Collusion update: "no factual evidence"

[Mountain Man]

But this thread is not about 'those things'.

It is about rejoicing in the fact nobody has been able to catch "The Donald" in the act so to speak. And that is what I have been addressing.

It should be plainly obvious by now that "nobody has been able to catch 'The Donald' in the act" of conspiring with Russia for the very simple reason that he didn't conspire with Russia. Hostile witnesses like former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have been saying since day one that there is no evidence. How many more times will you liberals need to see an official declaration of "no evidence" before you start to believe it?

[Mountain Man]

This thread celebrates Trump's deferment so far of justice.

This thread is "celebrating" the fact that liberal attempts to convict a man of a crime he never committed appear to be failing.

Donald Trump is currently planning to strip good men, men whose experience this country needs, of their clearances in an act of revenge.

Those "good men" have been abusing their security privileges by leaking information to the press and using their clearance for monetary gain.

Liberals, of course, are whooping and hollering when a nasty piece of work like Brennan loses his clearance, yet they were silent when Obama did the same thing to a Trump supporter.

More liberal hypocrisy.

[Bill the Cat]

You just voted for him and defend him.

Against false allegations, why not? "Seek justice" and all that...

[oxmixmudd]

This thread is "celebrating" the fact that liberal attempts to convict a man of a crime he never committed appear to be failing.


Those "good men" have been abusing their security privileges by leaking information to the press and using their clearance for monetary gain.

Liberals, of course, are whooping and hollering when a nasty piece of work like Brennan loses his clearance, yet they were silent when Obama did the same thing to a Trump supporter.

More liberal hypocrisy.

No MM. This is a fundamental abuse of Presidential Power. These men are Patriots, men who have served their country and who in every way meet the requirements of a security clearance and who have a great depth of knowledge and experience this country needs. Political persuasion, philosophy of life within the moderate liberal/conservative guidelines or religious affiliation are NOT criteria for a clearance. You have no idea the negative consequences of this.

Do you have any clue what this will do to the ability of the Intelligence community to do their Jobs? If every time an intelligence official or public servant has to deliver a message that is honest and true but that isn't what the President wants to hear they have to be concerned about whether or not he strips them of their clearance as punishment for not telling him what he wants to hear? Do you really want to effectively require that people with a clearance never speak a foul word against a political leader or party? Are you really that naive as to what this country is about and what the constitution is about and why we have the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speach?

You are being an ignorant fool. There are no two ways about it. I don't understand how an educated person familiar with history and the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship can NOT be appalled at what Trump is doing in this arena.

And yet, here you are, like a cow led to the slaughter, walking blindly off the cliff all the while singing the praises of your executioner.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

No, you're not. You're dealing with a case of someone in high dudgeon over Trump's actions who at best begrudgingly acknowledges that those in the anti-Trump camp do the same or worse. Look in the mirror, Jim. Deflecting is not helping you. I am not defending Trump's antics. Cow Poke is not defending Trump's antics. Sparko is not defending Trump's antics. What we are doing is arguing against the notion that he is evil incarnate, because in spite of himself he has accomplished some good things.

That you are not defending Trumps antics had not occurred to me. Little you've said has given me any indication you are unhappy with what he is doing, or that you agree with me concerning any of the gross violations I've pointed out. In fact, with each comment I make about what Trump is doing that is threatening to our democracy I get one of three refrains (some from you, some from others, this is a summary across the board):

1) Somebody liberal did something they think is equally as bad

2) A defense of the action taken (witness MM trying to justify President Trump stripping security clearances for nothing better than petty revenge at the fact they don't like the way he is handling the presidency and for speaking out against his egregious moral and political violations).

3) I get criticized for not recognizing the 'good things' he's done. (This is especially ridiculous. As an extreme to make the point, should the people of Germany have ignored the obvious signs of the Holocaust and focused instead on the 'good things' Hitler was doing to 'make Germany great again' - oh wait, that is exactly what most of them did! #3 is so absurd in light of who and what Trump is it is simply almost sickening)


Jim

[Bill the Cat]

And yet, here you are, like a cow led to the slaughter, walking blindly off the cliff all the while singing the praises of your executioner.

Jim

Exaggerate much?

[oxmixmudd]

Exaggerate much?

I do like 'colorful metaphors' of the non gutter variety

Jim

[Sparko]

There you go again. The fact others do wrong things to does not make what Trump does ok.

And I have never, not one time, said I side with any of the things you mention as being associated with opposing Trump. If the thread was rejoicing in those things, you'd see me opposing that just as strongly.

I never said you did, but YOU implied we did with Trump. Now to you understand? You claim that because Trump is rude or immoral that we are somehow supporting evil. Yet when I point out that all of the others do it, those who agree with you and oppose Trump, why then "well I don't support those actions!" -- it's ok for you to claim not to be associated with those who agree with your viewpoint but act rudely or immorally, but if we agree with Trump and he acts rudely we are somehow complicit in evil. Double standard.

Supporting him as President and his political actions does not mean we necessarily support his personality or personal actions. Especially since we think Hillary was an even worse moral choice. She supported abortion, gay marriage, helped get our troops killed in Benghazi and then covered it up, actually DID have some collusion with Russia, had a private Email server exposing secrets to any hacker with even a modicum of talent, then tried to cover that up and deleted the emails and took a hammer to various devices. And yet you voted for her I am assuming.

[oxmixmudd]

I never said you did, but YOU implied we did with Trump. Now to you understand? You claim that because Trump is rude or immoral that we are somehow supporting evil. Yet when I point out that all of the others do it, those who agree with you and oppose Trump, why then "well I don't support those actions!" -- it's ok for you to claim not to be associated with those who agree with your viewpoint but act rudely or immorally, but if we agree with Trump and he acts rudely we are somehow complicit in evil. Double standard.

No - it isn't. I am bring to your attention egregious acts of Trump. And in response to that, you are attempting to justify him. For it to be a double standard, you would need to bringing up egregious acts of some other person not associated with DT and I would need to be justifying them. But as you'll note, that is not what happens. When you bring up egregious acts of those opposed to Trump, I agree with you that the are in fact egregious acts and should not be happening.

Supporting him as President and his political actions does not mean we necessarily support his personality or personal actions. Especially since we think Hillary was an even worse moral choice. She supported abortion, gay marriage, helped get our troops killed in Benghazi and then covered it up, actually DID have some collusion with Russia, had a private Email server exposing secrets to any hacker with even a modicum of talent, then tried to cover that up and deleted the emails and took a hammer to various devices. And yet you voted for her I am assuming.

I have already said I fault no-one for voting for Trump over Hillary as a rock and a hard place decision. My quarrel with any of you is not at all related with which hard choice you or I made. Nobody had a good choice, we just tried to fight off whatever we saw was the worse of two evils.

The difference between you and I, and MM and I and other on this is one simple fact. If the person I voted for had won and was acting out with egregious moral and political violations I WOULD NOT BE TRYING TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS! Nor would I be ignoring all the evidence they did what they were accused of even though no formal charges were yet filed.

One other caveat: At that time of the election as I struggled over which horse of the Apocalypse I'd cast my vote for, I had the amazingly ignorant hope that the Republicans in the House and senate would actually stand for what they spoke about in their campaigns and that their majority would allow a push back against whichever horse won. But with Trump winning I now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the majority of those in the Republican party have not one vertebrae. As they violate everything they said about Trump and morals and principles during their campaigns and follow lock step goose stepping along with their glorious leader.

What I have had my eyes opened to is the fact that while I disagree with many democratic party positions, a much larger number of them are actually acting on their principles than the low lifes that now make up and drive the Republican party. With a few notable exceptions (John McCain and Flake).

Jim

[Mountain Man]

This is a fundamental abuse of Presidential Power.

First of all, no it's not. It is, in fact, well within the bounds of the President's Constitutional authority. The White House spelled this out very clearly in its official statement about Brennan as well as offering a number of reasons why John Brennan was no longer fit to retain his clearance, including the fact that he made a "series of unfounded and outrageous allegations, wild outbursts on the internet and television about this administration" and that his "lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets and facilities". Furthermore, "Such access is particularly inappropriate when former officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate their political attacks. Any access granted to our nation’s secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal interest." Senator Rand Paul supported the decision saying, "[Brennan has] participated in a shredding of constitutional rights, lied to Congress and has been monetizing and making partisan political use of his clearance since his departure."

Secondly, Trump didn't make the decision on his own. He consulted with a number of his advisors before making his final decision.

And I can't help but notice that you ignored this part of my post:

"Liberals, of course, are whooping and hollering when a nasty piece of work like Brennan loses his clearance, yet they were silent when Obama did the same thing to a Trump supporter."

[One Bad Pig]

3) I get criticized for not recognizing the 'good things' he's done. (This is especially ridiculous. As an extreme to make the point, should the people of Germany have ignored the obvious signs of the Holocaust and focused instead on the 'good things' Hitler was doing to 'make Germany great again' - oh wait, that is exactly what most of them did! #3 is so absurd in light of who and what Trump is it is simply almost sickening)

What's sickening is the extreme rhetoric you display here, all the while castigating extreme rhetoric from Trump. YOU'RE NO BETTER THAN HE IS, Jim. Heck, given your 'holier than thou' attitude, I might consider you worse, since you're wrapping yourself in Christianity. Get a grip on yourself already.

[Mountain Man]

Senator Rand Paul:

"I think John Brennan’s actually a national security risk to the country and we are safer because his security clearance is gone. And the reason I say that is because, in 2012, he actually released information to other ex-CIA agents who went on TV and said, 'We have a double agent in Yemen.' Well, at the time, there was a double agent in Yemen at his life, his or her, I don’t know who it was, but their life was put in risk because John Brennan’s releasing information that he shouldn’t. John Brennan also was involved with illegally looking at Democrats computers who were investigating CIA torture, and then, lying about it before the committee.

"So, John Brennan should have been fired for cause long ago, and he shouldn’t be within a mile of classified information because he is a national security risk. He does not know how to keep his mouth shut. And now, he is somebody going out there saying that the commander-in-chief is treasonous. I don’t know how you can be in the chain of information if you’re saying that the commander-in-chief should be put to death for treason. So, John Brennan is way out there — absurdly out there. John Brennan should have no connection to government ever again."

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018...o-the-country/

[Mountain Man]

OK, I admit that it's not entirely accurate to say that there is no evidence of collusion. It's just the evidence doesn't point to the Trump campaign...

Source: “Our Guy” – The *REAL* Russian Collusion…

Released documents show dossier author Christopher Steele and Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr discussing the need to protect “our guy”, January through March 2017.

Who is “Our Guy”? That would be Oleg Deripaska, the Russian dossier source, and likely employer of Christopher Steele. The same Oleg Deripaska the FBI went to for help in framing Donald Trump through Paul Manafort in September 2016.

♦In 2009 the FBI, then headed by Robert Mueller, requested the assistance of Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska in an operation to retrieve former FBI officer and CIA resource Robert Levinson who was captured in Iran two years earlier. The agent assigned to engage Deripaska was Andrew McCabe; the primary FBI need was financing and operational support. Deripaska spent around $25 million and would have succeeded except the U.S. State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, backed out.

♦In September of 2016 Andrew McCabe is now Deputy Director of the FBI, when two FBI agents approached Deripaska in New York – again asking for his help. This time the FBI request was for Deripaska to outline Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort as a tool of the Kremlin. Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska sued Manafort, alleging he stole money. However, according to the article, despite Deripaska’s disposition toward Manafort he viewed the request as absurd. He laughed the FBI away, telling them: “You are trying to create something out of nothing.”

John Solomon reported that Deripaska wanted to testify to congress last year (2017), without any immunity request, but was rebuked. Who blocked his testimony?

In 2017 Oleg Deripaska was represented in the U.S. by Adam Waldman. Mr. Waldman was also representing Christopher Steele, the author of the Dossier. When you reconcile that Deripaska was likely Steele’s source/employer; of course Waldman would be representing both of them.

Adam Waldman was the liaison/go-between Senator Mark Warner (Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman) was using to try and set up a secret meeting with Christopher Steele {Text Messages} without a “paper trail”.

Yes, that’s Senator Mark Warner trying to set up a ‘paperless’ back channel to Christopher Steele in March 2017.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...ian-collusion/

© Copyright Original Source

[oxmixmudd]

Senator Rand Paul:

"I think John Brennan’s actually a national security risk to the country and we are safer because his security clearance is gone. And the reason I say that is because, in 2012, he actually released information to other ex-CIA agents who went on TV and said, 'We have a double agent in Yemen.' Well, at the time, there was a double agent in Yemen at his life, his or her, I don’t know who it was, but their life was put in risk because John Brennan’s releasing information that he shouldn’t. John Brennan also was involved with illegally looking at Democrats computers who were investigating CIA torture, and then, lying about it before the committee.

"So, John Brennan should have been fired for cause long ago, and he shouldn’t be within a mile of classified information because he is a national security risk. He does not know how to keep his mouth shut. And now, he is somebody going out there saying that the commander-in-chief is treasonous. I don’t know how you can be in the chain of information if you’re saying that the commander-in-chief should be put to death for treason. So, John Brennan is way out there — absurdly out there. John Brennan should have no connection to government ever again."

https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018...o-the-country/

breitbart?

Rand Paul?

Brennan has served with distinction 4 presidencies of different parties. 175 current and former intelligence operatives have signed their name and put their own clearances at risk in protest against Trumps action.

Brennan's clearance was not pulled 'for cause' or it would have already been gone. That 'mistake' happened long ago and may well be on the shoulders of the agents that actually released it. It did not result dismissal at the time. This was before Brennan was ever made CIA director. If you know anything at all about how clearances are handled, you would know that had this been a true cause, his clearance would already be gone.

This statement is nothing but CYA.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

breitbart?

Rand Paul?

Genetic fallacy?

Both the honorable Senator Rand Paul and the White House laid out clear and explicit reasons for why Brennan was no longer fit to have a security clearance, and given the facts of the matter, I think any reasonable person would be compelled to agree. Brennan may have "served with distinction" in the past, but his more recent conduct over the past couple of years shows someone with questionable and possibly impaired judgment.

Also, why do you continue to remain silent about Obama doing the same thing you are loudly condemning Trump for doing?