Can the President Revoke Former Officials’ Security Clearances?

[Minister of Truth]

The real question is, should people without a need-to-know have a security clearance. In theory, sharing classified information with someone who does not have a need-to-know is a breach, regardless of their clearance level.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Prove he is a security risk. Trump is the only one who has been a security risk so far. Ask the Israelis.

He is a communist. That means he is a security risk by definition. He is also a perjurer, which means he has committed crimes, which means he should not be eligible for a security clearance.

 

[domer76]

Trumps job is to protect and defend this country. If someone poses a security threat, then he has every right to yank their security clearance. Especially if no one else is willing to do it because of partisan politics.

So, tell us about the security clearances he allowed for:

A domestic abuser
His son-in-law, who tried to initiate a back door in the Russian embassy.
Hus son, who tried to conspire directly with known Russian agents.

I don’t expect a cogent response from a Trumptard.

 

[Teflon Don]

Nobody claimed it was a right, nipplehead.

Who gives a fuck about your “should” bullshit?

The point being that the clearance was revoked out of revenge, spite and intimidation.. Abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

There is no law against revoking clearance for revenge. Is there?

Cry harder for me.

As for obstruction, that is the dumbest notion

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The actual access to any material is only if the person has a need to know. Just because a person has a clearance doesnt give them access to anything. trump is just pandering to uneducated types like you.

still waiting for someone to come up with a reason why someone who does not work for the government needs clearance to look at restricted information.......

 

[Nordberg]

Brennan should sue.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha

Fuck Brennan and fuck you


#MAGA BITCHES

You don't care if Trump breaks the law. Some true Americans do. Trumpys do not care. It says so much about them, and it isn't good.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Prove he is a security risk.

he is not a federal employee........

 

[Nordberg]

still waiting for someone to come up with a reason why someone who does not work for the government needs clearance to look at restricted information.......

Ex CIA leaders are sources for the present leaders. They often ask former leaders what they did when they were in that position and ask for advice. They ask about how well they trust sources and agents. There is plenty of reason to keep ex agents arounnd and current.

So as usual, you respond Trumpian without doing any homework.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Nobody claimed it was a right, nipplehead.

Who gives a fuck about your “should” bullshit?

The point being that the clearance was revoked out of revenge, spite and intimidation.. Abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

if he had no right to it, who cares if it was out of revenge, or because Trump was annoyed by a hangnail, or because Brennan was a scum sucker who should be jailed........doing what ought to be done to EVERYONE who leaves office still ought to be done.......next you'll be telling me Hilliary still has a security clearance.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Ex CIA leaders are sources for the present leaders. They often ask former leaders what they did when they were in that position and ask for advice. .

and that is precisely WHY his clearance should be terminated......no one should seek advice from that fuckwit......

 

[countryboy]

Bradley P. Moss is a Washington D.C. attorney specializing in security clearance proceedings. Last month he wrote this opinion:

Trump is considering steps by which clearances can be revoked because “they’ve politicized and, in some cases, monetized their public service and security clearances,” as well as “made baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the President.”

In 11 years of representing civilian employees, military personnel, political appointees and government contractors in security clearance proceedings, I can say with certainty that these types of “allegations” are nothing like anything I have ever seen in a memorandum outlining bases for denying or revoking a security clearance.

Moss goes on to outline three different scenarios that might occur:

1. The Standard Process
Trump is unlikely to go down this path because it affords far too much due process for his taste. What’s more, it would require civil servants at the respective agencies to sign off on the paperwork. I can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that those civil servants would not put their names on a document moving to revoke someone’s security clearance for nothing other than bad-mouthing the president on television or writing a book.

2. The National Security Exception to the Standard Process
This is a rarely-used provision that nonetheless is probably far more to Trump’s liking. Again, however, this would necessitate current agency heads such as FBI Director Christopher Wray to attest that it would be inconsistent with national security to afford appeal rights to Comey or McCabe. The odds are not in Trump’s favor that Wray would consent to putting his name on such a document.

3. The Inherent Authority Option
The president could claim the inherent authority to revoke the clearance of each of the individuals without any due process. There is no precedent for such an action, as no president (at least as far as I am aware) has ever personally intervened in the clearance revocation of an individual. That has never happened before because past presidents—whatever their flaws or scandals—knew there were certain institutional norms and customs that a president simply should not disturb.

If the president were to take this unprecedented exercise of his authority, it is anyone’s guess how the courts would construe the issue. It would set up a serious clash of constitutional questions between the inherent authority of the president regarding classified information, the procedural due-process rights of clearance holders under the Fifth Amendment, and the extent to which the judiciary is even permitted to rule on the matter.

As the president would say, we’ll just have to wait and see.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-president-revoke-former-officials-security-clearances

Lol. If the President of the United States can't revoke someone's security clearance, who can?

 

[Nordberg]

and that is precisely WHY his clearance should be terminated......no one should seek advice from that fuckwit......

CIA sources find him very knowledgeable. Trumpians just savage those who disagree with them. He has gone from a highly respected servant of the government to a crook. That is how Trump works. It is shameful. He is no fuckwit. you are. He was head of the CIA. Not exactly a job for a low brow.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

CIA sources find him very knowledgeable. .

then its time to replace them as well.....

 

[domer76]

There is no law against revoking clearance for revenge. Is there?

Cry harder for me.

As for obstruction, that is the dumbest notion

I didn’t say there was a law, did I, illiterate fuck? I merely pointed out the facts. Revenge, spite, intimidation. The intent is clear, shitstain

A pattern of intimidation of those involved in the Russian probe is certainly obstruction. That you’re ignorantly oblivious ofvthat is on you stupid fuck.

 

[domer76]

if he had no right to it, who cares if it was out of revenge, or because Trump was annoyed by a hangnail, or because Brennan was a scum sucker who should be jailed........doing what ought to be done to EVERYONE who leaves office still ought to be done.......next you'll be telling me Hilliary still has a security clearance.......

Next, I’ll be telling you that you are a laughably ignorant moron.

Who cares about intent? What the fuck kind of pissant lawyer are you?

Again, your “ought” bullshit is nothing more than that. You “ought” to kill yourself, punk.

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

He is a communist. That means he is a security risk by definition.

Brennan voted for a communist once in 1976 when he was a college student. We know this because, many years later, he said so.

That makes him a security risk?

He is also a perjurer, which means he has committed crimes.

This?

CIA Brennan Might Have to Answer for Perjury, Planning a Coup

February 12, 2018
Devin Nunes plans to investigate former CIA director John Brennan and he is in jeopardy for possibly committing perjury. There is also the coup he promoted. Devin Nunes plans to release more information and more memos.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/cia-brennan-might-answer-perjury-planning-coup/

Wow!

 

[Ross Dolan]

Dictators do whatever they want till stopped

Yup.

So do wanna-be dictators like Donald Trump.

The conservative Republicans are in power throughout the government...and should be moving to stop this bullshit. But they do not have the nerve and sense of duty to do it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Can he? Yes. He ALREADY HAS.....and the fact that you don't witness the pompous asshole Brennan rushing out to the court system to defend himself speaks volumes. What is he doing...engaging the propaganda arm of the DNC....the MSM...exercising his still valid 1st amendment right of free speech.

The courts are useless in consideration of the US CONSTITUTION. This "free speech" argument is Bull Shit. We are addressing the fact of revoking the privilege AFTER service has been rendered......and CAUSE. The cause does not have to be proven in a court of law.....the "Cause" in the instance of the disgraced FORMER CIA head......is justified by the congressional record and the fact that he lied under oath.....and the fact that he has "seditiously" accused a US PRESIDENT of treason. Period. There is "FREE SPEECH" and there is speech engaging in seditious language that has direct implications on the presidents ability to provide security for THE PEOPLE.


Take him to court.....I would enjoy watching anyone approaching any of the freshly appointed record number of federal court judges with such a left wing BS charge. Remember...the radicalized left no longer controls the court. Go for it....we need more left wing entertainment. Remember the (wink, wink) MUSLIM BAND.....false argument? Want your ass kicked again by real constitutional judges?

The real winner? Omarosa…..WHO? How can you make any false charge stick.....if you are continually "BAITED" into launching a new attack on a different plane of thought every other day. You are being flooded with so much bait even the MSM does not have the capacity to keep up....you are being played and manipulated by the BEST.


(fishing) is fun....these people are stupid. 223 WE ARE IN CONTROL, WE KNOW EVERYTHING.

Trump IS a dick.

His supporters are dickless!

 

[domer76]

he is not a federal employee........

And?

Dumbfuck

 

[Ross Dolan]

Trumps job is to protect and defend this country. If someone poses a security threat, then he has every right to yank their security clearance. Especially if no one else is willing to do it because of partisan politics.

Hitler woulda loved you~!