I’m surprised such obvious political retaliation is even legal. Not surprised by the childish pettiness of Trump, of course
Well at least he’s not like N. Korean Kim where his critics are killed by anti-aircraft guns. Although Trump probably has thought about that option
A petty, little man.
Weird that Michael Flynn’s clearance isn’t one of the ones under review.
I recall hearing an interview a few weeks ago when Trump first brought this up in which it was said that former officials who continue to hold security clearances have them not for their own benefit but because the administration wants the option of keeping them in the loop in case their experience and advice is valuable.
So by doing this, Trump hasn’t punished Brennan but merely denied himself the benefits of Brennan’s informed analysis.
All of the other derogatory statements Trump ‘decreed’ about Brennan, however, are intended to punish him -
As far as this might affect elections: of course most Democrats will find Trump’s attempt to intimidate critics to be deplorable. And most Trump fans will thrill to his “strength.”
The question is: how will this display of petty vindictiveness strike the independents and not-all-in-on-Trump registered Republicans (and there are a few)…? It represents a definite departure from past Presidential practice. Will that be seen as an issue, or will it pass with a shrug?
Remember when Paul Ryan assured us that Trump was just trolling us on this issue? Probably requires some follow up questions if he still thinks that’s true.
Independent voters value themselves as being ‘independent’ but tend to be less informed and aware of things like democratic norms. They’re not going to give a drop of ant piss.
There are other things about Trump they won’t like, like his mean spiritedness, but they will defer to Trump’s executive authority to fire anyone he wants.
John Brennan is an accessory to Bush’s torture regime. He presided over the CIA while they were spying on senate staffers. This man is one of the most despicable human beings on the planet.
Since he’s no longer in government, he doesn’t need a security clearance unless he’s doing work for some crony contractor.
It’s quite common for the (any) current Administration to consult with former officials as a matter of continuity.
All that first paragraph very well may be true (although considering the source, I’ll need to check that out on my own), but it has nothing whatsoever to do with why Trump revoked Brennan’s clearance.
I’m sure they can come up with whatever lie they need without his help.
Ok. He accidentally did a good thing.
You don’t understand the danger of the President punishing his political enemies?
I don’t understand the danger of revoking John Brennan’s clearance, a slap on the wrist. John Brennan has branded himself as some sort of brave dissenter in order to make any kind of action against him politically difficult. Wake me up if he gets droned. Obama was throwing political enemies in prison. Droning al Awlaki and his poor son. This is theater.
I was wondering what sort of implication this has for Brennan personally. I assume that since he’s former director, he can’t just waltz into CIA headquarters and start poking around. And I assume he’s not getting daily briefings or is really privy to anything going on over there.
One notes that in the America-hating fuckstick’s statement as read by SHS, he asserts that Brennan has been lying. Given that Brennan’s future income stream stands to be harmed by a hit to his credibility, that could be the basis for a slander lawsuit, no?
Still getting your news from Hannity and Infowars?
Well, I mean, technically that career criminal bank fraudster who publicly and blatantly violated his parole was a “political enemy”, so I guess this isn’t wrong if you completely ignore the actual implications WillFarnaby tried to bake in.