• 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!

Is removing Brennan's security clearance an obstruction of justice?

OscarLevant said:
If you believe my argument is weak or wrong give some substance as to why but merely asserting it is nothing more than a vacuous claim that's why I said your argument is incompetent. Besides, your incessant referencing to TDS, which falls under the larger debate technique called posturing is incompetent from the get-go.

Substance please, and stay on point Don't Drift or offer red herrings or straw man arguments

Try again
Click to expand...

You are the one making the assertion but you are not supporting it with anything that is remotely credible.
Taking away someone's clearance who is no longer an employee does in no way affect the investigation.

nor does it get in the way of the investigation. What it does mean is that he no longer qualified to hold a position that
would require access to classified data.

it also means he can't flaunt it as some kind of authority in discussions.

TDS is very much a real thing. It affect people like you that can't handle that trump won the election fair and square.
remember there is no evidence of voter fraud or voter tampering. It prevents them from making any kind of logical or reasoned
discussion when it comes to Trump.

You should do well to remember your last statement and stop projecting your lack of substance onto other people.
 
OscarLevant said:
If you believe my argument is weak or wrong give some substance as to why but merely asserting it is nothing more than a vacuous claim that's why I said your argument is incompetent. Besides, your incessant referencing to TDS, which falls under the larger debate technique called posturing is incompetent from the get-go.

Substance please, and stay on point Don't Drift or offer red herrings or straw man arguments

Try again
Click to expand...

While you are on the subject of substance, why don't you provide some yourself? You know, like the applicable federal obstruction of justice statute(s) he may have violated. Some argument as to how the facts meet each element of the statutory offense. You know, substance.
 
NotreDame said:
While you are on the subject of substance, why don't you provide some yourself? You know, like the applicable federal obstruction of justice statute(s) he may have violated. Some argument as to how the facts meet each element of the statutory offense. You know, substance.
Click to expand...

There may be debate as to whether Trump committed obstruction of justice but there is no need to refer to the citations it's a well-established law. If we were talking about some more obscure law then I would say yes I'll provide the citation. Sorry there's no need for that look it up yourself if you have any doubts.

I gave my reasons why I believe he obstructed Justice. It may or may not hold up to some lawyerly standard but I'm not a lawyer I'm just a guy on the internet giving my opinion, if you want to a lawerly dissertation call one or talk to a law student who can finesse it for you. When I ask you for substance I'm just trying to get something more of substance from you than vacuous declarations I'm not pinning you down for some law school treatise.
 
OscarLevant said:
I say it is, because Brennan and other security officials on the enemies list need to testify in the Russian investigation it could be construed as an obstruction of justice to remove their security clearances.
Click to expand...

Why do they need security clearance to testify?
 
OscarLevant said:
There may be debate as to whether Trump committed obstruction of justice but there is no need to refer to the citations it's a well-established law. If we were talking about some more obscure law then I would say yes I'll provide the citation. Sorry there's no need for that look it up yourself if you have any doubts.

I gave my reasons why I believe he obstructed Justice. It may or may not hold up to some lawyerly standard but I'm not a lawyer I'm just a guy on the internet giving my opinion, if you want to a lawerly dissertation call one or talk to a law student who can finesse it for you. When I ask you for substance I'm just trying to get something more of substance from you than vacuous declarations I'm not pinning you down for some law school treatise.
Click to expand...

Lol. This is great obfuscation.

There are 6 statutes related to obstruction. It’s possible none are applicable. Yes, obstruction is “well established” because there are 6 statutes dealing with the crime. What’s not established is whether revoking Brennen’s security clearance violates any of them.

Your claim lacks ANY substance. If someone is going to allege a specific crime has been committed, then rationally some analysis of the law is required and expected.

It may or may not hold up to some lawyerly standard but I'm not a lawyer I'm just a guy on the internet giving my opinion
Click to expand...

So, in the context of accusing someone of committing a crime, this excuses you from actually citing to the law and making an argument of how the person violated the statute? No way. You do not have to be a lawyer to march the facts to the statutory elements and make an argument as to how each fact supports the elements.

You just want to make baseless accusations Trump committed a crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OscarLevant said:
I say it is, because Brennan and other security officials on the enemies list need to testify in the Russian investigation it could be construed as an obstruction of justice to remove their security clearances.
Click to expand...

Trump himself said the reason he took Brennan's security clearance away was because of the Russia investigation. His continued intimidation and meddling in the investigation has all the earmarks of obstruction.


"....It was clear from the start that Trump’s move was about punishing his critics and threatening other intelligence officials to watch what they say. But Trump’s comments to the Journal underscore that the specific goal was undermining the Russia probe. In the Post, Sargent argued that the aim was to further discredit the special counsel’s investigation, and convince his base that he’s taking strong action against the “deep state.” (Notably, the announcement came as the Mueller team’s first case against Paul Manafort went to the jury.)

Trump — who plainly feels constrained from trying to remove Mueller — cannot do anything about the Mueller investigation except tweet wildly about it and threaten not to sit for an interview. So instead, he is striking a blow against his deep-state enemies behind the investigation, and hoping his base sees him as taking decisive action. That’s the story this is meant to tell.​

Some suggested Trump might have grander, and more nefarious ambitions: he could be testing the waters on stripping Mueller of his security clearance..."

Trump Admits He Revoked Brennan Clearance Over Mueller Probe​


"Stripping Mueller of his security clearance"....now that would be an obstruction of justice without a doubt.



Discrediting the investigators is a lesson Trump must've learned during the OJ murder trial. So how'd ya'll feel about OJ getting away with double homicide because of Mark Furman?
 
NotreDame said:
Lol. This is great obfuscation.

There are 6 statutes related to obstruction. It’s possible none are applicable. Yes, obstruction is “well established” because there are 6 statutes dealing with the crime. What’s not established is whether revoking Brennen’s security clearance violates any of them.

Your claim lacks ANY substance. If someone is going to allege a specific crime has been committed, then rationally some analysis of the law is required and expected.



So, in the context of accusing someone of committing a crime, this excuses you from actually citing to the law and making an argument of how the person violated the statute? No way. You do not have to be a lawyer to march the facts to the statutory elements and make an argument as to how each fact supports the elements.

You just want to make baseless accusations Trump committed a crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


For someone who provides no substance in your rebuttals, your not one to talk.

Accusing Trump of obstruction of justice is not a baseless accusation. Even to assert it is baseless is rather bizarre, given the publicly available evidence that tends to reveal he is obstructing justice. As to whether it rises to a level that is prosecutable, we'll just have to wait for Mueller to finish his investigation. .
 
OscarLevant said:
For someone who provides no substance in your rebuttals, your not one to talk.

Accusing Trump of obstruction of justice is not a baseless accusation. Even to assert it is baseless is rather bizarre, given the publicly available evidence that tends to reveal he is obstructing justice. As to whether it rises to a level that is prosecutable, we'll just have to wait for Mueller to finish his investigation. .
Click to expand...

I can’t provide substantive rebuttals to your argument because your argument lacks any substance to address. That’s the problem.

Even to assert it is baseless is rather bizarre, given the publicly available evidence that tends to reveal he is obstructing justice.
Click to expand...

We are discussing the act of revoking Brennan’s security clearance as an act of obstructing justice. At this time, given the lack of citation to any of the 6 obstruction of justice statutes, any argument as to how the act of revoking Brennan’s security clearance meets the statutory elements of any of them, it is not bizarre to say, at this time, your allegation is “baseless.”

Make a substantive argument how Trump’s act of revoking Brennan’s security clearance violates one of the obstruction of justice statutes, and then I can give you a substantive rebuttal.

But it’s asinine to expect substantive rebuttals to your non-substantive argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
I can’t provide substantive rebuttals to your argument because your argument lacks any substance to address.
Click to expand...


Oh I'm sure you can rationalize your lack of substance Every Witch Way.

In the news and in the media they've been talking about obstruction of justice for about 2 years now and no one on average has mentioned in the detail you seem to require and no one seems to be complaining about it not even you except when I am criticizing your lack of substance, as far as I can tell.

Sorry you're just full of it, and though that characterization doesn't rise to the ridiculous scholarly standard you suddenly seem to require, I think the descriptor is
appropriate.
 
OscarLevant said:
Oh I'm sure you can rationalize your lack of substance Every Witch Way.

In the news and in the media they've been talking about obstruction of justice for about 2 years now and no one on average has mentioned in the detail you seem to require and no one seems to be complaining about it not even you except when I am criticizing your lack of substance, as far as I can tell.

Sorry you're just full of it, and though that characterization doesn't rise to the ridiculous scholarly standard you suddenly seem to require, I think the descriptor is
appropriate.
Click to expand...

Rationalize? Have you read your own posts? I should say have you read the lack of substance in them? Well, in other words, when you read your posts don’t you notice the vast empty space in them?

This isn’t rationalizing, this is your posts lack ANY substance to support your claim.

In the news and in the media they've been talking about obstruction of justice for about 2 years now and no one on average has mentioned in the detail you seem to require
Click to expand...

Their lack of substance doesn’t excuse your lack of substance. The reasoning of two wrongs make a right is rationalizing. Just because the media is doing doesn’t mean it’s right or should followed. If the media jumped in the river with an anvil tied to their ankle are you gonna follow them, justifying such a decision and conduct on the fact the media did it?

And the fact the media has been inundated with “taking about obstruction” doesn’t mean Trump did obstruct justice, and it is certainly doesn’t demonstrate Trump obstructed by revoking Brennan’s security clearance. It’s just TALK.

And the media could be wrong if they claimed Trump obstructed justice.

And I have seen a few newscasts where the guests in fact discussed specifically one of the 6 obstruction statutes they believe Trump violated.

no one seems to be complaining about it
Click to expand...

A lack of complaints about the absence of substance doesn’t justify the lack of substance and neither does mean substance isn’t lacking. That is some porous logic.

Sorry you're just full of it
Click to expand...

I’m full of something, it’s just not a lack of substance, but a healthy dose of critical thought, enough to realize you’ve made no substantive argument to supper your allegation Trump obstructed justice by revoking Brennan’s security clearance. I’m full of your poor excuses to justify your unwillingness to make a substantive argument.

You are certainly full of nothing, no substantive argument, no sound justifications to justify your decision not to make a substantive argument, just baseless allegation Trump obstructed justice by revoking Brennan’s security clearance.

It’s pathetic you do not even know which statute he may have violated, which also necessarily means you really do not know if his act violated any of the obstruction statutes. Despite not knowing which of the obstruction statutes, of any, his act violated, you allege he violated at least one of em! That is comical.

He is a parallel to your argument.

1. Johnny committed a crime.
2. What crime?
3. He committed one, its all over the news.
4. Okay, which crime?
5 Damn it are you listening? The media said he committed a crime. They didn’t go into details and nobody has complained about a lack of details.
6. Okay, but don’t you think some of the details matter? Without those details how do we know he committed a crime.
7. Because of the media, damn it, they been talking about it. And what in the hell is up with your obsession with details? No one in the media is obsessed with the details. In fact, if the media stepped in front of a train blindfolded then I would as well!
8. Ok. Good to know facts, details, information, is unnecessary for you, because the media was remised to ignore them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OscarLevant said:
I say it is, because Brennan and other security officials on the enemies list need to testify in the Russian investigation it could be construed as an obstruction of justice to remove their security clearances.
Click to expand...

No. There were cases in the past that when to court about how Communists claimed their security clearances couldn't be removed for their ideology and the Communists lost. The President has free reign when it comes to security clearances.
 
Worth remembering that in the spirit of Trump attracting the best (re worst) people, it is Rand Paul, the idiot of the Senate that brought Trump this idea of dealing with enemies via security clearances. Talk about bookends of ineptitude. Trump has Nunez in the House and Paul in the Senate. Perfect matches for Trump's cavalcade of fools.
 
OscarLevant said:
When testifying and Consulting with existing security Personnel they often have to go back to the agency and review files. A revocation would disallow this and as such it could be construed as an obstruction of justice when including it along with many other things to paint an overall picture, a pattern
Click to expand...

No. Because the Justice dept has already said with the Horowitz report patterns and questionable decisions are not to be considered evidence of corrupt intent.
 
Athanasius68 said:
No. Because the Justice dept has already said with the Horowitz report patterns and questionable decisions are not to be considered evidence of corrupt intent.
Click to expand...

Not alone but with a host of other things it might fit into larger mosaic which paints a clear picture of corrupt intent
 
OscarLevant said:
Not alone but with a host of other things it might fit into larger mosaic which paints a clear picture of corrupt intent
Click to expand...

Nope. The Justice Dept. accepted the Horowitz report, which agreed that there could have been a 'mosaic' of 'corrupt intent' by Strzok & Co.
They said it didnt matter, because their decisions were legal and justifiable on its own terms.
This is true for the decisions Trump has made as well.

Besides-- the investigation continues. Nothing was obstructed.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Nope. The Justice Dept. accepted the Horowitz report, which agreed that there could have been a 'mosaic' of 'corrupt intent' by Strzok & Co.
They said it didnt matter, because their decisions were legal and justifiable on its own terms.
This is true for the decisions Trump has made as well.

Besides-- the investigation continues. Nothing was obstructed.
Click to expand...

Ask Oscar which obstruction of justice statute he believes Trump may have violated. He couldn’t point to any specific one, or more, of the 6 of them.

It’s entertaining to read someone could’ve violated any one of the 6 without even knowing which one, necessarily implying he doesn’t really know at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
Ask Oscar which obstruction of justice statute he believes Trump may have violated. He couldn’t point to any specific one, or more, of the 6 of them.

It’s entertaining to read someone could’ve violated any one of the 6 without even knowing which one, necessarily implying he doesn’t really know at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I didn't say I couldn't find which obstruction-of-justice code, who has ever bothered with that? You're making a big thing out of nothing. I'm just saying obstruction of justice in general and I don't know it for a fact, only a jury knows and only if there is an indictment. in the meantime it's all supposition , armchair debating and here you are pinning me down to some law school standard as if that means something or in your furtive imagination you think you're scoring brownie points in this debate . I'll let Mueller decide whether he has a case there or not.
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
Nope. The Justice Dept. accepted the Horowitz report, which agreed that there could have been a 'mosaic' of 'corrupt intent' by Strzok & Co.
They said it didnt matter, because their decisions were legal and justifiable on its own terms.
This is true for the decisions Trump has made as well.

Besides-- the investigation continues. Nothing was obstructed.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. We shall see what Mueller does. One thing is certain Muller has been asking a lot of questions to a lot of people about it
 
OscarLevant said:
I'm just saying obstruction of justice in general and I don't know it for a fact, only a jury knows and only if there is an indictment. in the meantime it's all supposition , armchair debating and here you are pinning me down to some law school standard as if that means something or in your furtive imagination you think you're scoring brownie points in this debate . I'll let Mueller decide whether he has a case there or not.
Click to expand...

Somewhat off topic here, but the above is kind of what Giuliani meant when he said "The truth is not truth."
 
OscarLevant said:
I say it is, because Brennan and other security officials on the enemies list need to testify in the Russian investigation it could be construed as an obstruction of justice to remove their security clearances.
Click to expand...
How does removing his security clearance prevent him from testifying?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
How does removing his security clearance prevent him from testifying?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There's a lot of information on the internet why they do this just Google it okay?.
Natural Curiosity leads me to the answers to these questions why aren't you curious?

Former agents and chiefs often review files before testifying, so they can do a better job. I didn't say it would prevent them.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
I say it is, because Brennan and other security officials on the enemies list need to testify in the Russian investigation it could be construed as an obstruction of justice to remove their security clearances.
Click to expand...

As is any form of witness tampering or intimidation.
 
OscarLevant said:
I didn't say I couldn't find which obstruction-of-justice code, who has ever bothered with that? You're making a big thing out of nothing. I'm just saying obstruction of justice in general and I don't know it for a fact, only a jury knows and only if there is an indictment. in the meantime it's all supposition , armchair debating and here you are pinning me down to some law school standard as if that means something or in your furtive imagination you think you're scoring brownie points in this debate . I'll let Mueller decide whether he has a case there or not.
Click to expand...

“Armchair debating”? “Some law school standard”? Spare mere your unadulterated nonsense.

It’s not too much to ask or expect that people know what in the hell they are talking about. Neither is is damn irrational for people to have some knowledge of the subject matter they are discussing. Neither is “armchair debating” or “some law school standards,” but both are damn common sense. You aren’t making the bare minimum of an educated guess.

Your porous justification for alleging there “could be” obstruction is the comedic reasoning the media is discussing there could be obstruction. You double down on the reasoning comedy of errors of justifying a lack of seeking some knowledge on the subject matter so as to make an informed opinion by stating the media hasn’t gone to the point of discussing which statute. It never seemed to appear to you that the media was making as much of an uninformed and uneducated guess as you.

Your hypocrisy is astounding, as you admonish people to use Google to look things up and you cannot do the same. You admonish posters to ask questions and look for answers through Google, while simultaneously failing to use Google to look up any of the obstruction of justice statutes.

At the very least you could look at the statutes by a Google search and, based on the info you have, make an informed opinion as to which statute is applicable. Even if your wrong at least the opinion is informed.

At this point, you have no damn idea whether there “could be” obstruction on the basis of these facts because you have not read or cited to any of the statutes to determine whether the facts fit any of them.

This isn’t about “brownie points.” This is about you making some damn sense for once in this thread, to shed your hypocrisy of not looking this up on Google as you deride others for failing to do the same, and cease with the pathetic argument that because the media is doing it, then it makes sense you can as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
“Armchair debating”? “Some law school standard”? Spare mere your unadulterated nonsense.

It’s not too much to ask or expect that people know what in the hell they are talking about. Neither is is damn irrational for people to have some knowledge of the subject matter they are discussing. Neither is “armchair debating” or “some law school standards,” but both are damn common sense. You aren’t making the bare minimum of an educated guess.

Your porous justification for alleging there “could be” obstruction is the comedic reasoning the media is discussing there could be obstruction. You double down on the reasoning comedy of errors of justifying a lack of seeking some knowledge on the subject matter so as to make an informed opinion by stating the media hasn’t gone to the point of discussing which statute. It never seemed to appear to you that the media was making as much of an uninformed and uneducated guess as you.

Your hypocrisy is astounding, as you admonish people to use Google to look things up and you cannot do the same. You admonish posters to ask questions and look for answers through Google, while simultaneously failing to use Google to look up any of the obstruction of justice statutes.

At the very least you could look at the statutes by a Google search and, based on the info you have, make an informed opinion as to which statute is applicable. Even if your wrong at least the opinion is informed.

At this point, you have no damn idea whether there “could be” obstruction on the basis of these facts because you have not read or cited to any of the statutes to determine whether the facts fit any of them.

This isn’t about “brownie points.” This is about you making some damn sense for once in this thread, to shed your hypocrisy of not looking this up on Google as you deride others for failing to do the same, and cease with the pathetic argument that because the media is doing it, then it makes sense you can as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


You seem to have forgotten. It was you who were dishing out vacuous declarations. I merely asked you to put some meat on it. Was that too much to ask?

You then pulled a Trumpian trick and accused me of the very thing you were guilty of.

In the annals of discussing Trump's obstruction on this forum, how many have bothered to dig into the arcane code and live up to a standard which you seem to be only applying to me ( I suspect because you can't handle being accused of dishing out vacuous declarations, and you've decided to emulate your master) hmmm ?

I can think of very few, if any. I talked about Obstruction in the general sense, the norm for internet forums, I'll leave it to the prosecutors to hash out the code violations, and you can't even do better than a vacuous declaration and I called you on it and now you are so infected with the persona of Trump you are acting like him. I didn't ask you to provide codes, or use google, I merely asked for more substance than a vacuous declaration in your rebuttal. You couldn't do it, and you then tried to turn the table on me by accusing me of the things you are guilty of in pure Trumpian fashion.

Now then, after all this back and forth, you FINALLY offered some more substance on my opinion of obstruction of justice.

Why didn't you do that in the first place? My reply is that we will just have to disagree. I stand by my initial comment. Funny thing, tons of people, whose credibility is far above mine, are talking about it, writing books about it, but in all that smoke, I suppose the laws of physics have been rewritten, smoke without fire, that's interesting. It's possible, and if it were Bob Dole, I'd say sure, but not likely when it comes to Trump.

Nice try, no Trumpy bear.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom