Eegore wrote on 08/17/18 at 16:27:16:

Nothing... That's the point.


Quote:

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 08/17/18 at 15:34:37:


----------

so should Conservative critics of Obama have been punished for their work to undermine Obama, the birthers, the crazy right wing radio show hosts, FOX NEWS all worked day in and day out to discredit and undermine Obama's administration to the point they made fun of Obama's clothing...  They also criticized Obama as being and egomaniac and a communist and a myriad of other LIES just to get attention from people LIKE YOU...    

Did Obama take action against the FBI agents when Guliani went on Fox News time and time again saying he had FBI agents telling him secret things about how Obama was messing up??

and don't give me your conspiracy theory BS about Obama phone tapping a Fox News' reporter  https://apnews.com/b89a121c72794bcfbfcc92e9299d7e0f "But Rosen, during a Fox appearance Sunday, corrected his own anchor, saying phones he used for reporting were not eavesdropped upon. Rather, Holder sought and got a judge’s permission to look through records of Rosen’s phone calls and emails from 2009 as the government sought to identify the leaker for a Rosen story about North Korea."   Sounds like due process was used there...

......and maybe be Obama should have revoked security status of some of those people. The reality is, Obama wouldn't be asking Michale Flynn's opinion (remember him?) anymore than Trump would ask for Brennan's opinion.

This is not a serious or major issue other than for news shows.

"Okay here, if you went on talk shows and started talking like Sean Hannity, you deserve to lose your security clearance. I believe both statements are true."

 That's not true.  I have held a security clearance for 18 years, and I can talk like Sean Hannity all I want unless I disclose or compromise the information I have access to, or jeopardize national security.  SC's are about access and intel, not about your political stance.  Just because I make you angry doesn't mean you can use me as an example to others, and that's what this looks like.

 Its an issue because this has never been done before.  Taking away a resource as leverage against spoken opinion is not what the revocation of SC is for.

"The reality is, Obama wouldn't be asking Michale Flynn's opinion (remember him?) anymore than Trump would ask for Brennan's opinion."

 SC is not about providing opinions exclusively to the President, national offices utilize intel across the spectrum, and deposing staff years later is not uncommon.  Taking away intel resources because you specifically don't like those people is a potential risk, or at a minimum additional taxpayer cost, and petty.  This isn't as compartmentalized and simple as saying the President won't call people in for opinions.

WebsterMark wrote on 08/19/18 at 05:39:43:



Really, fine......

Then all of Hillary’s actions of scrubbing emails, etc, Bill meeting with the AG who WAS investigating the matter, who had to recuse herself, means Hillary was guilty then, fine.

No, however, the rule of law, or what constitutes behavior, needs to be consistent.
Referencing past actions had always been accepted practice.

You want to hold one to a standard of suspicion based on actions, then it should be the same for everyone, if not, why?

Trump can tell jokes? I strongly doubt that  

I’m not on twitter, don’t read it, nor do I intend to join.

So, I have absolutely no idea how someone posts.

How do you know who is posting ?
It it experience ?

T And T Garage wrote on 08/19/18 at 14:32:55:

"... he tweets like a 14 year old girl, ..."