I am hoping against hope that a response like that from a man of that caliber will finally make Chump’s base including the Republican trash on this Board finally take notice. But it probably won’t.
Predictable reaction: “Deep State! Drain the swamp!”
Yes the modern liberal ignored Obama’s war on whistleblowing political enemies. They continue to do so.
Shame on the mainstream media, for not reporting on things that didn’t happen!
Yes, let’s hear from Casey Anthony or other baby killers next. The American military has been a force for evil for a very long time. Big surprise when this guy comes out in support of a torture regime architect.
Brennan’s lies and congressional spying campaigns are well documented. The military gentleman ignores this because he places himself above the people of the United States. He doesn’t think they deserve honesty. This individual has succeeded in milking he hapless taxpayer for years in order to satisfy his primitive urges. Let’s dispense with the military worship.
I’m sorry Mad and USA TODAY didn’t have a blurb on it for you.
They were Americans assassinated with out due process. Do you have any evidence that they were both “terrorists”?
Yes somebody who has used taxpayer resources to indulge his adventure fantasies used to make the Republican Party genuflect with his every utterance. This sordid impulse has been weakened by Trump. He clotheslined John Mccain with one statement and everyone thought he was done for. No, it was just one of many solid anti war statements he has made. No national Democrat comes close beside Gabbard.
It’s a good practice to at least skim over one’s links before posting. I don’t think this one supports your premise regarding Mr. Obama.
Haha should have known considering the source.
…aaannd I think we’re done here.
Tough to work for this administration. You sit down and plan out your spin, go out there and deliver it with a straight face, and next thing you know Trump blurts out the unvarnished truth at just the wrong time.
As a wit on this MB once observed in another context, Trump’s problem is that he’s “a liar who doesn’t realize that he’s also an idiot”.
Or as I’ve noted elsewhere, the notion that “the honesty of a child” reflects some tendency to honesty on the part of children is a misconception, which arose from the fact that children don’t know when to lie and what to lie about. They are apt to blurt out the truth about things like the emperor’s cloths not out of any sense of honesty, but simply because they don’t appreciate the implications of what they’re saying and that this is something to lie about, even when they’ll readily lie when the implications are obvious even to them. Trump is childlike in this respect.
Not a chance.
Cheeto is threatening to revoke clearances of pretty much everyone involved in the Russia investigation.
Which is flat-out obstruction of justice.
Cue Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to say ‘that’s concerning,’…then nothing else about it, ever again.
This is a pretty solid statement of the law.
But . . . something doesn’t feel right to me.
Imagine Secretary of State Jones. He advocates for peace with Aburjastan. The President wants harsh sanctions, and Jones speaks out, publicly, against the President’s plan.
There’s zero doubt that Jones can be fired, because this is government-as-employer limiting Jones’ First Amendment exercise.
Now, let’s say that Jones is in fact fired. But he retains his clearance until the new SoS can be confirmed, so that he can brief his successor on several ongoing, non-Aburjastan, delicate issues.
But Jones continues to speak out, going on Sunday talk shows and saying, “In the month since I was fired, the classified material I have seen makes an even stronger case for no sanctions against Aburjastan.”
My instinct says that President Smith can react by withdrawing Jones’ clearance.
But that just may be intuition leading me astray.
That would be removing a clearance because he violated the terms of having a clearance - you can’t reveal classified info, even obliquely like your example.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve had a clearance for 2 decades.
But let’s be clear: the question in either case isn’t the legal power to do something, but the propriety of doing so.
The President could probably order a battalion of Black Hawk helicopters to hover over Omarosa’s house at an altitude of 65 feet for the next three years. But should he?
Then tweak my example until it’s arguably legal:
TV HOST: Sir, the President says that only stronger sanctions will be effective, and he’s characterized you for being naive about the chances for settlement.
JONES: All I can say is that the President and I have seen the same classified data, and while I can’r discuss any specifics, my conclusion are based on 36 years in the diplomatic corps and the President’s are based on his current poll numbers.