Exercisings the Powers

—

by

Chris Johnson
in

If you have had the misfortune of listening to the democrats rant about “constitutional crisis” or “illegal actions”, it is time to take a long hard look at what Donald Trump is actually doing.

I believe that one of the problems that Trump 1.0 had was that he came into office thinking it was another corporate takeover. Something he had done multiple times. He brought his lawyers with him.

Those lawyers were not prepared for the conflict, the war that was going to be waged against Trump.

Having spent the last few years reading court cases, listening to lawyers pontificate about cases, I have learned that there are different types of lawyers. Some are good at one thing and horrible at others.

Trump 1.0’s people were not ready to take on the swamp.

Trump 2.0 has hit the ground running. And he is trolling his opposition like the master he is.

So consider this, as a state lawyer, Trump has no power to fire Letitia James. She is not within the chain of command.

On the other hand, for her to do her job, she needs access to federal resources.

Trump revoked her security clearances. He has also banned her from all Federal buildings.

Her fangs have just been pulled.

He is yanking clearances left and right. This is a good thing. The less access these people have, the less damage they can do to our country.

Consider these two posts:

If you read the comments, you can see exactly how I feel. This is what we voted for.

Here is the same information, posted by a democrat.

        

Comments

8 responses to “Exercisings the Powers”

  1. It's just Boris Avatar
    It’s just Boris

    I have to say I’m feeling a little mixed.

    Yes, clearances are subject to revocation. And it’s not subject to a trial process; sufficient suspicion of ill behavior or intent is all that’s needed. Or just, access is no longer needed. (Which is why revocation of former Fed officials’ clearances doesn’t trouble me – they’re no longer doing the job, they don’t get to keep the access. Consulting on the side is not something the government is required to support.)

    What is the cause here? Yes, I know these people are scumbags in general … but somewhere there should be an articulable set of specific reasons for revocation. If that was prosecuting/persecuting Trump pre-election, there should be at least some indication that they knew what they were doing was improper and/or illegal and/or done to damage future prospects rather than in response to, say, a crime he committed.

    Otherwise, these feel like a personal vendetta, and that’s something I’m not thrilled about any POTUS doing. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that evidence does exist; but I would like it made public. (And I guarantee those on the list wouldn’t appreciate it, so, bonus!)

    All that said … Writ large, what need does a state prosecutor have for a federal clearance at any level? It might make some things more convenient for them in terms of talking with their Fed counterparts (e.g. being able to enter a secure space unescorted), but why was it necessary in the first place? If the revocation is as simple as “they don’t really need it,” then great. But let’s get that answer.

    1
    Reply
    1. dittybopper Avatar
      dittybopper

      I agree in part, but disagree about the idea of personal vendettas being wrong here: The Democrats started it, with their personal vendettas against Trump over the last 8 or 9 years.

      This is merely Trump playing by the exact same rules they put in place.

      And they don’t like it. Well, fair enough. Maybe they’ll learn collectively that if they pull this kind of stuff against another Republican in the future, the retribution will be harsh, and their hand will be stayed. Even primitive flatworms will avoid pain.

      Of course, maybe this will just steel them to take much harsher measures or to not give an inch in the future. I don’t know.

      But I do know that if they don’t pay some kind of penalty for what they did to Trump they’ll just keep doing it to all Republican presidents and presidential candidates, and others like Supreme Court nominees by Republican presidents.

      1
      Reply
      1. it's just Boris Avatar
        it’s just Boris

        I think I’d be happier if this were seen as objectively legitimate repercussions from having pursued a vendetta, rather than simply tit-for-tat.

        Attempting to have the moral high ground cake, and eat it too, I know. But in the future, I’d hope it would make the crap the Dems pulled harder to justify to the average voter.

        3
        Reply
    2. pkoning Avatar
      pkoning

      The way I look at it: all security clearances should be revoked except those for which a real reason exists.
      So the question I would ask for any given person isn’t “why did you revoke the clearance” but rather “why did you NOT revoke the clearance”.
      As you said, former officials have no need for a clearance, unless they go to work for some defense contractor in which case that contractor can ask for a new clearance matching a particular need to know.
      As for state officials, I see no reason why any state official would have a clearance.

      1
      Reply
  2. dittybopper Avatar
    dittybopper

    Why does a state attorney general need a federal security clearance?

    Is it so the can see secret evidence that can’t be used in court? I can’t imagine a state court case where information that is classified at the federal level could possibly be legitimate.

    2
    Reply
  3. curby Avatar
    curby

    democrats are adult-sized toddlers. they think rules don’t apply to them and when they find out they do, they throw a tantrum.
    I find it oddly satisfying to see them get what they been giving. We the People must have great memory to avoid the last 4years in the future….

    2
    Reply
  4. Tom from WNY Avatar
    Tom from WNY

    Leticia James and Alvin Bragg was not representing the interests of the Citizens of NY by persecuting Donald Trump. Their job is to prosecute criminals, not infringe the rights of Citizens.

    By failing to prosecute violent criminals and waste the resources the Taxpaying Citizens of NY entrusted to them, they engaged in corrupt practices under the Color of Law.

    Revocation of Federal Security clearances and being banned from certain Federal Buildings may allow them to focus on their core mission. Before revealing evidence of corruption, arrest and trial.

    Reply
  5. TCK Avatar
    TCK

    The only outrage here is that none of those soulless, inhuman, demonrat monsters (I apologize for repeating myself thrice) has been put under a gallows and sent back to Hell where it came from.

    Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law is CAPITAL FELONY.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *