Wild outbursts on the internet and television
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.
Fmr. Deputy National Security Adviser to President Obama, Ben Rhodes tells @AliVelshi that what John Brennan says on his Twitter account "should have absolutely no bearing on his fitness to maintain his security clearance." pic.twitter.com/vG0i2IFyON
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) August 15, 2018
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?
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.
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…
” 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.
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.
This explanation from Lawfare Blog may help (it would seems that Rob’s explanation is essentially right):
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).