The First 100 days

Don't know where she gets those numbers, but if true it represents a historic shift, and is a death knell for the Democrats.

 

This would also explain why they have become so determined on Open Borders

 

Here are the black Trump Supporters.
Meet Donald Trump's Black Supporters - The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore (Video Clip) | Comedy Central

BTW- Who here believes 39% of Blacks approve DJT? Any reason why the number keeps getting repeated but the actual poll isn't getting cited? Trolling maybe? Or is it simply lying? I can't see the daylight between the two anymore.

Here is an article from the liberal rag Washington Examiner which outlines the black support among many polls. The article is from last week.

 

Epic fail.

 

Why would a black person vote for a dem nominee who wants to replace his job with an illegal immigrant?

 

not sure of the 39% but here is a 36% approval rating as reported by Rasmussen



But please focus on the difference between 36%
and 39% . maybe whine Rasmussen is not left leaning enough.
Ignore the 19% one month jump
Ignore the reality of increased black and Hispanic employment.

 

Why would a black person vote for a dem nominee who wants to raise his/her taxes, reduce the value of his/her 401k and jeopardize his/her employment?

Correction: why would anyone do that?

 

1) Accusing the president of treason without proof is definitely erratic. Having a fruitcake like this with a security clearance is dangerous. 2) Going on cable and bashing the U.S. president is not what a former leader of an intelligence agency does. Intelligence agents(current or former) are not supposed to get political.

 

Anyone who worked for Obama should have their privileges revoked. I’m shocked people keep access after they leave. Seems dangerous and risky.

And yes it was politically motivated. But call me when he uses the FBI or IRS to target his opponents. Then libs might have a case.

 

It shouldn't stop with Obama officials. Anyone who is no longer employed with the government should have their clearances revoked. The clearance should be attached to the job, not the person.

Last week I took Deez, Jr. to the Texas Capitol, (which he had never seen) because it'si cool and to show him where his dad once worked. Did I park in the employees parking lot right across the street where I used to park? No. I parked in the visitors lot further away. Did I enter through the elevators on the North side and just walk in? No, I went through the main doors on the South side and went through security. Did I go nosing through bill files in my old boss's office, start using the computer, or raid the office refrigerator for free drinks? No. I had no more access than a constituent would have. Did I go to the top of the rotunda? No. That is closed to the public. Instead I went to the 4th floor, which is high as a normal citizen can go. Why didn't I do those things? Because those were niceties and privileges that came with the job. When I left the job, I gave them up, and they went to my successors as they should have. Security clearance should be the same way. It's dangerous and risky to do it any other way.

 

Try this article from Deroy Murdock for a less snarky look at this issue.

 

There appears to be confusion around having the security clearance and being involved in briefings. The latter rarely occurs based on statements form past department leaders. What does happen is they carry the clearance to be an "ear" for the new leaders should they need a sounding board.

On security clearance in general, it's VERY common for service members to carry their security clearance right into the private sector after leaving public service. That same security clearance is required by defense contractors. Want a job at Boeing on the defense side? Need a clearance and if you have one then the company can save ~$40k. I was a 74C in the Army and this was the primary selling point for my recruiter.

I would like to point out that Michael Flynn, who admitted lying to the FBI still has his security clearance. How ****** up is that?

Nonetheless, we now know why Brennan's security clearance was revoked. The White House clearly had advance notice of the Op-Ed running today and sought to get in front of the story. Again, the initial line of reasoning doesn't hold up to Trump running his mouth later to the WSJ in which he tied his decision directly to Brennan having a tertiary involvement in the start of the investigation.

 

His behavior for an ex-intelligence agent is appalling. For him to say we now know he colluded is irresponsible. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

His past behavior was, likewise, not so great either.

-- John Brennan was CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers were bombed.

-- John Brennan was the deputy exec. director of the agency on 9/11.

-- John Brennan was the CIA chief of staff during the time the case was made for Iraq WMDs.

-- John Brennan ran the CIA when it spied on Congress. Something he subsequently perjured himself about before the Congress.

-- John Brennan, while CIA Director, presented unnecessary NDAs to Benghazi survivors -- at a memorial service for their fallen comrades in an ugly, tactless attempt to silence them.

-- John Brennan, at least according to Rudy Guliani, was the point man running the spy ring against Trump.

This guy is a political hack. He has been caught lying repeatedly, including under oath. He routinely politicized intelligence. He sought to silence dissenting intel voices. Whatever they might think about Trump's decision, it's a mistake for the left to attempt to lionize such a hack.

This guy \/ is a natsec expert in DC

 

Since when was the left so amazingly supportive of the CIA, etc? lmao!

 

That's a separate issue. I'm not aware of Brennan working for a defense contractor. The point is that security clearance should be a need-to-know matter. If you don't need to know, then you shouldn't have it. I'm not aware of Brennan "needing to know" anything.

It's ****** up. He should lose his too.

I'm sure that Trump revoked it for spite. No question about it. However, I read the article, and it still doesn't point to any collusion, despite Brennan's claims. He's still relying on unsupported speculation. He is acting as a partisan hack but is using his past position to claim a degree of authority. If someone had done something similar during the Obama Administration, the same thing would have occurred. The Administration can't stop a partisan hack, but it doesn't have to help him with security clearance. Keep in mind that nobody is entitled to security clearance.

 

Under Brennan leadership. Great job brennie!

 

For Burr, this is scathing

 

The Senate has now confirmed Trump's 25th and 26th appellate judges. This is confirmation at a record clip

Senate confirms 25th and 26th appellate judges during Trump tenure as GOP reshapes court at record clip

 

For shits and giggles I looked up the current National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (put in place June of 2017). Read through Appendix A. It's this document that governs how the DoD manages security clearances, including renewals. It applies to not just public servants but DoD contractors also. Think of it as a clearing house for security clearance.

Not a whole lot that could apply to Brennan based on known facts but man you could nail half of the Trump Admin. It's clear why Kushner had problems getting his clearance and likely shouldn't have one today. In fact, Trump Sr. wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.

While the character assassination continues from the usual suspects look at the facts that the government uses to grant/renew/revoke clearances at large. In this case, Trump is violating the rules his own administration put forward.

 

The point is that people are conflating security clearance with security briefings. I haven't seen anyone claiming the latter and there are very specific rules governing the former that really have nothing to do whether you are directly in your government job or not. The point is that the renewal of the security clearance is done every 5-10 years (dependent on level) and is carried by the person not their current role.

If Brennan was continuing to get security briefings then I'd have no problems with the current admin stopping them but that is pretty rare and there haven't been any reports of that happening. In fact, Michael Hayden specifically said he hasn't had a briefing since he departed.

 

Then why does he need the clearance if he isn't in briefings or receiving classified information?

 

I'm sure some DoD industrial complex companies would love to get a few consulting hours of his time. Without the security clearance he can't even talk with them about classified programs. 25 years of experience in the CIA might be useful to some DARPA sponsored initiatives.

He's old and likely truly retired. Just like many things Trump, this is a terrible precedent.

As an aside, I had a Top Secret Security Clearance for 5 years from the age of 18-23. I was only in the Army for 2yrs and 5 months (full enlistment). Had I not gone back to college and tried to gone directly into a DoD contractor I would have had it renewed.

 

Agreed. Brennan is a terrible precedent for CIA Director, present, former or otherwise.

 

Perhaps going on cable shows to engage in partisan attacks directed toward the current president was a bad idea for an ex-CIA director? Who woulda thunk it?

 

I'm aware of the rules, and I don't think Brennan was violating the rules. My issue is that I don't like the rules. If you are no longer in government or in some job that requires security clearance, I don't see much reason why you should have it.

Having said that, should Brennan have seen this coming? Yes. If you're a partisan hack who spouts off against the Administration without evidence and uses your former position to lend a pretense of credibility, you shouldn't be shocked if the President pulls your security clearance.

 

And what about the 13 other senior IC officials who have admonished POTUS in an open letter yesterday? Are they all partisan hacks, too?

 

It seems only our dear POTUS and his supporters should havecs voice.

@Mr. Deez- You and I both know that only the government can infringe on free speech rights, not Twitter, Facebook, Hornfans or other. They are private entities thus no free speech "right" exists there.

In this case, the government violated its own rules with the intent to punish so someone's speech. Isn't that potentially grounds for actual free speech litigation?

 

Here is an article I found interesting about one of the people responsible for helping Trump on Twitter --

" ...... In a conversation over the gaming chat platform Discord, MicroChip, who speaks unaccented, idiomatic American English, said he guards his identity so closely for two reasons: first, because he fears losing contract work due to his beliefs, and second, because of what he calls an “uninformed” discourse in the media and Washington around Russian influence and botting.

“I feel like I'm a scientist showing electricity to natives that have been convinced electricity is created by Satan, so they murder the scientist,” he said.

Indeed, in a national atmosphere charged by unproven accusations about a massive network of Russian social media influence, the story of how MicroChip helped build the most notorious pro-Trump Twitter network seems almost mundane, less a technologically daunting intelligence operation than a clever patchworking of tools nearly any computer-literate person could manage. It also suggests that some of the current Russian Trumpbot hysteria may be, well, a hysteria.

“It’s all us, not Russians,” MicroChip said. “And we’re not going to stop.” ....."​

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/from-utah-with-love