LeeroyJenkins

Hey rush, how do you feel about the papadopolous sentencing document that mentions his contacts to Russia on behalf of trump campaign and accepting a bribe from someone he believed to be a spy for another country (not Russia)? I mean, I know you say the campaign didn’t collude with Russia, but the people who allegedly colluded are pleading guilty to it. Sooooo? What’s your opinion on that? I’m asking for you opinion, not some right wing talking points.

It's too big. Use smaller bands. It wont be a safety hazard. I don't even use my outer 2 locking stows.

Not if you got nothing to hide! Makes perfect sense. Agreed, what I've been saying all along. If T gets in trouble it'll be for trying to hide something. For him to be implicated in collusion they would need a recording or several corroborating witnesses. Considering how many people have flipped on him at this point I'd say that they don't have that and therefore it didn't happen. The only thing pointing at him is how much knowledge he had of the meeting with T Jr and I don't think there's much criminality there because it seems like that particular meeting didn't develop into a formal case of collusion. They had the meeting, it was the wrong move and they swept it under the rug which was also the wrong move. T Jr will probably see the inside of a courtroom for it and maybe he'll get a slap on the wrist. You just described conspiracy.

OK, maybe I'm not seeing it then - how is his right to free speech being infringed in a way that doesn't directly relate to his continued security clearance (the trigger here)? He can still talk about anything that isn't classified - that hasn't changed, and can't about classified stuff which he couldn't anyway except to other people with appropriate clearance. I'm just not understanding the link - maybe you could try explaining it to me in a different way, because I'm just not seeing a first amendment violation here. I've never really thought about how clearance applies to the first amendment in detail before this, but my initial thought is that it would have to be an exception. I'd need to do some research. I think it has to work like this: Right to free speech trumps everything unless what you're talking about is classified (you can't just talk to anyone about it), unless classified information you have come into possession of is illegal (whistleblower law takes effect). In this case, Trump hasn't infringed Brennan's right to call Trump an asshole or talk about the administration in any way, but he has limited Brrennan's ability to come into contact with new classified information. You are getting hung up on clearance and speech being the same thing. You have to sepperate the two. A security clearance has value, monitory in the case of being a consultant to DOD contractors. Full stop. The first amendment protects against retaliation from the government for protected speech. This retaliation can includes taking things of value. Trump took away something of value from Brennan because of what Brennan said about trump. Since the thing of value is a clearance it’s going to be more complicated but that’s the gist of it.

Whistleblower law, that may be able to apply, but we don't know what Brennan told the FBI. Trump didn't revoke Brennan's clearance for talking to the FBI. Trump's own statement, read by Sanders, said it was due to his public statements, both on TV and over the internet. I am aware, that's what I originally said. Dude above we posts whistleblower law.

I don't think there's anything so "deep" going on. Brennan isn't supporting Trump, so Trump is thinking up ways to hurt him. That's it. We get to add it to the list of potential crimes* Revoking a security clearance (a thing of value) due to a private citizens public comments (free speech) is likely a violation of the first amendment. *Not really a crime, just a violation of civil rights. - A group of 11 former CIA directors and a former Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement calling Trump’s move against Brennan “an attempt to stifle free speech.” - Trump summoned a Wall Street Journal reporter into the Oval Office for an impromptu interview in which he linked Brennan’s clearance revocation to the “sham” Russia investigation. “These people led it,” he said, referring to Brennan and others. “So I think it’s something that had to be done.” 18 USC 1513(e) Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. Whistleblower law, that may be able to apply, but we don't know what Brennan told the FBI.

I'm not convinced by that. In fact I think that anyone leaving a sensitive position with access to secure material should have their rights revoked as a matter of course. I've done subcontractor work for various defense departments, and my clearance was certainly stripped once my part on the projects were over. That Trump did it to be petty speaks volumes about his character, but I don't see it as a crime, a violation of rights or even a surprise to be honest. I don't think Brennan had any 'access' to classified stuff. It's not like he could log onto "CIAdotcom" and discuss classified stuff with other retired spooks. What he had was the ability to see and be shown classified material, should the need arise. With his experience and skill set, the likelyhood of being consulted for a variety of things is pretty high. Allowing retired and former employees to keep their clearances is one thing. Allowing the Director of the CIA, FBI, NSA, ect (or any of the deputy directors) to keep it is something quite different. And it's apparently something of a standard practice. For the Mango Mussolini to take it away, for no other reason than not liking what Brennan said about him may well cross the line into civil rights violations. Just because something is a standard practice doesn't make it the same as a right, and I'm not seeing why it's 'quite different' for a director than for any other employee, or at least in my simplistic view of the world I don't think it should be. Before now I would have thought that if you were someone wanting to hire Brennan for his experience it would be treated like hiring any other consultant - you apply for their security clearance to let them look at the material you want them to see. It would be a shit load easier than hiring someone else, sure, but I didn't think his resume was 'comes with own security clearance' negating the need to go through that process. Again, I'm not surprised by it. We've put a petulant, petty bully into a position of power. He'll do whatever he can to disrupt people who annoy him, just because he thinks he can. Stop saying right, jesus, no one is saying a clearance is a right. The first amendment is the right being talked about. You are correct about your simplistic view, it is not accurate regarding the security clearance process. I promise you his resume said active clearance. It is very common to mention a security clearance on resumes. Mine even mentions my SCI clearance even though it is expired, and defiantly mentioned it when it was valid.

I'm not convinced by that. In fact I think that anyone leaving a sensitive position with access to secure material should have their rights revoked as a matter of course. I've done subcontractor work for various defense departments, and my clearance was certainly stripped once my part on the projects were over. That Trump did it to be petty speaks volumes about his character, but I don't see it as a crime, a violation of rights or even a surprise to be honest. Being a subcontractor and being a high ranking official are very different. Officials are often consultants to large DOD contractors. Having an active clearance is worth a lot of money in the private sector. Now if Brennon wanted to do contract work he no longer can. The reason it's an issue if because its worth money and trump said he revoke it in part because of Russia investigation and saying bad things about trump. But there is no 'right' that once you have clearance that you can keep it so that you can then go and consult with it and make money that way. It's been a perk, sure, but I don't see it as a right that has been stripped. Having it stripped because of something said it the issue. That entire last sentence of yours is confusing. The right being talked about is free speech.

I'm not convinced by that. In fact I think that anyone leaving a sensitive position with access to secure material should have their rights revoked as a matter of course. I've done subcontractor work for various defense departments, and my clearance was certainly stripped once my part on the projects were over. That Trump did it to be petty speaks volumes about his character, but I don't see it as a crime, a violation of rights or even a surprise to be honest. Being a subcontractor and being a high ranking official are very different. Officials are often consultants to large DOD contractors. Having an active clearance is worth a lot of money in the private sector. Now if Brennon wanted to do contract work he no longer can. The reason it's an issue if because its worth money and trump said he revoke it in part because of Russia investigation and saying bad things about trump.

I don't think there's anything so "deep" going on. Brennan isn't supporting Trump, so Trump is thinking up ways to hurt him. That's it. We get to add it to the list of potential crimes* Revoking a security clearance (a thing of value) due to a private citizens public comments (free speech) is likely a violation of the first amendment. *Not really a crime, just a violation of civil rights. - A group of 11 former CIA directors and a former Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement calling Trump’s move against Brennan “an attempt to stifle free speech.” - Trump summoned a Wall Street Journal reporter into the Oval Office for an impromptu interview in which he linked Brennan’s clearance revocation to the “sham” Russia investigation. “These people led it,” he said, referring to Brennan and others. “So I think it’s something that had to be done.”

“nothing is going to become of the Mueller investigation anyway.” Have you even bothered to notice that plea deals and indictments have already come from the mueller investigation? okay you need to concentrate here. Or focus a little bit. Every one of the charges that have been levied and all of the plea deals that have been met or reached have nothing absolutely nothing to do with Trump Russia collusion. All they are is attempts by Mueller to try and get somebody to flip or compose as said by one famous lawyer that's dealing with one trial going on now most normal thinking people this would give pause. But I realize that's not what I'm dealing with on this site. Rush, you really need to stop moving the goalposts. You can’t say nothing has come of the muller investigation. Then when pointed out that is incorrect say nothing about Russian collusion has come up. The fact that none of it has to do with trump is irrelevant to the numerious indictments that have came from the investigation. The muller investigation is more than strictly trump-Russia. If you want to make the claim that so far nothing relating to trump-Russia has came from it and nothing will come from it you can say that. But you have to say that explicitly.

It would change because new information was uncovered during the investigation. I would actually be surprised if Muller finished the investigation before the 2020 election.

It looks like a bunch of stuff that doesn’t have relation to trump-Russia. It looks like you’re trying to distract from trump Russia and dodge my question about what it would take for you to support impeachment. So again, what would it take for you to support the impeachment of trump? it is totally related. And that's why it's a damn hard to talk to you. Because your mind is so closed you have no understanding of what's really going on. More is coming. And it's going to be really hard on the left I think when the sing all falls out.. To even talk about impeachment of trump at this point is delusional at best It’s hard to talk to me because I force you to stay on topic. I’ll give it a chance though. Rush, articulate why you believe The communication between these two is related to the trump campaign colluding with Russia. We aren’t talking about impeaching trump. I am asking you for your opinion. What would trump have to do for you to support his impeachment. Edit:Billvon. Break a law or seriously destroy his Trust of the people. Both of which I'm sure you think he has done. Both I'm sure I know he has not done. So if muller concludes that trump broke the law ie, obstruction of justice you will support Trumps impeachment. You know, thats very reasonable. Surprising and reasonable. We will all be here to hold you to that. Also waiting on that explanation of why the coordination between a DOJ official and an informant is related to the trump campaign clouding with Russia.

It looks like a bunch of stuff that doesn’t have relation to trump-Russia. It looks like you’re trying to distract from trump Russia and dodge my question about what it would take for you to support impeachment. So again, what would it take for you to support the impeachment of trump? it is totally related. And that's why it's a damn hard to talk to you. Because your mind is so closed you have no understanding of what's really going on. More is coming. And it's going to be really hard on the left I think when the sing all falls out.. To even talk about impeachment of trump at this point is delusional at best It’s hard to talk to me because I force you to stay on topic. I’ll give it a chance though. Rush, articulate why you believe The communication between these two is related to the trump campaign colluding with Russia. We aren’t talking about impeaching trump. I am asking you for your opinion. What would trump have to do for you to support his impeachment. Edit:Billvon.

It looks like a bunch of stuff that doesn’t have relation to trump-Russia. It looks like you’re trying to distract from trump Russia and dodge my question about what it would take for you to support impeachment. I will answer your question though. No it doesn’t look bad. It looks like a DOJ officials was getting intel from a source. That’s pretty normal. So again, what would it take for you to support the impeachment of trump?

Rush, I actually have one very important question I want your personal opinion on. What would trump have to do for you to support his impeachment? LJ

Rush, I have a question for you. Nothing inferred, nothing implied, just a simple question. Did Donald Trump Jr., Paul Montfort, and Jared Kushner meet with a Russian lawyer in Trump tower? LJ

Is there something about being a Russian that makes it inherently illegal to get information from them. If someone was looking up financial dealing that Hillary Clinton had with a Canadian national do you think they would not get that information from a Canadian bank or deal with Canadian people? Rush just isn't capable of understanding the differences between information received directly from a Russian tied to the Kremlin and receiving information from an American law firm. There is a reason rush voted for Trump and it isn't because he understands his policies.

“Spinning” explaining* how it was gotten is the difference between illegal and legal. It means everything in this argument.

Can you find one instance where he did that? One. Anytime in the past, say 3 years. Where he actually answered questions and responded in a rational manner, where he provided at least some sort of backup for his assertions? Betcha can't. See my post above yours. So he is either trolling or he is incapable. I’m giving him a chance to prove he is neither. Edit: Billvon, I didn't mean for that to be too far. I'm genuinely concerned about it.

Hey Rush, Can we have a civil debate about something closely related to Trump-Russia? You can pick the subject. LJ

One thing I find funny, Trump supporters that complain about bias in the FBI seem to always assume it is political bias. It is like they burry their heads in the sand so they don't have to acknowledge the chance that the bias is professional.

I think I just heard a thousand bubbles pop..... Do you really need me to post the USC code defining conspiracy again? Rush, how about you lay out your point right here. you keep flip flopping. I have a couple questions for you. 1. Did Hilary Clinton collude with the Russians. 2. Is collusion a crime?

But I do not blame you for trying. As for the FBI I trust the rank and file. Thie4 voices will be heard at some date. Rush, you said " anything involving manafort's work on the Trump team" You don't get to move the goalposts to "Nothing about Trump collusion during the Manafort trial" That's absurd. The trump campaign was mentioned during the trial, that is a fact. You were wrong accept that. You are also correct in your new statement that there was nothing about Trump collusion during the Manafort trial, which makes sense because that's not what his trial is about.

the FBI has said that Trump jr. Is neither a subject or Person of Interest or a Target in the Russia collusion investigation And now Hilary sympathizer Strozk has been fired. About damn time. Oh so now you trust the FBI? Lol, thats called confirmation bias if you aren't aware. Rush, you know Muller is investigating the Trump tower meeting, don't lie to us or yourself like that, it's not healthy. I uhhh, I know that. I said it in my post... did you read my post? Did you comprehend what you read in my post? Steel got info from his Russian contacts. That's not debated. I try very hard to be civil but dude, come on. Have you ever considered either not commenting about things you don't know anything about or at least googling it before you open your figurative mouth? There was talk about Trumps campaign in the court room, primarily involving Steve Calk. Look it up if your don't believe me since you clearly didn't look it up before you made your comment. That being said, why does it need to be tied to Trump? Manafort allegedly committed crimes, the FBI investigated it, and it went to court. Do you have an issue with that? Manafort being found guilty or not guilty has no bearing on the alleged Trump Russia collusion because that is not what Manaforts trial is about.