Thread: Trump, citing politics, looking to revoke security clearances

Trump, citing politics, looking to revoke security clearances

By Kevin Liptak, CNN
Updated 5:17 PM ET, Mon July 23, 2018

Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump is considering stripping a half-dozen former national security officials of their security clearances, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday, calling their public commentary about the ongoing Russia probe inappropriate.

Such a move would amount to an unprecedented use of presidential authority to punish political rivals. Critics quickly seized on the announcement, even as those under consideration downplayed the actual effect losing their clearances might have.

The list of former officials under consideration includes former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Director James Comey, former national security adviser Susan Rice, former deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, according to Sanders.

"They've politicized, and in some cases, monetized their public service," Sanders said during a press briefing. "Making baseless accusations of an improper relationship with Russia is inappropriate."

Sanders would not say when the President would make the decision; she said only that the White House would provide updates when it had them.

Two officials on her list -- Comey and McCabe -- no longer have security clearances, people familiar with the matter said.

The announcement, made from the White House podium, came after Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, tweeted that he planned to speak with Trump about removing Brennan's security clearance.

Later, Paul wrote that in their meeting, "I restated to him what I have said in public: John Brennan and others partisans should have their security clearances revoked."

Brennan declared last week that Trump's performance following a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki was "nothing short of treasonous."

A decision to strip a former official of a security clearance would prove a striking use of presidential power. Even Michael Flynn, Trump's onetime national security adviser who was fired during the Obama administration, maintained his clearance when he was acting as a campaign surrogate for Trump, often leading "lock her up" chants at political rallies.

Sanders did little to mask the political nature of Trump's threat, indicating the President was frustrated by the former officials' criticism of him.

"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 you make false accusations against the President on the United States, he says that's something to be concerned with," Sanders said.

"We're exploring what those options are and what that looks like," she said of the process for removing the officials clearances.

When they leave government, national security officials routinely maintain their security clearances, partly to consult with those who replace them about ongoing situations or issues.

Officials also use their clearances to obtain high-paying consulting positions in the private sector.

"I think this is just a very, very petty thing to do. And that's about all I'll say about it," Clapper said on CNN immediately after Sanders' briefing.

"There is a formal process for doing this," he added. "But, you know, legally the President has that prerogative and he can suspend and revoke clearances as he sees fit. If he chooses to do it for political reasons, I think that's a terrible precedent and it's a really sad commentary and its an abuse of the system."

Hayden, meanwhile, indicated being stripped of his clearance would be of little consequence to his commentary.

"I don't go back for classified briefings. Won't have any effect on what I say or write," he tweeted.
The CIA declined to comment on the announcement.

Trump has harshly criticized intelligence officials from the previous administration, claiming they imbued the national security ranks with politics.

"Certainly, in the past, it's been terrible. You look at Brennan. You look at Clapper. You look at Hayden. You look at Comey. You look at McCabe," Trump said during a CBS News interview last week. "Certainly, I can't have any confidence in the past, but I can have a lot of confidence in the present and the future, because it's getting to be now where we're putting our people in. But in the past, no I have no confidence in a guy like Brennan. I think he's a total low life. I have no confidence in Clapper."

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.

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.

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."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/polit...ces/index.html

The security clearance is a complicated thing. I agree with Rand that there is a huge issue today because of the unprecedented personal agendas and personal bias of some of those with security clearances and the unprecedented number of leaks by many of those with these clearances, so the matter should be looked into.

Good for Rand Paul for raising the issue with the President!!

It's entirely possible that changes should be made to the system along with some revocations for abuse and misuse of information they gleaned through their security clearance.

Thank you Rand Paul!!

Security clearances: What exactly can Trump do?

By Mark Morales and Laura Jarrett, CNN
Updated 11:55 PM ET, Mon July 23, 2018

(CNN)President Donald Trump's willingness to consider revoking the security clearances of past officials is unprecedented and security analysts say it could carry dire consequences -- even if they agree he holds the power to do it.

Top officials sometimes maintain their access so that they can provide requested counsel to their predecessors on classified matters, analysts said. This denial of access will eliminate that as a possibility, national security experts said.

The move, aside from causing a political backlash, could also undermine the entire security system -- from a privilege based on status and character -- to a weaponized political tool, security analysts said.

"It is absolutely unprecedented," said former FBI Special Agent Frank Montoya, who has extensive experience in counterintelligence matters. "In the end, the President is the final authority (on security clearances), but it's an abuse of power."

Does Trump have the authority to do this?

The normal process is for the issuing agency to conduct appropriate reviews and make determinations about clearance status. But White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday that Trump was considering revoking the clearance of six former national security officials for their comments about Trump regarding "accusations of improper contact with Russia" or him "being influenced by Russia."

To make this happen at the agency level, Trump could follow the decades-old executive order in place, which provides a written explanation to the clearance holder and an opportunity to reply. Officials could also try to invoke the "interests of national security" clause, which is found in that section, and avoid the detailed procedures. Finally, Trump could decide he is revoking eligibility for the former intelligence officials unilaterally.
The CIA, FBI and Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.

Experts emphasize there is no legal precedent if the President revokes clearances on his own, as typically revocations would be done by the agency and not for political purposes.

Who is Trump looking at?

The list of former officials under consideration includes former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Director James Comey, former national security adviser Susan Rice, former deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, according to Sanders, even though several no longer have active security clearances.

"They've politicized, and in some cases, monetized their public service," Sanders said during a press briefing. "Making baseless accusations of an improper relationship with Russia is inappropriate."

Sanders would not say when the President would make the decision; she said only that the White House would provide updates when it had them.

What would change?

National security lawyer Bradley Moss, who routinely represents clients in security clearance disputes, said Monday it's important to distinguish between "access" and "eligibility" to receive classified information. For former FBI officials such as Comey and McCabe -- who were fired -- their access to classified information was terminated when they left government service.

"It's not really a revocation where it's already gone," Montoya explained.

But former top national security officials, such as Clapper and Brennan, have decades of institutional knowledge and security clearances provide them the ability to consult on specific matters with current officials and provide insight if asked.

"It's a red herring to say they're monetizing it -- what senior official doesn't try to write a book?" Montoya added.

What guidelines currently exist?

There are 13 guidelines for clearances, which were established many years ago, says attorney Mark Zaid who adds, they were tweaked during the Bush and Obama administrations to the further benefit of the clearance holders.

According to Zaid, who regularly represents security clearance applicants, not one of the 13 guidelines pertains to political views. The closest one says that anybody who supports the "violent overthrow" of the US government should not have access to US intelligence. Holding an opposing view to any administration does not have any relevance, Zaid said.

What could the long-term effects be?

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists project on government secrecy, said the move would turn intelligence from a security procedure to a political tool -- one Trump can't exercise without some sort of cause.

"He can't just say, 'I don't like those guys,' or 'They were mean to me,' " Aftergood said. "He would need to specify a particular offense that they committed that would justify revoking their clearance. Saying mean things about the President wouldn't qualify."

CNN's Kevin Liptak and Elise Labott contributed to this report.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/polit...-do/index.html

According to Zaid, who regularly represents security clearance applicants, not one of the 13 guidelines pertains to political views. The closest one says that anybody who supports the "violent overthrow" of the US government should not have access to US intelligence. Holding an opposing view to any administration does not have any relevance, Zaid said.

Yeah, this gets very complicated, it's not a simple thing. You would have to link the political expression to an unauthorized or inappropriate leak of classified information. I think Brennan may have done that, Comey did it, but he no longer has a security clearance. Clapper may have done it, and of course Peter Strzok did it. I don't know about Hayden, he went over to CNN which I don't watch that much and haven't heard any of his statements since then, prior to that, I hadn't heard him use any classified information in his comments that wasn't already public information. Susan Rice should definitely lose hers for her involvement in the demasking of Carter Page, Flynn and others. Outrageous!! I'm sure the reviews are appropriate and the President will be fair in both the process and final decisions concerning this matter.

Trump moves to silence critics

Analysis by Stephen Collinson, CNN
Updated 1:39 AM ET, Tue July 24, 2018

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's latest gambit to choke off the flow of information for past spy chiefs who have criticized him is a disturbing move that again exposes an imperious streak out of place in American democracy.

The President's threat to rip security clearances from some of the nation's most decorated former intelligence officials may turn out to be a classic Trumpian distraction play that whips up a media storm and drowns out stories that are damaging to the White House.

But the idea that it is being seriously contemplated will send a chilling effect throughout Washington.
The wielding of presidential power to punish prominent critics would take this White House perilously closer to potential abuses of executive authority -- perhaps moving it onto territory not tested by any commander in chief since Richard Nixon.

Singling out dissenting former public servants in this way is a norm-busting power play that might seem tame in political systems ruled with an iron grip by Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping, who Trump admires. But it would be fueled by a strongman's instinct that both those leaders might recognize.

A political test for clearance

The idea that a president could establish a political test for the hundreds of thousands of current and former government employees who hold security clearances -- including in the upper reaches of the covert world -- could inflict significant damage on vital institutions. The possibility that he could use such a test to stifle criticism of his actions is almost unthinkable.

"It sounds to me like Donald Trump is talking about building an enemies list," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, said Monday on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront."

Such a claim has validity because Susan Rice, the Obama administration's second-term national security adviser, was on television as recently as Sunday criticizing Trump and questioning his ties to Russia -- and a day later found herself singled out on the White House list.

Perhaps the most astounding aspect of the controversy was that the White House made no secret of the fact that Trump was contemplating the revocation of the clearances for individuals, including former CIA Directors Michael Hayden and John Brennan and ex-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, because they had criticized him.

"Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the President is extremely inappropriate, and the fact that people with security clearances are making these baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence," White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said.

Sanders' comment yet again revealed the President's extreme sensitivity to allegations that he or his campaign in 2016 colluded with a Russian intelligence effort to put him into office, which appears to have become even more acute since his deferential behavior toward Putin in Helsinki last week, amid an astonishing public debate over whether he has been compromised by Moscow.

Sanders had an ostensible justification for the President's plan -- that barely passes the laugh test.

"The President is exploring the mechanisms to remove security clearance because they politicize, and in some cases monetize, their public service and security clearances," Sanders said.

The irony that Trump, of all people, is criticizing others for politicizing the intelligence community or profiting from public service is rich indeed. After all, he once accused intelligence agencies of behaving as though they were in Nazi Germany and has relentlessly attacked the FBI and subsequent special counsel investigation into alleged election collusion with Russia as a "witch hunt."
Ethics experts have frequently accused the Trump family of profiting from the presidency, and his tenure has included multiple scandalous episodes of Cabinet officers being profligate with government money.

Unprecedented times

While Trump's threat to revoke security clearances is unprecedented, so are the times. In no previous period have former senior intelligence officials been on television so often openly criticizing a sitting President.

There is an argument to be made that some of the commentary by former senior intelligence officers has certainly crossed the boundaries set by their predecessors, many of whom were content to remain in the shadows.

Many of Trump's supporters, receptive to the President's months-long campaign against the Russia probe and the attacks on the "deep state" in Washington on conservative media, are unlikely to share the shock rattling through Washington since Trump's threat.

Some of Brennan's criticism of Trump, which included a charge that the President was "treasonous" in his dealings with Putin last week, have surprised some former colleagues with its vehemence, though none of them doubt he is sincere in his criticism.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who chaired the House Intelligence Committee, said Trump's threat was worrying but also questioned the outspokenness of Brennan.

"It's petty. It's certainly below the stature of the office of the President of the United States," Rogers told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead." "It is also not customary for the former CIA director to be off the reservation where he is either."

Hayden and Clapper, both of whom now work for CNN as commentators, have also been searing in their critiques of Trump, though they are typically more temperate in their language. Each man worked for Republican and Democratic presidents and never sought to enter politics -- but both have said they feel compelled to speak out because they see the country's institutions in peril.

Clapper has wondered publicly whether the Russians have something on Trump. Hayden has written that the President is the epitome of a post-truth era in politics.

"It's pretty obvious what the reason is: Why we were singled out for this contemplated action is because of criticism that we have expressed, and reservations that we have expressed about the President," Clapper told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Monday.
The former DNI also said it would never have occurred to him to recommend revoking the security clearance of former Trump campaign aide and short-lived national security adviser Michael Flynn for "vitriolic" criticism of Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.

Some voters might ask why former national security officials need security clearances anyway -- since many of them take lucrative jobs in the security and media sectors.

One justification is that having such status allows former senior officials to be consulted by their successors on issues of a vital national security interest where their experience and institutional knowledge can offer priceless context.

If Trump thinks he can stop senior espionage kingpins from remaining in the know, he will be mistaken, since such officials build up extensive networks at home and abroad.

Even so, as Monday's furor raged, it was clear it shared characteristics similar to many other Trump administration controversies.

It reflected a desire to attack anyone associated with the Obama administration, for which the President harbors seething contempt -- even though some of those on the list were apolitical appointees who served presidents of both parties.

The announcement was also haphazard and may not have been fully thought through. Two of the people on the list -- fired former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- no longer even have such clearances.
But it is a useful drama for Trump because it pits him against the Washington establishment -- always a sweet spot that the base-pleasing President seeks to occupy.

In a more sinister sense, the desire to censure former intelligence officials also fits with the President's long obvious penchant for testing the boundaries of his power -- for instance in breaking down traditional walls between the FBI and the White House designed to insulate the bureau for political interference.

On Monday, Sanders hinted ominously that Trump may have to get more "involved" in the Russia investigation because he regards it as a "witch hunt."

The idea of stripping security clearances seems to have evolved from a suggestion by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, a sometime Trump ally, that Brennan should be singled out. But it has been a frequent topic in conservative media. The President has a habit of picking up ideas from the Fox News vortex and turning them into political fodder.

Ultimately, Monday's developments pose another test for America's institutions, which have so far largely kept Trump's autocratic instincts in check. But they also raise the question of what's next. If a President can use his power to enact political retribution, could freedoms that Americans have taken for granted for decades soon be imperiled?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/polit...man/index.html

Trump's plan to look into this does not "seem" to be the result of Rand Paul's meeting with him, it IS because of Rand Paul's meeting with him. We have lots of problems in our "intel" community and we've had them for a long time. They get a lot of things wrong, big things, things that cost billions to trillions of dollars and thousands to millions of innocent lives. So all Americans need to keep in check the fact that just because the "intel" community says, asserts, concludes or leaks something, that they're right, because it's just as likely they're dead wrong.

Such a move would amount to an unprecedented use of presidential authority to punish political rivals.

Originally Posted by Judy

Yeah, this gets very complicated, it's not a simple thing.

I don't agree. While working such government jobs that require a security clearance, the holder is not supposed to advocate a political view. When they no longer are in such employment, but still hold a security clearance, they should be bound by the same limitation.

This is like a non-competition clause for employees so they cannot work for a competing company for a period of time. Government employment should be the same, where working for CNN or MSNBC cannot be allowed while you still have such security clearance. Now this would affect Fox News as well, as they have many "experts" on their programs that seem to have inside information.

Clearly political opposition should be a qualification for one to lose clearance. The President needs advisors who are not working against him.

No one with a security clearance should be making any public statements, whether they work for the government or no longer work for the government IF their public statements involve classified information UNLESS the classified information has been declassified by the President.

I have no problem with former government workers with security clearances running around the country spouting their views on taxes, immigration, trade, environment, energy, jobs, wages, veterans care, Social Security, health care, infrastructure, war, peace, or any other of the multitude of issues in our country, whether they support this administration or another, or my candidate for President or another.

What I have a problem with is former and current government workers with security clearances running around the country spouting their views on issues based on their knowledge of classified information the clearance gave them access to or renders the assumption that their view is based on classified information UNLESS that classified information has been declassified and made public by an authorization from the President.

The reason you're given a security clearance is because the procedure has in theory determined that you have what it takes to keep your mouth shut and our secrets safe. When you're on national television or meeting with reporters spilling your guts with your "opinions" that are based on classified information you gained through your clearance, then you are violating your obligation to keep your mouth shut and our secrets safe. That is when you should lose your security clearance.

If you're a former official and you're on national television and meeting with reporters to discuss your opinion on infrastructure, taxes, immigration, health care or any other such issue that's not based on classified information, I have no problem with that. They're Americans and can run their mouths all day long if they wish and keep their security clearance, but if they're running their mouths about opinions based on classified information that hasn't been made public by the President, they should lose their security clearance.

Current officials should be supportive of all our Presidents policies, but many aren't, and some oppose some of his policies. I doubt that would rise to losing their security clearance UNLESS it involved issues based on classified information, although it might rise to losing their job.

That's what I mean by "it's complicated".