More evidence Trump obstructed justice

[Soggy in NOLA]

Hey, dumbfuck, this has already been established. You are wrong. Grow the fuck up.

Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

A bait and switch article. That's a good one. No where has it been proven Brennan is a national security threat. The only threat, is the fact he's a witness to criminal activity by Trump. The only national security threat is Trump. You got your court cases backwards. Lol! Did I already remind you that you're an idiot? If I didn't,I apologize. I'm doing it now.

It doesn't have to be proven dipshit. Jesus, how old are you, 10?

One could only guess what the hell you are talking about? As for Brennan, no security threat has ever been established. Therefore, this court case and your make believe imagination of Brennan having the same resume, leaves me wondering if you had forgotten your prescription this morning?

Just stop already. No security threat needs be established.

But an obstruction case has.

And the moon is made of cheese. Jesus Christ jumping on a pogo stick.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Brennan used his security clearance to obtain sensitive information that he sold to CNN and MSNBC.

Sold? No kidding? Where is your proof?

That's why he lost his security clearance. He monetized his clearance.

Bruce Ohr is going to lose his too. Probably today.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Trump Admits He Revoked Brennan’s Security Clearance Over “Rigged Witch Hunt”
What? You mean Trump took away Brennan's security clearance because the Russia investigation is a witch hunt? Wow, that lines up with the same story Trump told Lester Holt, is the same story he told the Russians, and is the same corroborating story Comey claimed in his testimony. Not that we needed more evidence of obstruction of justice by this criminal, disguised as a president, we just confirmed even more evidence. At this point, obstruction of justice is just a matter of making it a formality. The evidence is not only overwhelming, it is inarguable at this point.

And the majority in Congress? Yea, those criminal cowards who took an oath. Where are they?

When the dust has finally settled, this administration and Congress will go down as the most corrupt this country has ever known.

He obstructed justice by exercising his constitutionally granted authority? Are you really this stupid?

He abused his power by not following protocol and by having this enemy list of citizens to punish...

Article 2
in the articles of impeachment for Nixon.



ARTICLE I, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (Approved 27-11)


In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States, and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President:

Committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. ...

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE II, ABUSE OF POWER. (Approved 28-10)

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice in the conduct of lawful inquiries, of contravening the law of governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies. ...

ARTICLE III, DEFIANCE OF SUBPOENAS. (Approved 21-17)

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. ...

Uh......Tricky Dick died years ago.

And how does that change his obstruction charge of purging witnesses?

Trump isn't Nixon.
What does Nixon have to do with Trump, other than some lame attempt to establish parallels?

We got us an abject moron here.

 

[hadit]

Having a security clearance is not a constitutional right it's a privilege one that the President no matter who it is has the authority to revoke if they wish to.

Constitutional rights have nothing to do with this thread.

And you see how the far left does not care anything about the Constitution. They only care about doing whatever it takes to get rid of Trump and installing Hilary as president.

But then again the far left has never proved any of their claims..

Negative! Multiple claims have been proven of conspiracy and obstruction. This one with Brennan being the latest. Trump is getting rid of Brennan's security clearance because Brennan is a witness to Trump's proven crimes. Has zero to do with the Constitution.

Interesting claim, that revoking a security clearance prevents Brennan from testifying. Why do you say that?

A security clearance does not give one the right to talk about classified information. Classified is classified, and Brennan would be no more allowed to divulge classified information with the clearance then without.

The only effect this move has is to prevent Brennan from gaining access to further classified information. It does not prevent him from testifying. Thus, claims of obstruction are rather weak.

 

[hadit]

Trump revoking the security clearance in this case is a political tool to suppress dissent.

It can be indictable in impeachment charges.

Please explain how revoking a security clearance prevents Brennan from testifying.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No such Communist party candidate existed in 1976. That is a lie.

Yes there was. His name was Gus Hall. That doesn’t mean Brennan voted for him, of course

Gus Hall | American politician

 

[hadit]

Trump revoking the security clearance in this case is a political tool to suppress dissent.

It can be indictable in impeachment charges.

What a load of bull shit... Protecting America from ALL ENEMIES foreign and DOMESTIC is his oath.. I for one am proud he is taking his Oath seriously and acting within his constitutionally protected rights as the Chief Executive and dealing with this Anti-American scum.

Brennan is neither an enemy foreign or domestic is one point.

Another is that Trump is punishing the opposition for speaking out, which is an indictable offense.

How is it obstruction, which seems to be the screech dejour?

 

[hadit]

Trump Admits He Revoked Brennan’s Security Clearance Over “Rigged Witch Hunt”
What? You mean Trump took away Brennan's security clearance because the Russia investigation is a witch hunt? Wow, that lines up with the same story Trump told Lester Holt, is the same story he told the Russians, and is the same corroborating story Comey claimed in his testimony. Not that we needed more evidence of obstruction of justice by this criminal, disguised as a president, we just confirmed even more evidence. At this point, obstruction of justice is just a matter of making it a formality. The evidence is not only overwhelming, it is inarguable at this point.

And the majority in Congress? Yea, those criminal cowards who took an oath. Where are they?

When the dust has finally settled, this administration and Congress will go down as the most corrupt this country has ever known.

LOL

Defeating the Progressive Jihad on America is no crime

It is when it involves silencing a witness.

How does revoking a clearance silence a witness?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Trump revoking the security clearance in this case is a political tool to suppress dissent.

It can be indictable in impeachment charges.

What a load of bull shit... Protecting America from ALL ENEMIES foreign and DOMESTIC is his oath.. I for one am proud he is taking his Oath seriously and acting within his constitutionally protected rights as the Chief Executive and dealing with this Anti-American scum.

Brennan is neither an enemy foreign or domestic is one point.

Another is that Trump is punishing the opposition for speaking out, which is an indictable offense.

How is it obstruction, which seems to be the screech dejour?

"screech dejour" I like that!!!

Screeching moonbats.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Having a security clearance is not a constitutional right it's a privilege one that the President no matter who it is has the authority to revoke if they wish to.

Constitutional rights have nothing to do with this thread.

And you see how the far left does not care anything about the Constitution. They only care about doing whatever it takes to get rid of Trump and installing Hilary as president.

But then again the far left has never proved any of their claims..

Negative! Multiple claims have been proven of conspiracy and obstruction. This one with Brennan being the latest. Trump is getting rid of Brennan's security clearance because Brennan is a witness to Trump's proven crimes. Has zero to do with the Constitution.

Interesting claim, that revoking a security clearance prevents Brennan from testifying. Why do you say that?

A security clearance does not give one the right to talk about classified information. Classified is classified, and Brennan would be no more allowed to divulge classified information with the clearance then without.

The only effect this move has is to prevent Brennan from gaining access to further classified information. It does not prevent him from testifying. Thus, claims of obstruction are rather weak.

The issue is Brennan cannot be read in on new Intelligence, and asked his opinion on issues which are classified. It proves, at least to me, that Trump's enemy list and attacks on the Intelligent Agencies is more important to him, than is the safety and security of the United States.

 

[WTP]

Having a security clearance is not a constitutional right it's a privilege one that the President no matter who it is has the authority to revoke if they wish to.

Constitutional rights have nothing to do with this thread.

And you see how the far left does not care anything about the Constitution. They only care about doing whatever it takes to get rid of Trump and installing Hilary as president.

But then again the far left has never proved any of their claims..

Negative! Multiple claims have been proven of conspiracy and obstruction. This one with Brennan being the latest. Trump is getting rid of Brennan's security clearance because Brennan is a witness to Trump's proven crimes. Has zero to do with the Constitution.

Interesting claim, that revoking a security clearance prevents Brennan from testifying. Why do you say that?

A security clearance does not give one the right to talk about classified information. Classified is classified, and Brennan would be no more allowed to divulge classified information with the clearance then without.

The only effect this move has is to prevent Brennan from gaining access to further classified information. It does not prevent him from testifying. Thus, claims of obstruction are rather weak.

No, they are not. For two reasons. One, it prevents him from engaging in furthering the narrative with SC and the investigation in the event they need further verification from Brennan, as it pertains to Russia, and two, it gives Trump an edge in the sphere of public opinion against Brennan as an adequate witness. It's all about discrediting the witness to hurt the prosecution, which is what Nixon did. That is hands down obstruction.

 

[hadit]

Hey, dumbfuck, this has already been established. You are wrong. Grow the fuck up.

Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

A bait and switch article. That's a good one. No where has it been proven Brennan is a national security threat. The only threat, is the fact he's a witness to criminal activity by Trump. The only national security threat is Trump. You got your court cases backwards. Lol! Did I already remind you that you're an idiot? If I didn't,I apologize. I'm doing it now.

It doesn't have to be proven dipshit. Jesus, how old are you, 10?

One could only guess what the hell you are talking about? As for Brennan, no security threat has ever been established. Therefore, this court case and your make believe imagination of Brennan having the same resume, leaves me wondering if you had forgotten your prescription this morning?

Just stop already. No security threat needs be established.

But an obstruction case has.

I have yet to see a cojent attempt to explain how revoking a security clearance silences anyone or amounts to obstruction.

 

[WTP]

Having a security clearance is not a constitutional right it's a privilege one that the President no matter who it is has the authority to revoke if they wish to.

Constitutional rights have nothing to do with this thread.

And you see how the far left does not care anything about the Constitution. They only care about doing whatever it takes to get rid of Trump and installing Hilary as president.

But then again the far left has never proved any of their claims..

Negative! Multiple claims have been proven of conspiracy and obstruction. This one with Brennan being the latest. Trump is getting rid of Brennan's security clearance because Brennan is a witness to Trump's proven crimes. Has zero to do with the Constitution.

Interesting claim, that revoking a security clearance prevents Brennan from testifying. Why do you say that?

A security clearance does not give one the right to talk about classified information. Classified is classified, and Brennan would be no more allowed to divulge classified information with the clearance then without.

The only effect this move has is to prevent Brennan from gaining access to further classified information. It does not prevent him from testifying. Thus, claims of obstruction are rather weak.

The issue is Brennan cannot be read in on new Intelligence, and asked his opinion on issues which are classified. It proves, at least to me, that Trump's enemy list and attacks on the Intelligent Agencies is more important to him, than is the safety and security of the United States.

That's exactly what it says, while simultaneously obstructing this investigation. Trump has proven time and time again, that he is an enemy of the state, and that he is in it for his own enrichment.

 

[hadit]

Having a security clearance is not a constitutional right it's a privilege one that the President no matter who it is has the authority to revoke if they wish to.

Constitutional rights have nothing to do with this thread.

And you see how the far left does not care anything about the Constitution. They only care about doing whatever it takes to get rid of Trump and installing Hilary as president.

But then again the far left has never proved any of their claims..

Negative! Multiple claims have been proven of conspiracy and obstruction. This one with Brennan being the latest. Trump is getting rid of Brennan's security clearance because Brennan is a witness to Trump's proven crimes. Has zero to do with the Constitution.

Interesting claim, that revoking a security clearance prevents Brennan from testifying. Why do you say that?

A security clearance does not give one the right to talk about classified information. Classified is classified, and Brennan would be no more allowed to divulge classified information with the clearance then without.

The only effect this move has is to prevent Brennan from gaining access to further classified information. It does not prevent him from testifying. Thus, claims of obstruction are rather weak.

No, they are not. For two reasons. One, it prevents him from engaging in furthering the narrative with SC and the investigation in the event they need further verification from Brennan, as it pertains to Russia, and two, it gives Trump an edge in the sphere of public opinion against Brennan as an adequate witness. It's all about discrediting the witness to hurt the prosecution, which is what Nixon did. That is hands down obstruction.

Again, revoking the clearance doesn't change what Brennan is allowed to say or not say. All it does is prevent him from gaining access to further classified information.

 

[WTP]

Trump revoking the security clearance in this case is a political tool to suppress dissent.

It can be indictable in impeachment charges.

Please explain how revoking a security clearance prevents Brennan from testifying.

It's not about testifying. I just explained all this.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Trump supporters’ unwarranted attacks on Brennan render them as reprehensible as Trump.

Brennan is a traitor who couldn't get a security clearance until Obama gave it to him.

Are you thinking he worked the first 25 years of his CIA career without a security clearance?

Timeline:
1980 - Brennan joins the CIA's Directorate of Operations as a Career Trainee.
1981 - Joins the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence.
1982-1984 - Political officer at the US Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
1984-1989 - Works in the Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis in the Directorate of Intelligence.
1990-1992 - In charge of terrorism analysis in the Director of Central Intelligence's Counterterrorist Center.
1994-1995 - CIA's daily intelligence briefer at the White House during the administration of President Bill Clinton.
1995-1996 - Executive Assistant to then-CIA Deputy Director George Tenet.
1996-1999 - CIA Chief of Station in Saudi Arabia.
1999-2001 - Chief of Staff to then-CIA Director George Tenet.
March 2001-March 2003 - CIA Deputy Executive Director.
March 12, 2003-December 6, 2004 - Founding director of the CIA Terrorist Threat Integration Center.
October 2004-August 2005 - Interim Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

Joined the DoI when RINO Reagan was in the White House.

 

[WTP]

Constitutional rights have nothing to do with this thread.

And you see how the far left does not care anything about the Constitution. They only care about doing whatever it takes to get rid of Trump and installing Hilary as president.

But then again the far left has never proved any of their claims..

Negative! Multiple claims have been proven of conspiracy and obstruction. This one with Brennan being the latest. Trump is getting rid of Brennan's security clearance because Brennan is a witness to Trump's proven crimes. Has zero to do with the Constitution.

Interesting claim, that revoking a security clearance prevents Brennan from testifying. Why do you say that?

A security clearance does not give one the right to talk about classified information. Classified is classified, and Brennan would be no more allowed to divulge classified information with the clearance then without.

The only effect this move has is to prevent Brennan from gaining access to further classified information. It does not prevent him from testifying. Thus, claims of obstruction are rather weak.

No, they are not. For two reasons. One, it prevents him from engaging in furthering the narrative with SC and the investigation in the event they need further verification from Brennan, as it pertains to Russia, and two, it gives Trump an edge in the sphere of public opinion against Brennan as an adequate witness. It's all about discrediting the witness to hurt the prosecution, which is what Nixon did. That is hands down obstruction.

Again, revoking the clearance doesn't change what Brennan is allowed to say or not say. All it does is prevent him from gaining access to further classified information.

Which will spoliate the investigation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

hadit will not read #110, because it corrects his thinking so well.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Yes, Brennan can still say whatever he wants, and the bilious brat in the WH can get away with using his official authority for personal reasons.

 

[WTP]

A bait and switch article. That's a good one. No where has it been proven Brennan is a national security threat. The only threat, is the fact he's a witness to criminal activity by Trump. The only national security threat is Trump. You got your court cases backwards. Lol! Did I already remind you that you're an idiot? If I didn't,I apologize. I'm doing it now.

It doesn't have to be proven dipshit. Jesus, how old are you, 10?

One could only guess what the hell you are talking about? As for Brennan, no security threat has ever been established. Therefore, this court case and your make believe imagination of Brennan having the same resume, leaves me wondering if you had forgotten your prescription this morning?

Just stop already. No security threat needs be established.

But an obstruction case has.

I have yet to see a cojent attempt to explain how revoking a security clearance silences anyone or amounts to obstruction.

Silencing or not silencing has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Trump obstructing justice. In Trump's mind, by getting rid of Brennan's clearance, that just means that Brennan's testimony is tainted. Remember what Trump said. He took his clearance away because of the "witch hunt". That statement goes straight to motive, which is what Mueller is looking for. And Trump just put that nugget right in Mueller's lap. That alone is obstruction. Just read the statute. It's all about the motives by the one's who are obstructing. That is how you conclude obstruction.