• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Panetta: Trump may not have authority to revoke Brennan's security clearance

eohrnberger said:
"the multimedia echo chamber loves speculation just as much as they love spin, innuendo and hyperbole"

Especially if it's anti-Trump, you know, their self appointed 'mission' and all.
Click to expand...

Anti-#45 is Pro-America. USA — USA— USA
 
Kal'Stang said:
Since your article doesn't state how the order would prevent the President from revoking a security clearance perhaps you can show me where in the EO it prevents him from doing so? EXECUTIVE ORDER #12968
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer & don't have the time or interest to get into that. This is Short Attention Span Theater, not Yale Law School.
 
Linc said:
Is the President above the Law? Yes of No
Click to expand...

Did I say that? Imply it? Your question is irrelevant. All that I did was ask where in the EO that was referenced by Panetta does it prevent the President from removing someones clearance. You know, since the article provided did not explain it.
 
JacksinPA said:
I'm not a lawyer & don't have the time or interest to get into that. This is Short Attention Span Theater, not Yale Law School.
Click to expand...

No, this is a political debate site. If you're looking for "Short Attention Span Theater" then perhaps you should go watch commercials. And if you don't have any interest then why post on this? That's seems to be contradictory.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
This is the kind of GOTCHA technicality that drives people nuts, that informs us that our leaders are crap. Let us remember too that security clearances have been a long running cluster****, and as well that Trump is looking to massively reform and hopefully improve the process:

https://federalnewsradio.com/reorga...order-to-transfer-security-clearance-program/
Click to expand...

Trump appointed a confessed Russian stooge to the NSC and left him there for 18 days after he was informed that he was compromised. Trump needs his clearances revoked.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, this is a political debate site. If you're looking for "Short Attention Span Theater" then perhaps you should go watch commercials. And if you don't have any interest then why post on this? That's seems to be contradictory.
Click to expand...

To repeat, I'm not a lawyer & don't have the time or interest to dig into that EO. I'm not familiar with them & therefore could only offer uneducated opinions about it. Waste of my time.
 
iguanaman said:
Trump appointed a confessed Russian stooge to the NSC and left him there for 18 days after he was informed that he was compromised. Trump needs his clearances revoked.
Click to expand...

only 18 days? :)
 
Kal'Stang said:
But I'd be willing to bet that you believe Panetta. ;)
Click to expand...

He might be right that the I's were not dotted and the T's not crossed but for him to be out there "This might be an illegal act" is over the top and he knows it I am sure. I spent 5.5 years on Monterey and came to have high regard for Panetta, almost the highest next to a very few such as Robert Gates. He is pissing it away.
 
iguanaman said:
Trump appointed a confessed Russian stooge to the NSC and left him there for 18 days after he was informed that he was compromised. Trump needs his clearances revoked.
Click to expand...

It does not work that way, the only option open is to remove Trump from office.

As you should know, which makes this post so very sad.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Did I say that? Imply it? Your question is irrelevant. All that I did was ask where in the EO that was referenced by Panetta does it prevent the President from removing someones clearance. You know, since the article provided did not explain it.
Click to expand...

My Question about whether #45 is above the law or not is the only one we have right now.

The fact that you keep dodging it says everything we need to know about you.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, this is a political debate site. If you're looking for "Short Attention Span Theater" then perhaps you should go watch commercials. And if you don't have any interest then why post on this? That's seems to be contradictory.
Click to expand...

If you say this is a Political Debate Site, start debating the ISSUES, instead of Slamming Individual Posters as you just did.
 
Linc said:
My Question about whether #45 is above the law or not is the only one we have right now.

The fact that you keep dodging it says everything we need to know about you.
Click to expand...

Your question is irrelevant. And no, I asked a question that is pertinent to the OP. That you think your question should supersede the OP is interesting though.
 
Linc said:
If you say this is a Political Debate Site, start debating the ISSUES, instead of Slamming Individual Posters as you just did.
Click to expand...

Can't debate the OP because all there is in it is a claim without anything to support it. Which is why I was trying to get more info. Info which the OP doesn't even know and apparently doesn't even want to know.

And if you think that was a slam then I don't know what to tell you. :shrug:
 
JacksinPA said:
http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-...-leon-panetta-trump-may-not-have-authority-to

Former CIA director Leon Panetta on Sunday suggested that President Trump might not have had the authority to revoke ex-CIA director John Brennan’s security clearance.

Panetta, appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” pointed to Executive Order 12968, an order signed by President Clinton and updated by President George W. Bush.

Panetta added that Trump is required to abide by the executive order “unless he’s prepared to change it.”

“This president is not above the law,” Panetta said.
===================================
More chaos at the WH?
Click to expand...

Should we assume you bolded that quote because it demonstrates the irrelevance of Panetta's opinion?

EOs aren't law. The 'standard' process for issuing and overturning EOs is itself just a series of EOs.

A sitting President can discontinue any EO (including those of his/her predecessors) by an act as simple as ceasing to abide/comply with it.
 
JacksinPA said:
I believe Panetta on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Panetta. He has a law degree & an outstanding C.V. I have neither.
Click to expand...

Not surprised. Why do you believe people just because they have a degree? Are such people incapable of lying to push agenda's? That's naive if you think that. Trump alone proves that. Don't you think that maybe you should at least try to verify anything? Or is this really just because its Trump?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom