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

OscarLevant said:

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.

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?

Click to expand...

BS. You’ve made the claim of obstruction. I asked which statute. Since then you’ve done nothing but obfuscate with this psychotic BS I’ve made a declaration. The only declaration I’ve made is your posts are empty. You want evidence for that declaration? Read your own damn empty posts.

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

Click to expand...

Say something original and smart for once. Using the played out modus operandi of adding Trump’s name to word, like “trick” is child’s play. And doesn’t deflect from the fact you presently don’t have one damn clue as to whether Trump obstructed ANY of the statutes.

In the annals of discussing Trump's obstruction on this forum, how many have bothered to dig into the arcane code

Click to expand...

This stupid argument again? So, because other people have spoken in an uninformed manner then you justifiably can? How the hell does that make sense? It doesn’t.

And the statutes aren’t arcane. They aren’t secretive. You can find all six of em by use of a Google search.

I called you on it and now you are so infected with the persona of Trump you are acting like him

Click to expand...

Oh, so your inability to inform yourself on the subject matter means I’m “infected” with the “persona is Trump”? Ok. That logic doesn’t make sense but if you insist. You are still making an uninformed opinion, indeed you aren’t even making an educated guess, and I, someone who hates Trump, take on his persona. I got the better deal. Better to take on his persona than have uninformed opinions, like yourself.

Funny thing, tons of people, whose credibility is far above mine, are talking about it,

Click to expand...

So the hell what? That’s just talk, nothing else.

None of your cute accusations of Trumpian conduct, or the other nonsense drivel, changes the fact you don’t have a damn clue what you are discussing. You had no idea there were 6 obstruction statutes. You have not apparently read them, which means you have no idea whether he’s violated any of them. You’ve still not cited to any of the statutes and have fantastically, unequivocally, resorted to hypocrisy as you tell others to look research by use of Google but do not follow your own advice.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NotreDame said:

BS. You’ve made the claim of obstruction. I asked which statute. Since then you’ve done nothing but obfuscate with this psychotic BS I’ve made a declaration. The only declaration I’ve made is your posts are empty. You want evidence for that declaration? Read your own damn empty posts.



Say something original and smart for once. Using the played out modus operandi of adding Trump’s name to word, like “trick” is child’s play. And doesn’t deflect from the fact you presently don’t have one damn clue as to whether Trump obstructed ANY of the statutes.



This stupid argument again? So, because other people have spoken in an uninformed manner then you justifiably can? How the hell does that make sense? It doesn’t.

And the statutes aren’t arcane. They aren’t secretive. You can find all six of em by use of a Google search.



Oh, so your inability to inform yourself on the subject matter means I’m “infected” with the “persona is Trump”? Ok. That logic doesn’t make sense but if you insist. You are still making an uninformed opinion, indeed you aren’t even making an educated guess, and I, someone who hates Trump, take on his persona. I got the better deal. Better to take on his persona than have uninformed opinions, like yourself.



So the hell what? That’s just talk, nothing else.

None of your cute accusations of Trumpian conduct, or the other nonsense drivel, changes the fact you don’t have a damn clue what you are discussing. You had no idea there were 6 obstruction statutes. You have not apparently read them, which means you have no idea whether he’s violated any of them. You’ve still not cited to any of the statutes and have fantastically, unequivocally, resorted to hypocrisy as you tell others to look research by use of Google but do not follow your own advice.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

You have this bizarre idea that arguing about Obstruction in a general sense, requires referring to codes.

You would, therefore, have to apply that standard to all mentions of all crimes, which statutes apply, a standard which no one ever particularly,
in general, adheres to, but of course, you, for some bizarre reason, think it's necessary in this instance and the ridiculous assertion that refusing to comply with your nonsensical request constitutions "obfuscation".

that's absurd. Get off your high horse and get a grip.

I'm done with your stupidity. Later.

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...

It is now acknowledged by Trump himself, in his own words, that he's setting fire to security clearances of people who criticized him.

OscarLevant said:

You have this bizarre idea that arguing about Obstruction in a general sense, requires referring to codes.

You would, therefore, have to apply that standard to all mentions of all crimes, which statutes apply, a standard which no one ever particularly,
in general, adheres to, but of course, you, for some bizarre reason, think it's necessary in this instance and the ridiculous assertion that refusing to comply with your nonsensical request constitutions "obfuscation".

that's absurd. Get off your high horse and get a grip.

I'm done with your stupidity. Later.

Click to expand...

You have this bizarre idea that arguing about Obstruction in a general sense, requires referring to codes.

Click to expand...

Obstruction of justice in a general sense? That does not make any sense. What "sense" of obstruction of justice are you referencing? Your own personal "sense"? What is the substance of this "general sense" of "obstruction of justice"? What is the source?

You would, therefore, have to apply that standard to all mentions of all crimes

Click to expand...

Do you know the depth of irrationality attached to that statement? Crimes are not "in a general sense" but are damn specific as they are spelled out by statute. To accuse someone of committing a crime is to accuse them of violated a specific statute, or statutes, and as a result, there is not any of this rubbish of discussing a commission of a crime "in a general sense."

, a standard which no one ever particularly, in general, adheres to, but of course, you

Click to expand...

What are you, a freaking god? You are hardly in a rational position to know that "no one ever" adheres to the sane notion of developing an informed opinion someone has committed a crime before venturing that opinion. So, you can dispense with the speculation.

Second, this is the same pathetic reasoning invoked previously. You seem to think your lack of an informed opinion, and venturing that opinion, is acceptable because everybody else is doing it. That is a poor argument. How exactly does X number of people making an uninformed argument justify or excuse making an uninformed argument? It doesn't.

I'm done with your stupidity.

Click to expand...

Let's look at the facts in evaluating the "stupidity" allegation. The facts show, between the two of us, it is not applicable to me.

1. You claimed Trump's revocation of Brennan's security clearance could be obstruction of justice.
2. Obstruction of justice is defined by 6 criminal statutes.
3. You provided no elucidation which, of the 6, criminal statutes are applicable.
4. There has been no analysis or argument even one of them is applicable.
5. So, your claim has been unsupported by anything tangible, factual, such as the text of any of the 6 statutes.
6. Your claim is unsupported by any analysis of the facts to the statute or statutes.
7. You have admonished others to do research on Google to understand why something is the case, or how something would work, or is important.
8. Hypocritically, however, while telling others to investigate by a search on Google, you cannot follow your own advice and actually look up any of the 6 statutes to know whether any of them are applicable.
9. The facts suggest, strongly, you are making an uninformed opinion about Trump committing obstruction of justice by revoking Brennan's security clearance.
10. Then you resort to some pretty illogical reasoning to justify your uninformed opinion and unsubstantiated claim, essentially everyone else is doing it.

Yeah, these facts clearly show who is resorting to "stupidity." Making uninformed claims is not smart. Making unsubstantiated claims is not smart. Failing to substantiate one's claim is not smart.