These are not political prisoners

[crazed_hoosier2]

Shine a light on it. I’m all for it. My guess is nearly all of them believed everything in the letter because it actually had the earmarks of Russian disinformation. The guy who organized it? Probably not. I said that it should have been covered by all the press. It was covered by Fox and was all over social media. It was known of. I sincerely fail to see how it would have changed to 2020 election. Years later it still only proves Hunter was an addict and sleazebag.

They had absolutely no basis upon which to make that declaration.

Let me put it this way: the only alternative to them lying is that they’re utterly incompetent at what they do. Either way, what they did was terrible for the credibility of the IC…which wasn’t really great to begin with in the wake of things like Snowden and Iraq.

I have no idea what impact it had on the election outcome. But that really doesn’t matter, does it?

And to make matters worse, not a peep from a single one of them after it became clear that Russia had nothing to do with it. Just breathtaking hubris from people who are supposed to be respected career professionals.

And they’re not hostile foreign actors - they’re ours!

I realize that this is personal to Trump. But, unlike the J6 Committee members, these 51 actually deserve what’s coming at them. What they did caused harm beyond Donald Trump.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Given the history of what happened here, I’m fine with that.

I’d guess that their attorney will have a hard time arguing that the 1st amendment protects their right to a security clearance - particularly when they were recklessly peddling a lie to influence an election and besmirching the credibility of the intelligence community in the process.

Let’s shine more light on what they did…even if they prevail. These people deserve having their reputations ruined.

You’d expect that sort of thing from Russian intelligence….but not our own.

I don’t think any will sue. They’d have sit for a deposition.. They’d would be exposed as dishonest, stupid, political hacks or maybe all three. None of them will risk it.

 

[76-1]

I don’t think any will sue. They’d have sit for a deposition.. They’d would be exposed as dishonest, stupid, political hacks or maybe all three. None of them will risk it.

No one has a "right" to a security clearance at any rate...

Continuing them for those who've been retired for more than two years seems foolish at best...

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No one has a "right" to a security clearance at any rate...

Continuing them for those who've been retired for more than two years seems foolish at best...

I’ve always kind of wondered about that.

I’m sure they have their reasons for clearances to remain valid past retirement. Probably because the things they know may continue to be of value when put together with things they’d have to have a current clearance to learn. Just an uneducated guess.

 

[twenty02]

I’ve always kind of wondered about that.

I’m sure they have their reasons for clearances to remain valid past retirement. Probably because the things they know may continue to be of value when put together with things they’d have to have a current clearance to learn. Just an uneducated guess.

Vast majority of them don't even have active clearances. More bullshit to fill the space

 

[76-1]

I’ve always kind of wondered about that.

I’m sure they have their reasons for clearances to remain valid past retirement. Probably because the things they know may continue to be of value when put together with things they’d have to have a current clearance to learn. Just an uneducated guess.

My guess is they are considered to be emergency recall-able much like a military officer is post retirement... I believe their usefulness degrades much more rapidly than a military officers with any serious time away from their respective services however...

That particular retirement perk (post retirement clearance retainment) seems to me to be a "courtesy" that's open to abuse with very little pay off to our country in return over the long haul...

There needs to be a clearly delineated, valid operational reason why someone should be allowed to keep their clearance more than 24 months post retirement (in my mind) and if that reason doesn't exist than the clearance should never be extended (for anyone, not even a former President) in my book...

 

[twenty02]

My guess is they are considered to be emergency recall-able much like a military officer is post retirement... I believe their usefulness degrades much more rapidly than a military officers with any serious time away from their respective services however...

That particular retirement perk (post retirement clearance retainment) seems to me to be a "courtesy" that's open to abuse with very little pay off to our country in return over the long haul...

There needs to be a clearly delineated, valid operational reason why someone should be allowed to keep their clearance more than 24 months post retirement (in my mind) and if that reason doesn't exist than the clearance should never be extended (for anyone, not even a former President) in my book...

They would not have clearance unless they were actively working for a govt agency or contractor within the last 2 years. None of them get what you describe. And almost everyone on this list doesn't have one

It's more fabricated bullshit from Trump. Get used to it. Fake as his hair color.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

They would not have clearance unless they were actively working for a govt agency or contractor within the last 2 years. None of them get what you describe. And almost everyone on this list doesn't have one

It's more fabricated bullshit from Trump. Get used to it. Fake as his hair color.

Be that as it may, I’m still in favor of it. Our intel people really shouldn’t be doing things like that - retired or otherwise.

 

[76-1]

They would not have clearance unless they were actively working for a govt agency or contractor within the last 2 years. None of them get what you describe. And almost everyone on this list doesn't have one

It's more fabricated bullshit from Trump. Get used to it. Fake as his hair color.

That "fabricated bullshit" was all over every news outlet in the country (including the Washington Post) when the 51 signed their now infamous letter... Makes one ask: who was fabricating what if that wasn't the case?

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

You're truly pathetic. And dumber than a box of rocks.

If stupidity was a crime, you'd be serving a life sentence.

^^^^This from the guy always whining about how sad and hateful McMurtry is.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That "fabricated bullshit" was all over every news outlet in the country (including the Washington Post) when the 51 signed their now infamous letter... Makes one ask: who was fabricating what if that wasn't the case?

Biden himself repeated their claim during at least one debate - and in other televised appearances.

And the whole thing had been coordinated between Biden campaign adviser Antony Blinken and former CIA Director Mike Morell.

Morell stated that his motivation was “to help vice president Biden….Because I wanted him to win the election.”

It’s worth pondering if everybody’s reaction to this would be the same if it had been intel vets coordinating the same thing with Trump’s campaign regarding a laptop belonging to Donald Trump Jr. containing similar information about DT2’s foreign business dealings in which he refers to his father.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Years later it still only proves Hunter was an addict and sleazebag.

The sleazebag stuff on the laptop was what made the story salacious and thus got most of the attention.

But that’s not the material found on there which mattered. It was the emails and texts regarding his foreign business dealings.

That’s why they were trying to deny that it was authentic.

 

[twenty02]

That "fabricated bullshit" was all over every news outlet in the country (including the Washington Post) when the 51 signed their now infamous letter... Makes one ask: who was fabricating what if that wasn't the case?

I'm not talking about the letter.

I'm referring to the revocing of non-existent security clearances in an EO.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Biden himself repeated their claim during at least one debate - and in other televised appearances.

And the whole thing had been coordinated between Biden campaign adviser Antony Blinken and former CIA Director Mike Morell.

Morell stated that his motivation was “to help vice president Biden….Because I wanted him to win the election.”

It’s worth pondering if everybody’s reaction to this would be the same if it had been intel vets coordinating the same thing with Trump’s campaign regarding a laptop belonging to Donald Trump Jr. containing similar information about DT2’s foreign business dealings in which he refers to his father.

The letter and laptop coverup was a fraud

Covering up Biden’s dementia was a fraud

The Democrats Covid messaging was a fraud

Biden’s entire 2020 campaign was a deliberate fraud.

 

[dbmhoosier]

They are seditious traitors and enemies of the American experiment. Let's always remember that.

Biden pardoned this sadistic monster so I don’t want to hear a word.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Biden pardoned this sadistic monster so I don’t want to hear a word.

View embedded media

I have my share of issues with Anthony Fauci.

But don't you think this is...a tad over the top?

 

[TDHoosier]

Only 30 percent of all Americans supported pardons for these criminals. Only a bit over half of Republicans did - no doubt the MAGAs who no longer consider law and order a priority. This is burning a ton of Trump’s political capital on his first day. Very bad decision.

By the way “alot” is not a word. It’s “a lot.”

95% probably don't care enough to think a logical answer through so they just say what is at the tip of their tongue. Many know the legal system is a joke, saw a guy playing cards yesterday who 9 months ago left an outside concert drunk got on a motorcycle with his girlfriend. He proceeded to start to show off, flipped over a car killing her. He has spent zero time in jail, still drives gets government assistance (has his entire life) and told me it will all be over in 3 days.

If in the next 4 years we bring back what I believe to be common sense I'm good with whatever. The people incarcerated for the J6 event are not dangerous people, at least no more dangerous than the BLM looters and rioters, so stop making a point by having them behind bars and go get individuals who are walking among us daily who have committed much worse crimes.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

95% probably don't care enough to think a logical answer through so they just say what is at the tip of their tongue. Many know the legal system is a joke, saw a guy playing cards yesterday who 9 months ago left an outside concert drunk got on a motorcycle with his girlfriend. He proceeded to start to show off, flipped over a car killing her. He has spent zero time in jail, still drives gets government assistance (has his entire life) and told me it will all be over in 3 days.

If in the next 4 years we bring back what I believe to be common sense I'm good with whatever. The people incarcerated for the J6 event are not dangerous people, at least no more dangerous than the BLM looters and rioters, so stop making a point by having them behind bars and go get individuals who are walking among us daily who have committed much worse crimes.

I don't think the argument against pardoning the J6ers is that they're dangerous people who need to be in prison so as to protect society from their violence.

It has less to do with their specific actions than their motivation.

 

[outside shooter]

...don't you think this is...a tad over the top?

Not just over the top, but made-up crap

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/answering-questions-about-beaglegate/

NIAID did not fund the study in question.

“The images of beagles were drawn from a manuscript published in July 2021 in the journal PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. The manuscript mistakenly cited support from NIAID, when in fact NIAID did not support this specific research..."

Indeed, on Oct. 26, the journal issued a correction, saying, “The US National Institutes of Health and the Wellcome Trust did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error.

 

[TDHoosier]

I don't think the argument against pardoning the J6ers is that they're dangerous people who need to be in prison so as to protect society from their violence.

It has less to do with their specific actions than their motivation.

Most that I know who even care about the J6 participants only want them jailed as an attempt to make Trump look bad. I think there are some who look at it as a threat to democracy but really not many. It is no different than die hard Trump supporters holding Biden's recent pardons against him. Why pardon people who have done nothing criminally? Or have they and people know what is coming?

All a game, I hope the next four years puts an end to the game. Trump has zero to loose, the next four years may have many liberals in mental hospitals but most definitely medicated.

 

[bbafficionado]

Good thing is that dumb bitch that got shot is still dead. Too bad the others aren't.

Sums up the thought process of the left perfectly. Evil

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

The sleazebag stuff on the laptop was what made the story salacious and thus got most of the attention.

But that’s not the material found on there which mattered. It was the emails and texts regarding his foreign business dealings.

That’s why they were trying to deny that it was authentic.

Like I said earlier. The media other than Fox and Social Media should have covered it. It came to light pretty close to the election and I'm just not sure a few days of coverage was going to matter. Might have, but don't know that. If Biden was involved in anything criminal, they could charge him now that he's out of office. No skin of my nose. He apparently didn't pardon himself. However, he's an old geezer who is going to continue to fail physically and mentally because his problem never gets better with age. I bet he's not around for all that long.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I'm not talking about the letter.

I'm referring to the revocing of non-existent security clearances in an EO.

I doubt they're non-existent for most of those people. They're high-powered ex-members of the intelligence community and it's common practice in that community and DoD to call those people in for briefings and consultations. Many are likely on a contract for that purpose, and they'd be required to have a clearance. They only get paid by the hour when called in.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Like I said earlier. The media other than Fox and Social Media should have covered it. It came to light pretty close to the election and I'm just not sure a few days of coverage was going to matter. Might have, but don't know that. If Biden was involved in anything criminal, they could charge him now that he's out of office. No skin of my nose. He apparently didn't pardon himself. However, he's an old geezer who is going to continue to fail physically and mentally because his problem never gets better with age. I bet he's not around for all that long.

Biden isn’t competent to stand trial. Hur said that in so many words.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Biden pardoned this sadistic monster so I don’t want to hear a word.

View embedded media

If that angers you, there are a whole host of research facilities and universities doing unspeakable things to all sorts of animals right here in the good ol' US of A. I'm far from defending the practice. The NIH funds way too many antiquated, fruitless and cruel research studies that involve animals. If a researcher or scientist is still using animals in their lab, they're very likely not working with the best, current information.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Biden isn’t competent to stand trial. Hur said that in so many words.

I think he said something along the lines of him being an elderly man and sympathetic to jurors, but yep, I don't think Biden would be competent to stand trial pretty darn soon. I don't wish him dead, but I remember my father-in-law in the early grip of dementia, and he was similar to Biden at this point. I think he died less than two years later, and he couldn't talk or anything the last year, give or take a few months. I've read rapid decline at the end is typical.

 

[bailey777]

View embedded media

You Sir are a piece of 💩

Yep. Didn't biden pardon a guy who killed two fbi agents yesterday. He has nothing to say about that though. Not a peep.

 

[bailey777]

Sums up the thought process of the left perfectly. Evil

Boy does it. Just filled with hate. No wonder Harris lost. If the general public thought Jan 6th was the big deal the trump super haters on here think Harris would have won. She didnt.

 

[Ohio Guy]

I think he said something along the lines of him being an elderly man and sympathetic to jurors, but yep, I don't think Biden would be competent to stand trial pretty darn soon. I don't wish him dead, but I remember my father-in-law in the early grip of dementia, and he was similar to Biden at this point. I think he died less than two years later, and he couldn't talk or anything the last year, give or take a few months. I've read rapid decline at the end is typical.

This is definitely part of the reason I was angry he didn't decide to be a one term president and allow the Democrats to go through a primary (there are obvious other reasons that have been hashed out here ad nauseum). I've long thought he won't live through the next 4 years.

As an aside, I'm not sure Trump makes it to his 82nd birthday. He probably will, but health markers and trends, given he doesn't exercise and eats crap and has one the most stressful jobs in the world, aren't on his side.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Like I said earlier. The media other than Fox and Social Media should have covered it. It came to light pretty close to the election and I'm just not sure a few days of coverage was going to matter. Might have, but don't know that. If Biden was involved in anything criminal, they could charge him now that he's out of office. No skin of my nose. He apparently didn't pardon himself. However, he's an old geezer who is going to continue to fail physically and mentally because his problem never gets better with age. I bet he's not around for all that long.

You're missing the point, Aloha. In fact, it sort of feels like you're deliberately trying to avoid it.

First, this has nothing to do with criminality on Biden's part. So let's set that aside.

Second, it has nothing to do with what impact (if any) it had on the 2020 election. Personally, I'm also very skeptical that it had any impact. But, again, it's entirely beside the point.

Third, which media outlets did or did not report on the laptop is, once again, also beside the point.

So....what, then, is the point? The point is that high-ranking veterans of our intelligence community -- including 5 or 6 former CIA directors(!) -- coordinated with a presidential campaign to disseminate disinformation in order to influence an election. Personally, I don't think a single one of them actually believed the laptop was a Russian op. But I'm not inside their heads. If we're going to be charitable to them, we would at least have to say they had no factual basis on which to make the claim that they did. Obviously...because they were totally wrong.

So whether it was deliberate lying or just rank incompetence (and recklessness, making such a claim without any basis to do so), the primary issue here is that they did damage to the institutional credibility of our intelligence community. And why? To influence a presidential election?

What they did is simply inexcusable and there needs to be some kind of accountability. But I think a lot of people have a hard time recognizing that because the candidate they were working against was Donald Trump. To the degree that's the case, it's very short-sighted.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think he said something along the lines of him being an elderly man and sympathetic to jurors, but yep, I don't think Biden would be competent to stand trial pretty darn soon. I don't wish him dead, but I remember my father-in-law in the early grip of dementia, and he was similar to Biden at this point. I think he died less than two years later, and he couldn't talk or anything the last year, give or take a few months. I've read rapid decline at the end is typical.

Hur was being polite. The way he described his interview with Biden showed Biden could not stand trial.

The idea that Biden was the Democratic nominee in a rigged primary system shows the fragility of our democracy more than Trump ever could. The media needs to stand up and do its job. The Democrats/Media complex is dangerous. I don’t know how to fix it.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think he said something along the lines of him being an elderly man and sympathetic to jurors, but yep, I don't think Biden would be competent to stand trial pretty darn soon. I don't wish him dead, but I remember my father-in-law in the early grip of dementia, and he was similar to Biden at this point. I think he died less than two years later, and he couldn't talk or anything the last year, give or take a few months. I've read rapid decline at the end is typical.

He had memory issues

 

[dbmhoosier]

You're missing the point, Aloha. In fact, it sort of feels like you're deliberately trying to avoid it.

First, this has nothing to do with criminality on Biden's part. So let's set that aside.

Second, it has nothing to do with what impact (if any) it had on the 2020 election. Personally, I'm also very skeptical that it had any impact. But, again, it's entirely beside the point.

Third, which media outlets did or did not report on the laptop is, once again, also beside the point.

So....what, then, is the point? The point is that high-ranking veterans of our intelligence community -- including 5 or 6 former CIA directors(!) -- coordinated with a presidential campaign to disseminate misinformation in order to influence an election. Personally, I don't think a single one of them actually believed the laptop was a Russian op. But I'm not inside their heads. If we're going to be charitable to them, we would at least have to say they had no factual basis on which to make the claim that they did. Obviously...because they were totally wrong.

So whether it was deliberate lying or just rank incompetence (and recklessness, making such a claim without any basis to do so), the primary issue here is that they did damage to the institutional credibility of our intelligence community. And why? To influence a presidential election?

What they did is simply inexcusable and there needs to be some kind of accountability. But I think a lot of people have a hard time recognizing that because the candidate they were working against was Donald Trump. To the degree that's the case, it's very short-sighted.

They cheated like dogs!!!

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

You're missing the point, Aloha. In fact, it sort of feels like you're deliberately trying to avoid it.

First, this has nothing to do with criminality on Biden's part. So let's set that aside.

Second, it has nothing to do with what impact (if any) it had on the 2020 election. Personally, I'm also very skeptical that it had any impact. But, again, it's entirely beside the point.

Third, which media outlets did or did not report on the laptop is, once again, also beside the point.

So....what, then, is the point? The point is that high-ranking veterans of our intelligence community -- including 5 or 6 former CIA directors(!) -- coordinated with a presidential campaign to disseminate misinformation in order to influence an election. Personally, I don't think a single one of them actually believed the laptop was a Russian op. But I'm not inside their heads. If we're going to be charitable to them, we would at least have to say they had no factual basis on which to make the claim that they did. Obviously...because they were totally wrong.

So whether it was deliberate lying or just rank incompetence (and recklessness, making such a claim without any basis to do so), the primary issue here is that they did damage to the institutional credibility of our intelligence community. And why? To influence a presidential election?

What they did is simply inexcusable and there needs to be some kind of accountability. But I think a lot of people have a hard time recognizing that because the candidate they were working against was Donald Trump.

Read the letter, they explain why they signed the letter (believe them or not):

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

I don't think they should have signed that letter. I didn't cheer them, but I'm sure it was easy to believe Rudy was involved in some dirty tricks.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

He had memory issues

Yes, he did. That's also true.

 

[outside shooter]

If a researcher or scientist is still using animals in their lab, they're very likely not working with the best, current information.

First of all, the study he cited was not funded by the NIH, at all.

Second, drug discovery research absolutely cannot be done without some degree of animal testing. The FDA even requires it. Sure, cell based models ("in vitro" experiments) and computer modeling are done up front, extensively. This eliminates many toxic compounds, which is a great thing. But such studies are inadequate to predict fully how a mammal will respond to a medicine.

By and large the approved and approvable experiments are dose-ranging and safety experiments, such as giving mice varying amounts of a proposed drug and determining its half-life, what tissues it goes to, its route of elimination (e.g., urine, feces, is the molecule intact or metabolized, and metabolized to what). Every such experiment is overseen by on-site veterinarians, is limited in size to the minimum number of animals needed to get a statistically meaningful result, and there is a book-sized list of animal care protocols to follow, from feeding schedule, to cage size, to diet, to provided exercise time, socialization, etc.

When you have data on two non-human species (say, mice and guinea pigs) you are able to statistically model with some confidence what human doses to use in a phase I clinical trial and what issues to look out for (eg., elevated liver enzymes, renal problems, GI issues, etc.).

The FDA simply will not allow any human clinical trial until such animal modeling is done. If you want drugs, for now anyway, animal testing must be done.

This is speaking from 35 years as a drug discovery scientist, half in pharma.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Read the letter, they explain why they signed the letter (believe them or not):

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

I don't think they should have signed that letter. I didn't cheer them, but I'm sure it was easy to believe Rudy was involved in some dirty tricks.

But see...that's the problem. Your last sentence there "It's easy to believe Rudy was up to no good."

These were intelligence professionals. They knew very well what that letter would mean -- to the media, to official Washington, and perhaps even to the American people themselves. The only reason they signed it is *because* they were intelligence professionals. It was to discredit the laptop, right? Who else is in a position to do that, other than members of our intelligence community?

This is why I'm saying that people have a hard time reckoning what happened because of the personalities involved. But that's a very irresponsible and short-sighted way to look at this. "Oh, well, it was easy to believe because Rudy Giuliani was involved. And besides, they were working against Trump."

No. That is not how professional people are supposed to operate. They are supposed to make assessments based on facts. And they obviously didn't have the facts to do it, because what they said was flat wrong. Even CBS was able to hire a couple forensic guys to go through it and confirm its authenticity. So a news network is capable of figuring out that it's authentic....but our top intelligence pros aren't?

And you can say "Well, they didn't have access to it." Which is certainly true. But the FBI did. They'd had it for nearly a year. And the DNI made it known publicly that they were off base, too.

What they did was simply indefensible. And I honestly think it would be easier for everybody to see if it involved somebody other than Donald Trump.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

obviously didn't have the facts to do it, because what they said was flat wrong

IIRC there were 2-3 signers that the "organizer" had to come back 2-3 times to negotiate with them for their signature. I don't recall what they got in the negotiations, but it's obvious that they signed it, so..

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

But see...that's the problem. Your last sentence there "It's easy to believe Rudy was up to no good."

These were intelligence professionals. They knew very well what that letter would mean -- to the media, to official Washington, and perhaps even to the American people themselves. The only reason they signed it is *because* they were intelligence professionals. It was to discredit the laptop, right? Who else is in a position to do that, other than members of our intelligence community?

This is why I'm saying that people have a hard time reckoning what happened because of the personalities involved. But that's a very irresponsible and short-sighted way to look at this. "Oh, well, it was easy to believe because Rudy Giuliani was involved. And besides, they were working against Trump."

No. That is not how professional people are supposed to operate. They are supposed to make assessments based on facts. And they obviously didn't have the facts to do it, because what they said was flat wrong. Even CBS was able to hire a couple forensic guys to go through it and confirm its authenticity. So a news network is capable of figuring out that it's authentic....but our top intelligence pros aren't?

And you can say "Well, they didn't have access to it." Which is certainly true. But the FBI did. They'd had it for nearly a year. And the DNI made it known publicly that they were off base, too.

What they did was simply indefensible. And I honestly think it would be easier for everybody to see if it involved somebody other than Donald Trump.

I said they shouldn't have done it. They shouldn't because if they were wrong, they were possibly influencing the election, not the Russians in this case. I think we agree.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I said they shouldn't have done it. They shouldn't because if they were wrong, they were possibly influencing the election, not the Russians in this case. I think we agree.

OK, but this is why I think they need to have some kind of accountability. I don't think they broke any laws -- even disinformation is protected by the 1st Amendment. Their lawyer is right about that.

But I think it's entirely appropriate to suspend their security clearances.