Trump Strips Former CIA Director of His Security Clearance

[wing2000]

Former CIA Director John Brennan, the man who served three Presidents and played a key role in raid that captured Osama Bin Laden, was stripped of his security clearance by Donald Trump today. No other President in history has used his power to strip a civil servant of his security clearance based on criticism of administration. Today's actions represents one more attack on the men and women of the nation's intelligence services and sends a strong message that dissenting views will not be tolerated by the executive branch. Such vindictive actions are common place in such places as N. Korea, Venezuela and other countries ruled by paranoid despots. It should never happen in the United States.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...869fe70a721_story.html?utm_term=.2325e944eedd

 

[TuxAme]

If he's using his security clearance to stay in the headlines, I'm not too sure why a former CIA director needs one.

 

[iluvatar5150]

If he's using his security clearance to stay in the headlines, I'm not too sure why a former CIA director needs one.

A guy like that would/could do a lot of freelance work. Contractors get clearances all the time.

 

[TuxAme]

A guy like that would/could do a lot of freelance work. Contractors get clearances all the time.

Is he now? It seems he was just using the perk to fuel hatred for the Trump administration.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Former CIA Director John Brennan, the man who served three Presidents and played a key role in raid that captured Osama Bin Laden, was stripped of his security clearance by Donald Trump today. No other President in history has used his power to strip a civil servant of his security clearance based on criticism of administration.

It wasn't "criticism of administration" it was personal attacks against the President. When was the last time somebody in the CIA ever publicly accused a sitting president of treason? If a former CIA wants to keep his clearance, he has to conduct himself in a manner worthy of a current CIA agent.

 

[wing2000]

If he's using his security clearance to stay in the headlines, I'm not too sure why a former CIA director needs one.

He didn't need access to classified information for the opinions he offered.

 

[camille70]

It's just a distraction, but it won't work. Brennan says he doesn't use the clearance and in the past has only used it to access his own personnel file. Trump seems to think it gives them a free pass to sneak around and read state secrets, but when you have someone in charge of government who knows nothing about how it works, I guess that's to be expected.

He is often booked as a national security expert. Stripping his clearance doesn't erase his experience or expertise. I'd think being on Trump's enemies list would raise his media value, not lower it. Trump, of course, had to go on record saying it was due to the Russia witch hunt Brennan helped lead, so he's not really helping the case if he wants to convince folks he didn't want to stop the Russia probe.

 

[Dicran]

Yeh ~ he did it did he ~ should a done it way long ago ```

 

[camille70]

It wasn't "criticism of administration" it was personal attacks against the President. When was the last time somebody in the CIA ever publicly accused a sitting president of treason? If a former CIA wants to keep his clearance, he has to conduct himself in a manner worthy of a current CIA agent.

When was the last time a sitting president committed treason?

 

[Dicran]

If you are bringing our attention to Obama well ~ heck maybe before that once ```

 

[wing2000]

It wasn't "criticism of administration" it was personal attacks against the President. When was the last time somebody in the CIA ever publicly accused a sitting president of treason? If a former CIA wants to keep his clearance, he has to conduct himself in a manner worthy of a current CIA agent.

When was the last time a President believed the leader of Russia over the entire US intelligence community for all the world to see?

While I don't agree it was treason, Trump definitely did spit in the face of those who have ever worked a Soviet or Russian intelligence mission.

 

[Ringo84]

Abuse of power and possibly obstruction of justice, depending on what hare-brained excuses are given for why this was done.

Nixon had an enemies list too. Look what happened to him.
Ringo

 

[iluvatar5150]

If a former CIA wants to keep his clearance, he has to conduct himself in a manner worthy of a current CIA agent.

Uh, no. That isn’t how it works.

http://veteranresources.taonline.com/securityclearances/application-procedures

 

[TuxAme]

He didn't need access to classified information for the opinions he offered.

If that's so, then I go back to my original question: why does he need it?

I guess I don't understand why someone- whether fired or retired- needs a security clearance anymore. If they're not acting as contractors, as another poster suggested, what's the point?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

When was the last time a President believed the leader of Russia over the entire US intelligence community for all the world to see?

The President is allowed to believe what he wants to believe. Likewise, Brennan is allowed to think that disagreeing with him is treason. He's not entitled a security clearance though, and there's no reason for the federal government to give him one if he's behaving in such a fashion.

Uh, no. That isn’t how it works.

Under CIA protocols, that's exactly how it works. Your link concerns applications for new security clearances, not reviews of existing ones.

 

[2tim_215]

If that's so, then I go back to my original question: why does he need it?

I guess I don't understand why someone- whether fired or retired- needs a security clearance anymore. If they're not acting as contractors, as another poster suggested, what's the point?

Typically, incoming administration officials will consult with outgoing/former ones to get their feedback and insights. By keeping their clearance, they can get special one day clearances if they want to bring them in for consultations. This really is for those in office, not necessarily for the retirees. Of course, who would need to draw on the 50 and 60 years of knowledge and experience of these ex intelligence experts, especially when you're as knowledgeable and experienced as Trump is in these matters of National Security.

Seems as Fox News and Trump are more concerned with the 2nd Amendment and gun rights then they are with the first Amendment and freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Basically, Trump is saying if you disagree with him, you're going to suffer the consequences. Definite abuse of power.

 

[camille70]

Abuse of power and possibly obstruction of justice, depending on what hare-brained excuses are given for why this was done.

Nixon had an enemies list too. Look what happened to him.
Ringo

“I call it the rigged witch hunt, [it] is a sham,” Mr. Trump said in an interview. “And these people led it!” He added: “So I think it’s something that had to be done.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...r-john-brennans-security-clearance-1534358658

 

[camille70]

Typically, incoming administration officials will consult with outgoing/former ones to get their feedback and insights. By keeping their clearance, they can get special one day clearances if they want to bring them in for consultations. This really is for those in office, not necessarily for the retirees. Of course, who would need to draw on the 50 and 60 years of knowledge and experience of these ex intelligence experts, especially when you're as knowledgeable and experienced as Trump is in these matters of National Security.

Seems as Fox News and Trump are more concerned with the 2nd Amendment and gun rights then they are with the first Amendment and freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Basically, Trump is saying if you disagree with him, you're going to suffer the consequences. Definite abuse of power.

Funny thing is that this is actually a first amendment issue as Trump (the gov't) is trying to punish him for speaking his mind.

The reporting that I've seen says normally the department heads determine if clearance is kept. They said normally if there is an issue, it is suspended, a case made for why and the person has the right to appeal. Since Trump is doing this all willy nilly no one knows what the process is going to be. From the press briefing it's not clear to me if it is actually revoked. The statement SHS read came across as he intends to revoke Brennan's and is reviewing the others, but is still looking into the process. Normally there has to be serious grounds to revoke it.

 

[2tim_215]

Funny thing is that this is actually a first amendment issue as Trump (the gov't) is trying to punish him for speaking his mind.

The reporting that I've seen says normally the department heads determine if clearance is kept. They said normally if there is an issue, it is suspended, a case made for why and the person has the right to appeal. Since Trump is doing this all willy nilly no one knows what the process is going to be. From the press briefing it's not clear to me if it is actually revoked. The statement SHS read came across as he intends to revoke Brennan's and is reviewing the others, but is still looking into the process. Normally there has to be serious grounds to revoke it.

Normally this gets reviewed with the intelligence committee and they render the decision, but of course Trump in his infinite wisdom did not consult any of his intelligence advisers. As a matters of fact, it appears that none of them even knew about it until after the fact. This is really just a means to detract from all the other domestic problems he's having to deal with.
Manafort trial
Muellar Probe
Cohen/Daniels probe trial
Amarosa (should she have any real incriminating tapes)
Plus all the other small annoyances he has (too many to mention)

 

[Kentonio]

A petty action by a petty little man. We shouldn’t be surprised. Trump has always put Trump ahead of any less important issues like the security of the country.