The traitor occupying the WH and what he deserves.... now more than ever
"Trump's claims of 'no collusion' are hogwash. Trump clearly has become more desperate to protect himself and those close to him which is why he made the politically motivated decision to revoke my security clearance....I've seen this type of behavior on the part of foreign tyrants and despots. I just never ever thought I'd see it in the United States. " John Brennan yesterday.
"The message this sends to the intelligence community is don't tell the president anything he doesn't want to hear." - Andrea Mitchell, on Morning Joe' today
"I call it the rigged witch hunt.... it's a sham and these people led it. So something had to be done." The Traitor -in -chief, quoted in WSJ
"I've sensed in the last week or two a kind of quickening or panic on the part of the president and the people around him about the way the walls are closing in. So this has the feel of an act of desperation, particularly when you see how transparent it is." - Former Acting CIA Director John McLoughlin
As the news of the Traitor Trump revoking the security clearance of former CIA head John Brennan broke yesterday, the mainstream media again delivered interpretations based more on superficial takes than any deep politics insight. For example, that the move was a blatant distraction coming as it has after a week the maggot-ridden White House has been rocked by the Manafort trial (where Trump's former campaign manager could face life in the slammer for banking and tax fraud), and by allegations of using the N-word from former aide Omarosa Manigault Newman.
Brennan's use of the T word was also given as a reason for Trump's "payback" e.g.
"Trump's press conference was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin."
But the more serious and sober take is that the Traitor filth desecrating the White House by virtue of his illegitimate occupation has endangered U.S. security - which I will get to in a bit.
Reading a prepared statement in the White House briefing room, the inbred press propagandist and liar, Huckleberry Sanders, railed against Brennan. She claimed “he has leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive info to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations, wild outbursts on internet and television about this administration”
In other words, cutting all the fulsome crap, Mr. Brennan just issued an honest assessment of the dipshit poseur we have fouling the White House. A pretender, grifter and conspirator with a foreign adversary who ought to have been hung by the neck long ago.
Sanders also said Brennan’s “lying and recent conduct, characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary, is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation’s most closely held secrets”. Sounds to me like she's talking about her master Dotard -who spills state secrets to foreign adversaries like he spills bullshit from his Twitter account. (Such as early last year when he met privately in the Oval Office with Sergey Lavrov and Sergey Kislyak and raised the hackles of U.S. security officials with what he voluntarily shared with the Russians NO, you can't make this shit up!)
On Twitter, Brennan responded by saying: “This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech and punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out. My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent.”
He added in an MSNBC interview: “This is not going to deter me at all. I am still going to speak out.” He described it as an effort “to cow individuals inside and outside the US government” and compared it to behavior from “foreign tyrants and despots”. (See top quote)
In other words, Brennan will not stand idly by while a traitor tries to strip away his first amendment rights. This brings us to the more critical issue, that the revocation is hurting Brennan and removing a "courtesy" as opposed to endangering our country.
As former Bush security official Fran Townsend explained it this morning on CBS:
"Many of us, former security officials, maintain our security clearances because we volunteer our time back to the government. This is not a professional courtesy as the White House has suggested. We do this out of a sense of continuing public service. So the notion that you're going to pull somebody's clearance because you don't like what they say is deeply disturbing and very offensive, frankly."
An even more serious perspective was noted on 'All In' last night by former deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes. He emphasized that John Brennan was the "point person" for the take down of Osama Bin Laden back in May, 2011. If anyone then had the right - and indeed obligation - to enumerate the current occupant's multiple failures to discharge the duties attendant on a solemn office, it was John Brennan. He also, more than anyone else, has earned the right to declare how all Americans need to take stock of what is happening right now in our government, and how abnormal, irresponsible and dangerous these actions are.
Yes, Trump is acting under Article II powers (under the assumption of being a legitimate president - which he is not), but the reasons given for Brennan's revocation fall nowhere in the document criteria for such action. (There are 13 stated reasons for revoking a security clearance in the 26-page Executive Directive governing standards for classification and security clearances, as well as revoking them. Not one of them matches anything close to what Sanders provided in the July 26 (dated) WH statement.)
For many of us who've been engaged in deep politics research it is self-evident our government is being subverted from within by a literal Manchurian candidate. This isn't hysterical, nor is it "hype". It is as factual and real as a heart attack. We gloss over it or dismiss it at our peril. What is the nature of that peril? As former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes set it out, regarding John Brennan's import:
"John Brennan was the point person in the Obama White House on the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. He knows a lot more about defending our nation than someone who uses security clearances to punish his political adversaries."
Hence, and following on from Fran Townsend's take on CBS this a.m., this is precisely the person you want to keep close to you - including with security clearance - in a hostile world laden with threats, whether from ISIS, North Korean missiles, or homegrown terrorists. As Rhodes put it: "He knows more about terrorism than just about anyone in this country. Given any great threat to the American people you would want him as a resource".
Hence, to remove his security clearance in a fit of pique, is to put this country in danger. If one is opposed to any form of terror, one does not remove the single person who can help you ferret out and take down the bad guys before an attack happens. One must thereby conclude Trump is happy leaving this nation exposed to another Sept. 11th type of attack. In other words, confirming his traitor bona fides. Rhodes himself was blunt about Trump's motivations in his appearance on 'All In' last night, e.g.:
"You asked about motivation. Donald Trump and his associates are under investigation for potentially conspiring with a foreign adversary to undermine our democracy. That investigation has already produced indictments and guilty please and that is closing in on Trump and his associates."
As I said, a traitor. And no, I am not afraid to use that word as too many mealy -mouthed Milquetoasts in the media (i.e. NBC's Chuck Todd) are. I call a spade a spade. So does Rep. Eric Swallwell, also appearing on 'All In' last night. In his words:
"It makes us less safe. The security clearance is not to benefit John Brennan. It's not to benefit any of the other officials who worked in the Obama administration. It's to benefit us. So that when Gen. Mattis, and CIA director Gina Haspel and others consider threats against the United States they can reach back and talk to people who have faced the same threats and get their candid advice."
Smallwell went on to relate how he called another security official to ask if he was overreacting to what Trump did. The official emphatically stated 'no way' - and what Dotard has done makes the country less safe. Indeed, it could become manifestly much worse, as the list of former security officials also lose their own security clearances, so can offer no insight or inputs. All this because they may have said something on MSNBC that riled the traitor, as opposed to becoming his lapdogs and sycophants.
As Swallwell put it: - "There will often be a number of decisions that have to be made on the fly and require information- in a life or death situation - that only officials in prior administrations have access to...."
Does Trump need to be hung before he causes vastly more damage? Before he subverts this nation and its principles much further? Before he opens us up to terror attacks? You decide. I've already made my mind up, and I know that my Revolutionary War ancestors would agree.
See also:
Trump Admits the Real Reason He's Targeting Former Intel Officials — and It All Comes Back to Russia
And:
'Drunk on Power': Former CIA Director John Brennan Comes Out Swinging Against Trump and the Republicans in Maddow Interview
