The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Ralph Wiggum on August 17, 2018, 10:15:35 PM
-
https://www.discussionist.com/10151794317
swifty
Revoking Brennan's clearance is an impeachable offense.
It's a high crime or misdemeanor, a clear abuse of authority. A president simply can't do what Trump did. He's not a dictator or a king, and acting like one is impeachable.
Anyone who thinks in that manner has clearly been hitting the liberal :stoner: tonight.
-
Response to CokeMachine1 (Reply #13)Fri Aug 17, 2018, 10:50 PM
swifty (6,942 posts)
15. You guys don't seem to understand fully that impeachment doesn't require breaking laws.
It only requires a high crime or misdemeanor, and the definition of that fully includes abuse of power. What Trump did was a high crime or misdemeanor. He broke no law (possibly), but he committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
He should change his name to NotSoSwift.
-
Nothing about the probable felony that Brennan committed . . .
-
“Your Honor, I didn’t break the law, but what I did was a high crime or misdemeanor.”
:rotf: :lmao: :rotf: :lmao: :rotf: :lmao: :rotf:
No doubt one of the smartest primitives.
.
-
Idiots. But it doesn't take a crime to lose your clearance, simple integrity or reliability problems are more than sufficient...like Brennan and Clapper both demonstrated in episodes of lying to Congress (Actually perjury but the time limit to prosecute that ran out some time back).
Of course, no reason is required to remove access, a reason is required to KEEP it.
-
Idiots. But it doesn't take a crime to lose your clearance, simple integrity or reliability problems are more than sufficient...like Brennan and Clapper both demonstrated in episodes of lying to Congress (Actually perjury but the time limit to prosecute that ran out some time back).
Of course, no reason is required to remove access, a reason is required to KEEP it.
Further, lack of need is also sufficient for a clearance to be cancelled - e.g. a service member retiring, or a civilian employee who no longer works in the secure area of a civilian defense contractor.
-
does anyone know who swifty is at the DUmp?
-
does anyone know who swifty is at the DUmp?
Gulliver.
He/she is a laughingstock and has no realization of it.
I suspect it is the result of a lot of box wine as Friday nights are rather common for it to suddenly determine some legal theory that would make Lazar Haas say "what the ****?" is profound.
-
Ditto the above. "But I need my clearance to make myself more attractive to a contractor (so they don't have to spring for the whole thing)" is simply not a valid reason. It is done every day however. People retire from DOD and go to work for a contractor carrying over their clearance. (And lapsed former military are harder to clear than civilians usually because they have had numerous duty stations that need to be checked).
Brennan should have never gotten as far as he did but the system has a propensity for promotion by the FUMU system. (FUMU or "How do I get rid of this PIA?" "Promote him or move him to another department.")
-
Gulliver.
He/she is a laughingstock and has no realization of it.
I suspect it is the result of a lot of box wine as Friday nights are rather common for it to suddenly determine some legal theory that would make Lazar Haas say "what the ****?" is profound.
The DUmp must be very proud that one of their own is schooling the conservatives at DU jr. LOL
-
The DUmp must be very proud that one of their own is schooling the conservatives at DU jr. LOL
I honestly believe swifty has a fetish for being humiliated. No one can be that genuinely stupid.
-
I honestly believe swifty has a fetish for being humiliated. No one can be that genuinely stupid.
Last I looked, that thread has grown exponentially and several others have started. Even leftists are laughing at swifty.
-
... rather common for it to suddenly determine some legal theory that would make Lazar Haas say "what the ****?" is profound.
Oh, that is SO H5 worthy!
:hi5:
-
Worth a row=over! :lmao: After much ridiculing, he or she keeps on trying. Trying to sound all officious and legal:
Response to rampartb (Reply #8)
Sat Aug 18, 2018, 09:52 AM
swifty (6,956 posts)
76. I'm not saying he should be impeached over that (by itself).
I'm saying it is clearly impeachable. Attacking First Amendment rights by abusing the authority entrusted to the office of the Presidency is a high crime (or misdemeanor) of the first order.
of the first order. :rotf:
And DUmmie keeps trying...
swifty (6,956 posts)
24. He can't act for improper reasons.
Trump can't order a banana from the White House chef if he intends to use the peel to make someone slip and fall down the stairs. You guys just don't understand that. He has his powers entrusted to him for use only for proper reasons.
:lmao:
What a great thread.