This morning James Clapper is whining at The Hill about John Brennan being a loose cannon.
I have a question. Was Trump right or wrong to rescind John Brennan’s security clearance? There’s no question he has the authority to do it and the complaints about it being some sort of authoritarian move is bushwah. We don’t have an Official Secrets Act. Things are classified or declassified and security clearances granted or withdrawn under the authority of the president. If you want it to be otherwise, pass a law.
I’m the wrong person to provide an answer about either Brennan or Clapper for that matter since I think that both of them should be behind bars for perjury. They have each given conflicting answers to Congress in sworn testimony. No matter how you cut it that’s perjury.
I have a hard time caring at all about this.
To be sure it is a vindictive action by the President but at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. At most, Brennan may not be able to get a cushy executive job with a defense/intelligence contractor. Once Trump is out of office, Brennan will have his clearance back in a Jiffy, should a future administration want to bring him on board.
To me, this is just another round of the Washington Outrage Machine, one that will be quickly forgotten like all the others.
This thought occurred to me this morning. If Donald Trump was not president, would he be able to get a security clearance?
Sam,
Unknown. I think the bigger question is whether Donald Trump would submit to the investigatory requirements for getting a clearance – I doubt that he would.
Agree with Andy. Clearly vindictive, but then Brennan was being vindictive in his own right. I guess hit opens up the door for similar behavior by the left in the future since so many Repub officials end up at Fox.
“They have each given conflicting answers to Congress in sworn testimony. No matter how you cut it that’s perjury.”
I think that sometimes they get set up by congresspeople who ask them questions they know they cannot answer truthfully. That aside would agree.
Steev
I fail to see why anyone should keep security clearances when leaving government positions, except in limited circumstances. And in the current situation with these former high level intel agency folks taking media jobs, and a recent IG report highlighting an egregious amount of leaking, all the more so.
CStanley,
As long as their investigations are current, anyone who leaves the government keeps their clearance – or rather, their clearance is still considered “current” until it expires (timeline varies). What does get pulled is any access to classified information. If someone were to go and get another cleared job, then the access process is usually simple and routine.
Exceptions are some former high-level officials, like Brennan, who might be called in by a future administration to consult or clarify something. There are also provisions for access in special situations – like testimony before Congress after someone has left office and they need to consult classified records in the National Archives.
Thanks for the clarification Andy.