthless politicians advocating for their party and specific agendas. McConnell has been much more successful, however.

I suspect the thing that bothers Trump the most about Mueller's investigation is that he thought, with a government controlled by the GOP, the party would quash an investigation. But too many Republicans are too uncomfortable with being so nakedly partisan as to shut down a legitimate investigation of Russian interference in our elections. Did Trump's organization collude? I suspect so; Don Jr. just isn't very smart. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? People of both parties are clear that happened; the major deniers are Trump and his loyal supporters. The big indicator is that Republicans have not shut down this investigation.

---

The subject matter of the investigations is beside the point. You think Benghazi and Fast and Furious were warranted investigations that went off track and became politically motivated efforts to hang the president. That's exactly what Trump and his supporters think of the Russia investigation.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

Cheering? No. Awaiting the outcome? Yes.

This is "enemy of the people" different. Attacking institutions different. It is NOT reform. Not yet anyway.

---

At this stage, there's no scenario where re-thinking our policies won't be considered an attack on our institutions. The threat is not to the institutions, but to the personal and political interests embedded within them.

---

Nope. This guy is corrosive to the press, to the rule of law, to the concept of objective truth (sharing that one leftist elements) and to the scientific method (getting help from judges like in the Monsanto case). And his white supremacist leanings are repulsive. There are institutions affected and we may lose a generation.

---

Trump is probably the most law-abiding president since Carter. You're mistaking media sound and fury for actual evidence of wrongdoing.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Neither of the Benghazi or Fast and Furious investigations involved collusion with a foreign government or concerns about interference in U.S. elections.

Both were political motivated--brought by partisan congressmen against a president and secretary of state of the opposing party. Investigations in both cases were warranted, but they should have been aimed at figuring out what went wrong so we could avoid those mistakes in the future, not hanging Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And neither succeeded if that was the main goal, although the Benghazi investigation and the sustained Fox News campaign of branding Hillary as a pathological liar obfuscated the fact that her opponent, Trump, really is one. I'd compare Hillary's level of duplicity with Mitch McConnell's; she's no better, but no worse, and both are ruthless politicians advocating for their party and specific agendas. McConnell has been much more successful, however.

I suspect the thing that bothers Trump the most about Mueller's investigation is that he thought, with a government controlled by the GOP, the party would quash an investigation. But too many Republicans are too uncomfortable with being so nakedly partisan as to shut down a legitimate investigation of Russian interference in our elections. Did Trump's organization collude? I suspect so; Don Jr. just isn't very smart. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? People of both parties are clear that happened; the major deniers are Trump and his loyal supporters. The big indicator is that Republicans have not shut down this investigation.

---

The subject matter of the investigations is beside the point. You think Benghazi and Fast and Furious were warranted investigations that went off track and became politically motivated efforts to hang the president. That's exactly what Trump and his supporters think of the Russia investigation.

---

The Benghazi and Fast and Furious investigations reached a conclusion, after years in the case of Benghazi, with no indictments.

Trump and his supporters want to stop this investigation, which has already resulted in several criminal indictments, one of which is now playing out in court. I think that's because Trump has something to fear--if not criminal culpability of his own (which his contacts with Putin indicate may be possible), certainly of one or more of his family members.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

Cheering? No. Awaiting the outcome? Yes.

This is "enemy of the people" different. Attacking institutions different. It is NOT reform. Not yet anyway.

---

At this stage, there's no scenario where re-thinking our policies won't be considered an attack on our institutions. The threat is not to the institutions, but to the personal and political interests embedded within them.

---

Nope. This guy is corrosive to the press, to the rule of law, to the concept of objective truth (sharing that one leftist elements) and to the scientific method (getting help from judges like in the Monsanto case). And his white supremacist leanings are repulsive. There are institutions affected and we may lose a generation.

---

Trump is probably the most law-abiding president since Carter. You're mistaking media sound and fury for actual evidence of wrongdoing.

---

I think history will prove you wrong, and there's ample evidence. Trump had to settle charges against Trump University for sales fraud right before he was sworn in as POTUS. He won't release his tax returns, something every other POTUS has done. He's hired undocumented immigrants as a source of cheap labor throughout his career as a developer and hotelier (hardly law-abiding, and a fact that would get any Democratic candidate howled off the stage before his campaign even started) and is now screaming bloody murder about the injustice of undocumented immigramts taking American jobs. He rails against chain immigration while his wife quietly ushers her parents into U.S. citizenship--not that I object; I think chain immigration is desirable, because it helps immigrants gain and foothold and start the businesses that have been the engine of our economy--but it's certainly hypocritical.

The guy talks out of both sides of his mouth so much he contradicts and interrupts himself constantly. He's his own worse enemy, and he will play a major role in taking himself down because he can't shut up, and because he is trying to use his presidential power to evade criminal investigation and prosecution. That defines obstruction of justice.

riflebear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Neither of the Benghazi or Fast and Furious investigations involved collusion with a foreign government or concerns about interference in U.S. elections.

Both were political motivated--brought by partisan congressmen against a president and secretary of state of the opposing party. Investigations in both cases were warranted, but they should have been aimed at figuring out what went wrong so we could avoid those mistakes in the future, not hanging Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And neither succeeded if that was the main goal, although the Benghazi investigation and the sustained Fox News campaign of branding Hillary as a pathological liar obfuscated the fact that her opponent, Trump, really is one. I'd compare Hillary's level of duplicity with Mitch McConnell's; she's no better, but no worse, and both are ruthless politicians advocating for their party and specific agendas. McConnell has been much more successful, however.

I suspect the thing that bothers Trump the most about Mueller's investigation is that he thought, with a government controlled by the GOP, the party would quash an investigation. But too many Republicans are too uncomfortable with being so nakedly partisan as to shut down a legitimate investigation of Russian interference in our elections. Did Trump's organization collude? I suspect so; Don Jr. just isn't very smart. Did the Russians interfere in our elections? People of both parties are clear that happened; the major deniers are Trump and his loyal supporters. The big indicator is that Republicans have not shut down this investigation.

---

The subject matter of the investigations is beside the point. You think Benghazi and Fast and Furious were warranted investigations that went off track and became politically motivated efforts to hang the president. That's exactly what Trump and his supporters think of the Russia investigation.

---

The Benghazi and Fast and Furious investigations reached a conclusion, after years in the case of Benghazi, with no indictments.

Trump and his supporters want to stop this investigation, which has already resulted in several criminal indictments, one of which is now playing out in court. I think that's because Trump has something to fear--if not criminal culpability of his own (which his contacts with Putin indicate may be possible), certainly of one or more of his family members.

---

Who is guilty, the person who is transparent and open w/ investigators or the person who hides & destroys evidence? Imagine if someone like Mueller had gone after Hillary in the way they are going after Trump, and she had to turn everything over? There would be an endless amount of people associated w/ her in jail and they all would be singing to stay out of jail.

Trump Investigation: Trump hands over millions of documents and is transparent and accommodating as anyone in History. He waves executive privilege for everyone on his staff to talk to investigators about a crime that has zero proof going on 2 years now.

Hillary Investigation: There is loads of proof of an actual crime here. Hillary's state dept stalls giving up her documents for over 2 years, slowly puts out some that are shown to be classified. She lies and says she didn't know that "C" on the paper meant classified. When they are asked to be investigated her entire team is given immunity. They are able to sit in rooms w/ each other and be 'questioned' by the people who hated Trump and started his investigation. Then when their evidence is subpoenaed she smashes the cell phones & electronic devices, destroys the server and lies about all of it.

See the difference?

---

Am I hearing crickets again?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

Cheering? No. Awaiting the outcome? Yes.

This is "enemy of the people" different. Attacking institutions different. It is NOT reform. Not yet anyway.

---

At this stage, there's no scenario where re-thinking our policies won't be considered an attack on our institutions. The threat is not to the institutions, but to the personal and political interests embedded within them.

---

Nope. This guy is corrosive to the press, to the rule of law, to the concept of objective truth (sharing that one leftist elements) and to the scientific method (getting help from judges like in the Monsanto case). And his white supremacist leanings are repulsive. There are institutions affected and we may lose a generation.

---

Trump is probably the most law-abiding president since Carter. You're mistaking media sound and fury for actual evidence of wrongdoing.

---

I think history will prove you wrong, and there's ample evidence. Trump had to settle charges against Trump University for sales fraud right before he was sworn in as POTUS. He won't release his tax returns, something every other POTUS has done. He's hired undocumented immigrants as a source of cheap labor throughout his career as a developer and hotelier (hardly law-abiding, and a fact that would get any Democratic candidate howled off the stage before his campaign even started) and is now screaming bloody murder about the injustice of undocumented immigrations taking American jobs. He rails against chain migration while his wife quietly ushers her parents into U.S. citizenship--not that I object; I think chain migration is desirable, because it helps immigrants gain and foothold and start the businesses that have been the engine of our economy--but it's certainly hypocritical.

The guy talks out of both sides of his mouth so much he contradicts and interrupts himself constantly. He's his own worse enemy, and he will play a major role in taking himself down because he can't shut up, and because he is trying to use his presidential power to evade criminal investigation and prosecution. That defines obstruction of justice.

---

When I say he's a law-abiding president, I'm talking about his conduct as president. His conduct as a private citizen is another issue.

I haven't seen and don't expect to see any evidence that Trump obstructed justice. That narrative is based on a misunderstanding of what happened and what obstruction is.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

Cheering? No. Awaiting the outcome? Yes.

This is "enemy of the people" different. Attacking institutions different. It is NOT reform. Not yet anyway.

---

At this stage, there's no scenario where re-thinking our policies won't be considered an attack on our institutions. The threat is not to the institutions, but to the personal and political interests embedded within them.

---

Nope. This guy is corrosive to the press, to the rule of law, to the concept of objective truth (sharing that one leftist elements) and to the scientific method (getting help from judges like in the Monsanto case). And his white supremacist leanings are repulsive. There are institutions affected and we may lose a generation.

---

Trump is probably the most law-abiding president since Carter. You're mistaking media sound and fury for actual evidence of wrongdoing.

---

Nothing I said was about law breaking. Institution breaking.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

Cheering? No. Awaiting the outcome? Yes.

This is "enemy of the people" different. Attacking institutions different. It is NOT reform. Not yet anyway.

---

At this stage, there's no scenario where re-thinking our policies won't be considered an attack on our institutions. The threat is not to the institutions, but to the personal and political interests embedded within them.

---

Nope. This guy is corrosive to the press, to the rule of law, to the concept of objective truth (sharing that one leftist elements) and to the scientific method (getting help from judges like in the Monsanto case). And his white supremacist leanings are repulsive. There are institutions affected and we may lose a generation.

---

Trump is probably the most law-abiding president since Carter. You're mistaking media sound and fury for actual evidence of wrongdoing.

---

Nothing I said was about law breaking. Institution breaking.

---

What does "corrosive to the rule of law" mean?

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

Cheering? No. Awaiting the outcome? Yes.

This is "enemy of the people" different. Attacking institutions different. It is NOT reform. Not yet anyway.

---

At this stage, there's no scenario where re-thinking our policies won't be considered an attack on our institutions. The threat is not to the institutions, but to the personal and political interests embedded within them.

---

Nope. This guy is corrosive to the press, to the rule of law, to the concept of objective truth (sharing that one leftist elements) and to the scientific method (getting help from judges like in the Monsanto case). And his white supremacist leanings are repulsive. There are institutions affected and we may lose a generation.

---

Trump is probably the most law-abiding president since Carter. You're mistaking media sound and fury for actual evidence of wrongdoing.

---

Nothing I said was about law breaking. Institution breaking.

---

What does "corrosive to the rule of law" mean?

---

Witch hunt. Comments about ongoing trials, judges, etc. Pardoning Arpaio before his conviction was even final.

But as to lawbreaking, the needle may have moved this afternoon.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Also,

I'm sure you're aware of the following regulation in the UCMJ. Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to "Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay." "Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations that occurred while in a retired status."


Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes "contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State."

Something McRaven needs to ponder.

No doubt his OPED was designed to whip up some more anti-Trump hysteria and to usher himself into the political arena. No doubt he is a serving member of the 'resistance.' No doubt, he has his eyes on some office space in the capitol building or in the White House. No doubt, he has his eyes on the prize, all at the expense of the nation he once served.

---

Not everyone is the same kind of ambitious self-serving snake as the orange god that you worship, sometimes people really do speak out of love for the country they see being deliberately divided. Basically every NatSec or IC official with an independent voice is screaming out that Trump is a dangerous buffoon, with Brennan outright using the word traitor (y'all really think that wasn't premeditated, or that he was only voicing his own opinion?). But sure, you go ahead and side with the born-rich shady real estate developer over those life-long patriots.

---

No. They get paid top dollar for having security clearances and they are afraid of losing it.

It has nothing to do with them being in the military and everything to do with Trump threatening the status quo.

---

It is that, but it's also more. What really worries them is Trump's so-called "isolationism." Our foreign policy has been tailored to the interests of the military/industrial complex for several generations now. That influence has long needed reining in. A lot of rank and file Democrats used to agree, probably because they imagined one of their own would do the job. Did they ever think the top brass was going to like it? This is what reform looks like. This is what we voted for. No matter what one thinks of McRaven or Brennan, it's not for them to stand in the way.

---

Reform should not look corrupt and aimed at ignoring Russian interference in our election and helping Trump evade a legitimate investigation of whether his campaign actively colluded with them. If he's innocent, he shouldn't be afraid of the investigation; he should be cheering it on.

---

You know better than to think any president would welcome something like this. Were you cheering on the Benghazi investigation? Or the Fast and Furious investigation?

---

Cheering? No. Awaiting the outcome? Yes.

This is "enemy of the people" different. Attacking institutions different. It is NOT reform. Not yet anyway.

---

At this stage, there's no scenario where re-thinking our policies won't be considered an attack on our institutions. The threat is not to the institutions, but to the personal and political interests embedded within them.

---

Nope. This guy is corrosive to the press, to the rule of law, to the concept of objective truth (sharing that one leftist elements) and to the scientific method (getting help from judges like in the Monsanto case). And his white supremacist leanings are repulsive. There are institutions affected and we may lose a generation.

---

Trump is probably the most law-abiding president since Carter. You're mistaking media sound and fury for actual evidence of wrongdoing.

---

Nothing I said was about law breaking. Institution breaking.

---

What does "corrosive to the rule of law" mean?

---

Witch hunt. Comments about ongoing trials, judges, etc. Pardoning Arpaio before his conviction was even final.

But as to lawbreaking, the needle may have moved this afternoon.

---

The witches are coming home to roost.