Wild outbursts on the internet and television

Written by

Ophelia Benson

in

Vox gives us Sarah Sanders’s disgusting performance “explaining” Trump’s attack on Brennan.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, reading a statement from the president during the daily press briefing on Wednesday, cited Trump’s “constitutional responsibility to protect the nation’s classified information” as justification for his decision to revoke Brennan’s clearance.

“Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations — wild outbursts on the internet and television — about this administration,” Sanders said, reading the president’s statement.

“I’m not a reckless lunatic, you’re a reckless lunatic!” Trump is the guy who goes in for wild outbursts on Twitter and at his “rallies” and on the global stage; Brennan talks soberly and seriously about the danger Trump is to all of us.

Comments

6 responses to “Wild outbursts on the internet and television”

  1. Acolyte of Sagan Avatar
    Acolyte of Sagan

    Okay, I’ve got a feeling that this might be a stupid question, but why would an ex-CIA Director (or anybody else who has left a job involving high-level clearance) keep their security clearance once they’re no longer with an agency? I’m not siding with Trump here (I’d rather boil my own head) but I just don’t see why they’d get to keep their clearance (and potentially access to classified information?) if they’re no longer in those jobs.

    I suppose I’m asking if revoking clearance in this way will affect Brennan in any real sense?

  2. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    AoS, as I understand it, it is so that they can continue to offer advice, perspective and insight around both issues that happened when they were in the hot seat and issues that have arisen since. In other words applying the maxim that two heads are better than one. The US Government and it’s relationships with others (i.e. the rest of the world) are very very complex, being both broad, deep and massively intertwined in both the current and history. There is no conceivable way that a handful of people appointed cold can keep a satisfactory high-level view of even bits of it. Being able to pull in a previous appointee to get their view gives the current decision maker insight and also helps calibrate their initial impulse against the view of someone who has been there, but is no longer in the heat of the moment.

  3. Boblin Avatar
    Boblin

    As I understand it, ex-presidents keep their security clearance as standard, receiving daily briefings for the rest of their lives.

    If I were president, I wouldn’t revoke clearances from my opponents – I would prefer to feed them false briefings as counter-intelligence in case they happen to be impaled on a foreign power…

  4. Your Name's not Bruce? Avatar
    Your Name’s not Bruce?

    ” Being able to pull in a previous appointee to get their view gives the current decision maker insight and also helps calibrate their initial impulse against the view of someone who has been there, but is no longer in the heat of the moment.”

    Pffft. As if the Stable Genius in Chief would ever need that.

  5. Acolyte of Sagan Avatar
    Acolyte of Sagan

    Thanks, Rob, that makes sense. Trump, of course, sees no problem with that because, as not Bruce alluded to, Trumpelthinskin don’t need no stinking experienced people ‘cos he’s got schmartz.

  6. Screechy Monkey Avatar
    Screechy Monkey

    This explanation from Lawfare Blog may help (it would seems that Rob’s explanation is essentially right):

    There is a critical distinction that often is misunderstood—even by individuals who have worked in the cleared community for decades—between “access” and “eligibility for access” to classified information. When an individual is granted a security clearance, all that means is that that person has been favorably adjudicated and is “eligible for access” to classified information at a particular level (whether confidential, secret or top secret). That eligibility remains valid for a certain number of years depending on the level of classification for which the individual was favorably adjudicated (for example, a secret-level clearance is valid for 10 years).

    Access, in and of itself, is the subsequent step taken by the agency to provide the cleared individual with the means by which to use classified email accounts, utilize classified databases and work in a classified office space. When, for example, Comey was fired, his “access” was immediately cut off. He was “debriefed” from any compartmentalized programs to which he had been accessed, his credentials were taken away and he probably signed several “briefing acknowledgment” forms confirming that he had been debriefed. Comey’s “eligibility,” however, was not affected by his termination.

    Basically, as I understand it, Brennan’s clearance meant that he could receive classified information if needed for consultation or otherwise, but not that he necessarily was receiving it or had any right to receive it. Nevertheless, as the rest of the linked article goes on to explain, Brennan may have a right not to have his clearance revoked without due process. (Hint: angry toddler president’s wish to punish his enemies is not due process).

More posts