Punishing the vocal critics

Astonishing.

President Donald Trump is considering revoking security clearances from ex-officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Monday.

Sanders said Trump believed that the former officials “politicized” their positions by accusing Trump of inappropriate contact with Russia, and she said in that some cases they “monetized their clearances,” without clarifying what she meant.

“The fact that people with security clearances are making baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence,” Sanders said. She also said Trump was eyeing clearances held by former NSA Director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser Susan Rice and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose security clearance was deactivated after he was fired.

What a spiteful reckless unguided missile he is.

He’s so reckless and ego-centered that he doesn’t care that they’re in a position to know and understand why it’s not clever to try to be besties with Putin, he cares only that they failed to say he’s right about everything. This should get him swiftly removed from office, but it won’t.

Brennan, Comey and Clapper have been vocal critics of Trump, often making headlines over their displeasure with the president’s performance.

Last week, Brennan lambasted Trump’s meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia, calling it “nothing short of treasonous.”

“Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the president is extremely inappropriate,” Sanders said during Monday’s press briefing. “And the fact that people with security clearances are making these baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence.”

No, making treasonous overtures to Putin without witnesses present is “extremely inappropriate.” Punishing the people who say so is also not appropriate, or productive or legitimate or responsible or adult or anything else a president ought to be.

Several minutes after Huckabee announced that the White House was seeking to revoke his clearance, Clapper on Monday called it “a petty way of retribution: for speaking out against Trump and said that “it’s an abuse of the system.”

“The security clearance has nothing to do with how I or any of us feel about the president,” Clapper said in an interview with CNN, adding that he does not get security briefings and does not have access to classified information.

But taking it away is its own reward, aka spite.

When asked whether the president was punishing those ex-officials for speaking out, Sanders said: “The president doesn’t like that people are politicizing agencies and departments that are specifically meant to not be political and not meant to be monetized off of security clearances.”

“Accusing the president of the United States of treasonous activity when you have the highest level of security clearance, when you’re the person that holds the nation’s deepest, most sacred secrets at your hands, and you go out and make false accusations against the president of the United States, he thinks that is something to be very concerned with,” Sanders added.

They’re not false. A week ago Trump stood there next to Putin and said he didn’t believe Dan Coats, he believed Putin. The accusations that Trump behaved deplorably and quite possibly treasonously in Helsinki are not false, they are visibly true.

Updating to add Rand Paul’s tweets:

Comments

7 responses to “Punishing the vocal critics”

  1. G Felis Avatar

    I think it’s noteworthy that worthless prevaricating worm Senator Rand Paul (WPW-KY) suggested this move. Paul has frequently been a Trump critic on pretty much every other issue, but has been very vocal in defending Trump with respect to Russia, which makes me wonder how much Russian money is tangled up in Paul’s financial affairs. Or maybe it’s just that Rand Paul sees and admires what a Libertarian paradise the Russian mobocracy really is: no rule of law, no justice but what money can buy.

  2. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    Very noteworthy; I added his tweets on the subject.

  3. Holms Avatar

    I find it remarkable that Comey is being accused of anti-Trump bias.

  4. Dave Ricks Avatar

    To be clear, Benjamin Wittes checked with Comey today,

    There’s nothing for POTUS to revoke. Comey says he was “read out” when he left government as per normal practice. He even recently declined a temporary clearance from the IG to read the classified annex to the IG’s recent report. He didn’t want to see any classified material lest the president accuse him of leaking it.

    In other words, when I quit working at SAIC to work at MITRE in 2005, and I took two weeks off in between, strictly speaking, I did not have a clearance for those two weeks, because I did not belong to an organization authorized to hold a clearance for me.

    CNN posted more facts to clarify:

    It is the President’s prerogative to revoke security clearances, a former senior intelligence official said on Monday, who added that instances of such an occurrence were rare.

    Usually former senior officials retain clearances so their successors can consult with them on a pro bono basis, the former official said [emphasis mine].

    Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists project on government secrecy, said that while Trump has the ultimate authority to revoke the clearances, he would first have to ask each agency that initially granted that clearance and order them to revoke it [emphasis mine].

    Aftergood said doing that would undermine and politicize the system.

    “The idea that a president or a White House would single out individuals from a past administration who have been critical and revoke their clearances is not something we have ever seen before. It’s not entirely clear how it could be performed,” he said. “It undermines the integrity and the neutrality of security policy which is not based on political considerations but on professional character. That system would be undermined if it became a tool for settling political scores.”

    I interpret my first bolded passage to mean Brennan still has a clearance at the CIA so the government can ask him questions on short notice. The FBI did not give Comey that status.

    In my second bolded passage, I’m not sure if it means Trump would go to the organization holding Brennan’s clearance (probably the CIA as his former employer), or go to some other agency that accounts for clearances.

    These details aside, POTUS politicizing clearances on the basis of speech would be very bad.

  5. Rob Avatar

    The president doesn’t like that people are politicizing agencies and departments that are specifically meant to not be political and not meant to be monetized off of security clearances.

    Uuuuuuh, I think my brain is melting trying to reconcile the hypocrisy.

  6. Catwhisperer Avatar

    I wrestled with this for a few minutes, trying to understand what good a security clearance is to a person who no longer does a job that requires it. I started to think that there was something about it that I was failing to grasp. Then I remembered: It’s entirely likely that I understand it just fine, but Trump and his people don’t, and / or they are making shit up.

    It was a strange realisation.

  7. Ophelia Benson Avatar

    Thanks Dave, that’s very informative.