[NATIONALREVIEW] Let’s begin with two assertions that should, at least, be relatively uncontroversial. First, Article II of the United States Constitution grants the president broad authority to defend the nation as commander in chief of its armed forces. Second, that authority is not so broad as to always override individual constitutional rights whenever the president deems the two to be in conflict.Who can disagree with a statement of the obvious?
To take an extreme example, while the president clearly can exercise great control over the standards for entry into and promotion within the military, no one would credibly argue that he can ban recruits from the opposing party. While the president clearly can exercise great control over who receives a security clearance, he could not revoke clearances from all Democrats on the grounds that the #Resistance was too pervasive in the party’s ranks.
Makes sense to me. But he could revoke the security clearances of specific individuals for cause.
In other words, in our constitutional system, even great power carries with it constitutional limits. Moreover, it is right and proper to weigh any given executive action against those limits.
Well, yeah. But I'm not sure it's right and proper to jump on any presidential action a body doesn't agree with and start niggling.
And that brings me to Donald Trump’s decision yesterday to revoke former CIA director John Brennan’s security clearance.
I thought it might. Ready to niggle?
In the formal statement announcing the action, the White House articulated reasons for the termination that — on their face — raised no serious constitutional concerns. According to the administration, Brennan was “erratic,” had a history of behavior that “calls into question his objectivity and credibility,” and engaged in “increasingly frenzied commentary.”
All of which is on the mark true.
One claim in particular stands out as particularly damaging to Brennan:
In 2014 . . . he denied to Congress that CIA officials under his supervision had improperly accessed the computer files of congressional staffers. He told the Council of Foreign Relations that the CIA would never do such a thing. The CIA’s Inspector General, however, contradicted Mr. Brennan directly, concluding unequivocally that agency officials had indeed improperly accessed congressional staffers’ files.Only a blindly dedicated partisan would claim that lying to Congress doesn’t raise concerns about an official’s truthfulness and character. If that was the true reason for revoking Brennan’s security clearance, then he should absorb the blow, move on, and consider himself fortunate. He’s faced only minimal sanction for a serious offense.
Here's where we part company. I'm headed for logic and legal, and I think he's headed for Tucumcari.
But what if that’s not the real reason he lost his clearance?
It doesn't matter what the "real" reason is. What matters is whether the stated reasons are valid, which they are on their face.
What if the real reason is the one articulated by President Trump himself in an interview with the Wall Street Journal? There, Trump decried the “rigged witch hunt,” declared that “these people led it,” and added that “it’s something that had to be done.” By “these people” he was apparently referring not just to Brennan but also to former director of national intelligence James Clapper, former FBI director James Comey, and former NSA chief Michael Hayden.
Brennan, Clapper, Comey, the lot of 'em, are no longer filling government positions. What possible need do they have for security clearances? The thing is, you can have Top Secret and ultra-compartmented clearances, and if you don't have the need to know, as part of your job, you should have no more access than the lady behind the counter at the drug store or the teller at the bank. You can't just snuggle up to someone and say "I've got a Top Secret clearance. Let's chat about what's up in Uzbekistan." Open source (I've seen it called OSINT) information is all that's appropriate. Losing his clearance should have no effect on Brennan or any of his clones from the Obama years, unless he and his buddies still retaining clearances were abusing them. I suppose they'll just have to reapply if that cush job with Lockheed comes open.
