He was already out of the loop. But Trump is simply lying about why it was done. It was 100% political, and is part of his use of federal power to go after his political enemies.
Trump cultists will dredge the record for similar instances, which they think will exonerate their leader. But hey, their moral code was getting them nowhere, so they just threw it in the trash.
The opinion piece below is from a lifelong GOP member, former advisor to Condi Rice.
Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/trumps-threat-to-pull-clearances-is-ignorantand-scary/566024/?utm_source=twb
(no message)
.........a former IC guy like Brennan is worth a LOT more in the private sector with his security clearance as he maneuvers to make money on his former position in the private sector.
This is what REALLY bothers Brennan about the revocation of his clearance.
Now Chrs, wtf are you whining about?
"Never before has this been done"?!!
Never before have we had such rank amateurs and partisans as Obama's Deep State people who actually call the sitting president "traitorous" as he carries out necessary meetings with another super power. And when was the last time that a former CIA director wrote a damning book about a sitting president for political and economic purposes? Never mind that there is NO evidence to back up the claim.
This guy has absolutely politicized his previously nonpolitical position and you must have been dreaming of a different universe when you claimed that the IC consisted of "professionals" that keep their politics separate from their jobs.
Brennan is not needed anymore, and has no need of his clearance. It was granted as a courtesy far longer than it should have been to a guy who abused the courtesy.
And you wonder why anyone would be suspicious of Comey, Clapper, Rice, Yates, and Mueller.
(no message)
(no message)
Link: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/402039-rand-paul-takes-victory-lap-after-brennans-security-clearance
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
But having a serial, pathological liar leading the nation certainly is an election consequence in and of itself.
You should be proud of yer voting work.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Apparently, your and my free speech rights involve having top secret security clearance. Who knew!
I think Rand Paul said it best:
“I applaud President Trump for his revoking of John Brennan’s security clearance. I urged the President to do this. I filibustered Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA in 2013, and his behavior in government and out of it demonstrate why he should not be allowed near classified information. He participated in a shredding of constitutional rights, lied to Congress, and has been monetizing and making partisan political use of his clearance since his departure.”
(no message)
(no message)
To deny them security clearances would be bigotry.
(no message)
(no message)
Voted for a Communist to be POTUS. He's a lying, low life swamp dweller. Good riddance
(no message)
(no message)
er officer really should just be on a need to know or want you to know basis. And, yes, I hold that view regardless of who is in the White House.
Former senior people are often "read in" to give advice on evolving situations. It's like intel consulting. That's pretty much it.
My understanding was always that once you left your sponsoring entity, your clearance remained valid for a certain number of years, but not active unless you are picked up by someone else.
But there are a handful of officials who can essentially decide to include whoever they want on any issue. The DNI, for instance, can always allow a person to be "read in" on an issue.
That is, of course, unless the President says no.
After I left that organization was that my clearance was still valid for some period of time (I think maybe 6 years), but wasn't active (couldn't be used) unless I went to another organization that picked me up or "sponsored" me. Again, just what I was told. I didn't really care one way or the other.
...his communist leanings of course.