Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes ofwebsite accessibility

Former officials defiant as Trump threatens security clearance of more critics


President Donald Trump listens as he attends a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
President Donald Trump listens as he attends a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Facebook Share IconTwitter Share IconEmail Share Icon

President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke the security clearance of a former CIA director who has been critical of his administration has angered and disturbed Democrats and national security experts, but some Republicans say he did the right thing and other former officials should also lose access to sensitive information.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders announced Wednesday former CIA Director John Brennan’s clearance would be taken away, reading a statement from Trump accusing him of “erratic” behavior that makes him unworthy of the privilege. Trump did not offer any evidence Brennan has misused classified information, but he claimed Brennan’s “increasingly frenzied commentary” sows division and questioned the broader practice of allowing former security officials to retain clearance.

Though Trump’s initial statement cited Brennan’s conduct since leaving office, he suggested an entirely different motivation to the Wall Street Journal later in the afternoon. Citing Brennan’s role in the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, which he called a “sham,” Trump said, “I think it’s something that had to be done.”

The investigation of possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia, now in the hands of special counsel Robert Mueller, provides the connective tissue to several other names Trump had added to the list of those whose clearance is under review since he first raised the issue last month.

Last month, Sanders named six former officials whose clearance Trump wanted to reconsider: Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.

On Wednesday, she also included former FBI attorney Lisa Page and recently-fired FBI official Peter Strzok, both of whom served on Mueller’s team, and Bruce Ohr, who is still employed at the FBI but was reassigned amid questions about his role in the probe.

Sanders did not provide a timeline for decisions on the remaining officials, but the president’s Twitter feed hinted strongly at the direction he may be leaning.

Quoting Fox host Sean Hannity, Trump wrote Wednesday night, “I’d strip the whole bunch of them. They’re all corrupt. They’ve all abused their power. They’ve all betrayed the American people with a political agenda.” He cited several other Fox News guests who criticized the conduct of FBI and Obama administration officials as well.

Still, Trump has denied these security clearance reviews are politically motivated, telling the Wall Street Journal he would single out a Republican too “if I thought they were incompetent or crazy.” Pressed repeatedly by reporters at a briefing Wednesday, Sanders maintained the president was merely doing his job.

“The president has a constitutional responsibility to protect classified information, and who has access to it. And that’s what he’s doing is fulfilling that responsibility in this action,” she said.

Democrats on Capitol Hill accused Trump of establishing a dangerous precedent for making security clearance decisions based on politics rather than the national interest.

“I think this is a bush league maneuver by President Trump,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. “There’s no evidence the former CIA director did something to violate the conditions under which you get access to classified information.”

According to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., the president is trying to get revenge against former officials who have dared to speak out against him.

“It not only sets a very bad precedent but it sends a message to the intelligence community that is chilling, that if they tell the president what they believe, that they will be sanctioned for that in some way,” she said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Thursday he does not blame Trump for revoking clearance from someone who called his Helsinki summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin “treasonous.”

“I think Brennan has definitely gone over the line and this is not good for the intelligence community,” he said. “It’s okay to criticize the president but I don’t think it’s okay to go to the extremes he’s gone.”

Graham also disputed the notion that Trump is just targeting his critics.

“[Former CIA Director] Leon Panetta has been a critic of the president, but he’s handled it in such a way not to overly politicize his former job,” he said.

Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., declined to comment on whether Brennan specifically should have clearance, but he said Trump was well within his rights to revoke it if he wanted.

“That’s his prerogative,” Isakson said. “I don’t have any concerns about somebody exercising his prerogative.”

Not all Republicans were comfortable with the president’s actions, though. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said Thursday having former officials outside government with clearance can at times greatly benefit Americans, and those credentials should not be taken away unless they abuse their access.

“Look, I thought it was kind of a banana republic kind of thing,” Corker said. “I don’t like it. There may be something I don’t know, but I don’t think so.”

Legal experts agree Trump has the authority to revoke former officials’ security clearance, and Brennan has little recourse to challenge the determination. Federal courts have generally given the executive branch wide latitude in this area.

“The idea that the president would strip the security clearance of a senior intelligence leader based primarily on personal and policy disagreements—and consider stripping of others—is outrageous,” said Jamil Jaffer, founder of the National Security Institute at George Mason University, in a statement. “While removing a security clearance is a core presidential prerogative, just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.”

Critics of Trump’s decision have observed the transgressions he has accused Brennan of committing— “frenzied” commentary, “wild outbursts” online, making “unfounded and outrageous allegations"—have a familiar ring to them.

“He seems to be a master of accusing people of things he himself is guilty of,” said Claire Finkelstein, director of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Finkelstein likened Trump’s list of critics whose clearances are under review to McCarthyism and President Richard Nixon’s enemies list.

“We have had incidents and times in the past when people were identified on the basis of their political opinions as dangerous as a way of quelling speech,” she said. “Such incidents are not ones we’re proud of, and those who engaged in such behavior were on the wrong side of history.”

The case the White House laid out against Brennan does not clearly align with any of the reasons clearance is typically revoked. However, CNN reported the decision was made by Trump without consulting Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.

Former intelligence officials retain clearance in part because they may be consulted by their successors on matters of national security. Trump supporters argue people like Brennan who so vociferously oppose the president cannot be trusted to help this administration anyway.

“No one in the Trump administration is or should be consulting with someone as partisan as Brennan, so pulling his clearance was right and proper,” Jim Hanson, president of Security Studies Group, wrote in a Fox News op-ed.

In his official statement Wednesday, Trump accused Brennan of making statements under oath on two occasions that were contradicted by other officials, raising doubts about his “objectivity and credibility.” He also claimed Brennan and other former officials use “real or perceived” access to sensitive information to validate partisan attacks.

Some national security law experts remain unpersuaded by these accusations. They are far more concerned by the implications of Trump’s actions and the message an apparent crackdown on dissent sends about this White House.

“If you threw this story into a grab bag of stories about other places, all with the participants and place names removed, what country would you think it came from?” said Jeff Kahn, a professor of law at Southern Methodist University. “Maybe a dictator somewhere punishing opponents, not a rule-of-law republic like the United States.”

The White House’s handling of the announcement has invited questions about the timing. When Trump’s statement was initially released Wednesday, it was dated July 26, and Trump told the Wall Street Journal he would have made the announcement last week while he was at his private club in Bedminister, New Jersey but it was too “hectic.”

“What it makes one think is that the White House prepares these actions against political opponents and holds them in reserve until they need them in one way or another,” Finkelstein said, speculating the president wanted to change the subject from former aide and “Apprentice” contestant Omarosa Manigault Newman’s book.

If the intent was to silence Brennan, the move has so far failed. Since the announcement, he has conducted several media interviews and published a blistering op-ed in the New York Times claiming Trump is “desperate” to protect himself from Mueller’s investigation.

“Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash,” he wrote. “The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of ‘Trump Incorporated’ attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets.”

Others on the president’s list have been similarly defiant, insisting that preserving their clearance is far less important than expressing their opposition to Trump.

“I might express things differently than John does or than Mike Hayden does,” Clapper told CNN Thursday. “In the end, the broad outlines here is our genuine concern about the threats to the institutions of this country and that's what I think motivates all of us. We feel a duty and an obligation to speak up about this.”

Given the shifting rationales from the White House, it is hard to predict who is most at jeopardy for losing their clearance next. Those who have been fired from the FBI for misconduct like McCabe or Strzok may be easiest to justify, but Comey, Hayden, and Clapper have been more outspoken critics of the administration. Trump’s statement that he had to do something about those who led the Russia investigation would also point toward Comey or Strzok.

“Actual former intelligence officers are most in his sights as people to target because it’s part of his effort to discredit the intelligence community so they will not be believed in general with regard to Russia,” Finkelstein said.

Sen. Graham, who recently called the Russia investigation “corrupt at the core,” said future decisions should be based solely on officials’ conduct, and he expects that would place those involved in the probe in Trump crosshairs.

“I would think that Strzok, Page, and Ohr would be prime candidates, along with Comey,” Graham said, though he also added, “Like [fired National Security Adviser Michael] Flynn, they should look at taking his clearance away.”

Flynn was forced out of leadership of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama in 2014. In 2016, he traveled the country campaigning for Trump, attacking Obama, and calling for Trump’s opponent to be jailed.

After the election, Trump appointed Flynn as national security adviser, but he was fired for lying about contacts with the Russian ambassador. He later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI as well, and he is now awaiting sentencing. His security clearance was never revoked by either administration.

“The Trump administration is now overt about the fact that it regards criticism of Donald Trump as meriting punitive action,” Finkelstein said. “This represents a new level of attack on freedom of expression and political dissent that we have not seen before in the U.S.”

Loading ...