Tags
Adam Schiff, CIA, CNN, Don Beyer, James Clapper, John Brennan, Nancy Pelosi, President Trump, Sarah Sanders, Security clearance, The resistance
Former Obama CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance has been revoked, as Fox News reports:
President Trump has revoked the security clearance for former CIA Director John Brennan, the White House announced Wednesday, in the first decision to come from a review of access for several top Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders read a statement on behalf of the president during the start of the press briefing, saying Brennan ‘has a history that calls his credibility into question.’
The statement also claimed Brennan had been ‘leveraging’ the clearance to make ‘wild outbursts’ and claims against the Trump administration in the media.
As one might expect, Mr. Brennan replied with his usual venom:
Various Democrat usual suspects gladly displayed the damage Trump Derangement Syndrome does:
As usual, Nancy Pelosi is somewhere off in progressive land inhaling fairy dust and frolicking with unicorns:
And the execrable Adam Schiff also demonstrated his tenuous grasp on reality:
Last month, the White House said they were looking into the clearances for other former officials and Trump critics, including former FBI director James Comey; former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe; former director of national intelligence James Clapper; former national security adviser Susan Rice and former CIA director Michael Hayden (who also worked under President George W. Bush).
Let us review, gentle readers. There is one elected, accountable official in our government with the ultimate responsibility and power (pro tip: governments have powers; people have rights) to grant and revoke security clearances: the President of the United States. He delegates this particular executive power to various departments and officials of the government, but he may revoke such clearances at will. There is no such thing as a right to a security clearance–the process for obtaining one is long and rigorous and many don’t make the grade–nor is there any right to retain a clearance after leaving government service. It has become customary to allow people, particularly high-ranking people, to keep their clearances, but there is no law requiring it.
However, Donald Trump is different. Exercising legitimate executive powers that in any other president would be unremarkable provokes indignant wails of “un-American,” “traitor,” “collusion,” “dictator” and “Russia!” Mr. Trump has not issued executive orders that violate the Constitution. He has rather rescinded orders that did, but that too has led to wide spread outrage and lawfare against him.
In this case, one of the most frenzied complaints is that President Trump revoked Brennan’s security clearance to “silence” him and others. Apparently it worked. So intimidated and silenced is Mr. Brennan that he remains a paid CNN commentator, and was immediately–and one can be sure, eagerly–given an opinion piece in The New York Times:
The already challenging work of the American intelligence and law enforcement communities was made more difficult in late July 2016, however, when Mr. Trump, then a presidential candidate, publicly called upon Russia to find the missing emails of Mrs. Clinton. By issuing such a statement, Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent.
Such a public clarion call certainly makes one wonder what Mr. Trump privately encouraged his advisers to do — and what they actually did — to win the election. While I had deep insight into Russian activities during the 2016 election, I now am aware — thanks to the reporting of an open and free press — of many more of the highly suspicious dalliances of some American citizens with people affiliated with the Russian intelligence services.
Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash.
And what would those “dalliances” be, Mr. Brennan? Names, places and dates, please? You have the platform of the NYT. No? This is the substance of Mr. Brennan’s case against Mr. Trump. He “publicly called upon Russia to find the missing emails of Mrs. Clinton.” This illustrates Brennan’s fundamental political bias and dishonesty. this is what Mr. Trump, then campaigning for President, said:
Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing… I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.
Democrats and the media (yes; one-in-the-same) immediately seized on that comment as evidence of collusion and treason, but rational people understood Mr. Trump was making fun not only of Clinton’s many and blatant crimes and the Obama Administration’s efforts to sweep them under the rug, but of those accusing him of colluding with Russia. Mr. Trump did not deliver the line as a serious request of a foreign government.
But quite apart from Mr. Trump’s unquestionable power to revoke the clearance of Brennan or anyone else, are there obvious reasons to leave Brennan bereft of clearance? Victor Davis Hanson believes so:
1) Lying to Congress. Brennan lied to Congress on at least two occasions (cf. his denial of CIA surveillance of Senate staffer computers and the claim of an absence of collateral damage in drone attacks), and perhaps three (his absurd denial of knowledge of the seeding of the Steele dossier among government agencies). Democrats used to be outraged by Brennan’s deceit, and a few in the past had called for his resignation. Note that James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence, has also misled Congress, concerning NSA surveillance of American citizens. Clapper has admitted such (e.g., ‘the least untruthful’ answer). Not lying to Congress is a pretty low bar to meet.
We can be reasonably certain President Trump has much more information about Mr. Brennan’s partisan activities and casual relationship with the truth than we do.
2) Accusations of Treason against a Sitting President. Brennan believes his denial of continued access to intelligence is an infringement on free speech. But it is really another low bar to ask a former CIA director to refrain from leveling unproven charges of treason against the current president of the United States (‘nothing short of treasonous’; ‘When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history’). Such invective in theory could have foreign-policy consequences by branding the slander of presidential disloyalty with an imprimatur of a CIA security clearance.
Note again that James Clapper similarly flat-out accused the president of the United States of treason, in being a spy for the Russians (‘I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that’s what he’s doing with the president’). Clapper, of course, has no proof of that low charge. Nor has he produced any after his on-air accusation. If he is suggesting that his security clearance has allowed him access to incriminating evidence, then he should say so.
Part of the reason past CIA directors, and others, have routinely retained security clearances is they have done nothing to subvert the lawfully elected President and his administration. They have behaved responsibly, and tended to live quiet, low profile lives, using their knowledge and expertise for the benefit of America, often advising the presidents that followed them. Why would Mr. Trump wish advice from arguably the most partisan, corrupt and hostile CIA Director in history, a man who played a large role in trying to keep Mr. Trump out of the White House, and who continues to do everything he can to depose him?
Brennan has allied himself with the media, which complains Mr. Trump’s accurate criticism of them heralds the destruction of the First Amendment and democracy. They fail to see the irony of their position as they broadcast and publish, unimpeded and unpunished, other than Americans finally seeing them for the dishonest Democrat operatives they are. Which is more dangerous to our representative republic: Mr. Trump criticizing the media and John Brennan, or the media and John Brennan trying to overturn a free and fair presidential election?
3) Hired Political Commentary. Former intelligence chiefs certainly have a perfect right to offer their expertise, even enhanced by their current security clearances, against or in support of a current administration, on both foreign-policy and intelligence challenges, and as guest experts on television, radio, social media, and in print.
That said, hiring oneself out as a political partisan to a network should be a different matter.
Had Brennan and Clapper now and then visited the networks to voice their concern about Trump’s cancellation of the Iran deal or moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, it would be one thing. But going on salary with MSNBC and CNN to profit from one’s emeritus status and security clearances to libel the president of the United States removes all appearances of disinterested commentary. As private citizens, they can do all that on their own time without any vestigial connections to the U.S. government.
It is, of course, no coincidence Brennan has allied with CNN in their continuing efforts for The Resistance. Nor have Brennan’s First Amendment rights suffered the slightest infringement. He will surely continued to be paid well to assist CNN in its never-ending project to depose President Trump.
There is a substantial difference between rationally and calmly discussing policy differences and actively working to overthrow the results of a lawfully conducted election. Mr. Brennan remains able to do either. He just won’t have a security clearance as he does.
As to revoking the security clearances of the other Obamite minions, one can only hope Mr. Trump dispossesses them even more promptly. It couldn’t happen to nicer, less honest people.
rd said:
I don’t understand this “They keep their security clearances” at all.
When Joe Schmo quits, gets fired or laid off, he automatically gets his security clearance revoked. Why should it be different for Senior Officials or General Officers? Why are they oh so special?
It should be SOP that as part of their exit process their clearances are all suspended, and their offices, homes, vacation homes, and all their electronics be inspected by a security team. If it assumed they may be useful in the future, keep them in any “Continuous Behavioral Observation Program,” but restrict them from any actual programs and data.
One rule for everyone.
Andrew said:
Having had a security clearance in the past tends to jade me on this topic. Between the filling forms, interviews, background interviews, mandatory annual reviews, training, lectures and what not. And on top of all that was the constant reminder of the consequences of screwing up.
To see people in power doing what they are doing is unbelievable. Then to have conversations with “friends” saying “what’s the big deal”.
While it would be nice if we could go about our business with there being no secrets the reality is that can never happen.
To have a security clearance means that one is trusted to follow the rules.
Once that trust is lost, the security clearance must be revoked.
David-2 said:
The claim that it is to silence Brennan is laughable. He’s been whining and preening on cable 24/7 since his clearance was revoked.
David-2 said:
BTW, that picture of him that is heading that VDH column (and which was spotlighted on Drudge yesterday) is terrific – as self-revealing as the animated GIF of the prissy smirking Strzok that we’ve all seen.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear David-2:
I don’t recall ever seeing a photo of the guy smiling. I find it difficult to trust anyone that never smiles.
Jeffrey said:
The people complaining about Brennan’s clearance being revoked are confused about cause and effect. They seem to think criticizing the president in an attempt to impugn his rightful authority is the cause, and Brennan’s loss of his clearance is the effect. Actually, they’re both effects. The cause is Brennan’s scum-sucking, swamp creature nature.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Jeffrey:
Quite so. Those screaming about Brennan’s glories forget security clearances are granted to benefit America, not the people that hold them.
Doug said:
..and now you have 60 of these ex-intel leadership and beyond united in their stating their objection directly to the President… you got the print media united in some op ed effort to express their objection to Trump citing the the press as an enemy of the people… seems to me things are stacking up against the Prez each day.
I do find it interesting though, Mike, that every single person who has posted a reply in here to this post completely ignored what you posted, because their own biased summations suggest they didn’t read for comprehension. Seems you have a following that “rubber stamps” what you write in their own minds in spite of what you wrote.
Allyn said:
Doug, your somehow predictable and offensive comments are getting old.
60 out of how many? These people make millions that they could not make if they were unable to maintain their top secret clearances. Comey did so. Mueller did so. Of course they are upset that they may not automatically renew for life.
Do you believe that Brennan has behaved as a current CIA employee is expected to act?
Doug said:
Please share.. what exactly do you find offensive? Personally, Andrew’s “scum-sucking, swamp-creature” remarks seem pretty offensive to me. But that’s all relative.
RD above, seems to have a problem understanding the keeping of security clearances after office. Mike explained all that.
Andrew is suggesting all former intel people with an opinion against Trump have somehow abused their power. (huh?)
Allyn… Brennan hasn’t been a CIA employee since Jan. 20, 2017 when most appointee leave office for the new administration.
Everyone… this issue is NOT AT ALL anything to do with security clearances, and it’s NOT AT ALL about disputing the presidential power to do that at any time. It is ALL about the reason for such decisions (and more are coming as I write this) because Trump’s vindictive animus toward people who express their First Amendment right when not in office. Likely other will simply end up surrendering their clearances out of making their point of.. “big deal”.
And.. the so called “big money” being made by SOME who kept their clearances.. anyone have a number directly linking a clearance holder to big bucks? Just because they have clearances they can’t just stroll into CIA and meander casually through secret files. Trump is jut being Trump.
Andrew said:
I have a former coworker that goes into an absolute tizzy just at the mere mention of Trump. By her own admission she can’t stand the man. The result is this person has an opinion that is fixed and won’t allow any facts to get in the way. Unfortunately, there are quite a few people like her.
Doug said:
Well, friend… add me to that list. You can dismiss it all with some cutsie disease name… I prefer to call it my own display of personal patriotism. But hey.. that’s just me.
Jeffrey said:
Hi Doug
“add me to that list.”
Happy to comply.
Jeffrey said:
Hi Doug
Are you reading the same post and comments I am? The post and the comments certainly seem coherent to me. Do you have access to some Chong-grade doobage?
Doug said:
Here’s something about those “big bucks” “everyone keeping their security clearance” makes… from Huffington Post…
“Security clearances give job applicants a financial advantage over uncleared colleagues that likely amounts to thousands of dollars a year. Employees in the Washington area with security clearance make 5 percent to 15 percent higher salaries for the same job as someone without clearance, according to a 2017 survey of human resource departments by the Human Resource Association of the National Capital Area.”
Read it all here…
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/security-clearance-worth-brennan_us_5b75e880e4b018b93e91f2d7
Mike W. said:
I don’t understand why ANY “former” government employees retain a security clearance at all UNLESS they are contractors of some kind for the government.
When I was active duty, if you didn’t NEED one by your position, you lost it because it’s EXPENSIVE to keep TOP SECRET clearance open on an individual.
Pingback: Bookworm Beat 8/20/2018 -- the Leftist double standards edition
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Andrea:
You’re too kind.