I think slander requires the defendant to make false claims about the plaintiff. Brennan’s lies are well-documented, even if people choose to ignore them because they love his torture and drone history.
That’s a rather slanderous statement, in and of itself.
Any thoughts on the fairness, or otherwise, of Trump pulling security clearances to punish critics? Me, I think it’s…undesirable.
When someone missteps over there, they really do catch a lot of flak.
This was just a stunt that they’ve had in the can for a while. The memo apparently was written in July. It pushes Omorosa off the headlines for a news cycle. So it gives dipshit a chance to exact a pound of flesh and change the news cycle. It shows nothing of his character that we didn’t already know.
Couldn’t disagree more. An independent is MORE likely to look at both sides rather than just cheer on there guy and ignore their faults.
If true, then it’s a good thing we have that rule here about not accusing folks of lying. But uh oh, maybe we should extend that to the Pit, too?
IOW, if you think about that for a few minutes, the obvious answer is “no”. But also, defamation typically requires that actual damage has been done, not that future damage might be done.
How does this compare with previous presidents and previous directors of the CIA?
Google couldn’t find a single instance of another president ever stripping a former CIA director (or any high former security official) of their security clearance.
When you lie with pigs, you’re going to get muddy.
Brennan is not a whistleblower. He’s the opposite. I don’t think he is entitled to “fair” treatment beyond his constitutional rights.
It isn’t legal. The government cannot take any action, even an otherwise legal action, if the purpose is to dissuade you (and it would work to dissuade a reasonable person) from exercising First Amendment rights.
Whether any of that can be proven, whether it is worth suing, what the remedy would be, etc., are all of course open questions. But the basic framework of First Amendment retaliation claims is fairly well-settled.
What’s the opposite of a whistleblower? A whistlesucker?
Seriously, though, this action has ramifications far beyond its effects on Brennan. Trump has threatened the same action on a number of other former and current government officials, for which the most significant common link is that they have been vocal critics of the Administration. So, in your view, same same? They all chose to “lie down with pigs” (presumably meaning, entered government service in the first place), so they deserve whatever they get?
If your only interest in this thread is to air some sort of grudge you have about Brennan, fair enough, but that’s not really the main topic of the thread. Just sayin’.
Why would it be, Flynn didn’t criticize Trump.
I will deal with the others on a case-by-case basis.
The main topic of this thread is Brennan. Trump revoked his clearance, so someone decided to extrapolate on that.
Suppose the government arrested Charles Manson, would we extrapolate that the government is coming after hippies? No we would say this guy is no good.
The main topic of this thread is the use of presidential power to attempt to silence critics. Brennan just happens to be the target.
Let me suggest an analogy that is a bit more on point. Suppose the government arrested Charles Manson not for the murder of Sharon Tate and others, but specifically for criticizing the administration, and the government then issued a Presidential statement that said: “and here are the names of eight or ten other hippies we considering arresting for unspecified lies and wild accusations against this administration”. Could we then extrapolate that the government is at least coming after some subset of hippies?
Reply or not, as you see fit. I’ve spent all the time I can afford to on this nonsense.
I was misled by the title and OP which included discussion of the Brennan story.
WillFarnaby show aside, here’s a way more interesting response: William H. McRaven, who led the raid that killed bin Laden, has requested to have his security clearance revoked as well.
I mean, damn.
That’s beautiful. Eloquent and impassioned.
May it be the first of many.
Amen. Coming from a retired Navy Admiral no less. Speaking to the so-called CIC he says, I must repeat:
“you are sadly mistaken.”
And Trump is of course crediting this decision to the “Russia thing”. Fucking imbicile.
Oh, yes, those poor terrorists… Watch me cry for them … Boo fucking hoo.
Hot damn! If a British admiral or general said that about a British Prime Minister, Questions Would Be Asked.
Gee, you said Obama was doing that, yet there is no mention of Obama even ordering such actions.
So, more Hannity and less Jones, I guess.