Trump has revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director (2013-2017) John Brennan. And is reportedly considering revoking the security clearances of several other individuals. The one thing they all have in common? They were all critical of Trump in various ways. The list includes former DNI James Clapper, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, former FBI director James Comey, and former CIA Director Michael Hayden, among others.
Traditionally, people who have held positions similar to these are often allowed to retain their security clearances even well after retirement in order to act as advisors and consultants to individuals within the government who may be in need of their expertise in a situation. Now, I will caveat this by saying that the President is well within his Constitutional rights to revoke a security clearance; the issue lies in the fact that his reasons for revoking this one are specious and unsubstantiated:
I wonder what lies and "increasingly frenzied commentary" Trump is referring to; I've certainly never heard Brennan be anything other than calm and logical in his criticism of the Trump administration. It's also worth noting that, if anyone should have had a security clearance revoked, Michael Flynn (aka the man who flat out ADMITTED to colluding with an enemy country) tops the list, yet he currently still holds a clearance.
Mr Brennan wrote a blistering op-ed piece in the New York Times in response to the revocation, of which I think the most powerful and important statement is the closing one:
This is a blatant attempt at scaring some of the most highly placed, knowledgeable, and capable people this country has had in positions of power into silence, thereby cowing the people who are not as powerful into silence as well. The good news is, Brennan is refusing to be silenced, and others on the potential security clearance chopping block have made it very clear they do not intend to let the possible loss of a clearance keep them from their right to criticize the multitude of mistakes and evidence of collusion within the Trump administration that continues to mount as time goes by.
Floor is open for comments/discussion.
Traditionally, people who have held positions similar to these are often allowed to retain their security clearances even well after retirement in order to act as advisors and consultants to individuals within the government who may be in need of their expertise in a situation. Now, I will caveat this by saying that the President is well within his Constitutional rights to revoke a security clearance; the issue lies in the fact that his reasons for revoking this one are specious and unsubstantiated:
Quote:
|
"Mr. Brennan's lying and recent conduct characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation's most closely held secrets," Trump said in a statement relayed by White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. |
Mr Brennan wrote a blistering op-ed piece in the New York Times in response to the revocation, of which I think the most powerful and important statement is the closing one:
Quote:
|
Mr. Trump clearly has become more desperate to protect himself and those close to him, which is why he made the politically motivated decision to revoke my security clearance in an attempt to scare into silence others who might dare to challenge him. Now more than ever, it is critically important that the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and his team of investigators be allowed to complete their work without interference — from Mr. Trump or anyone else — so that all Americans can get the answers they so rightly deserve. |
Floor is open for comments/discussion.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2w7kugv
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire