Can the President Revoke Former Officials’ Security Clearances?

[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-pres...ity-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/c...planning-coup/

Wow!

[Frank Apisa]

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.

[Frank Apisa]

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

[Frank Apisa]

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~!

[Nordberg]

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

But they do. It is people like you who are so blind in Trumpian hate that you cannot understand that a 25 year CIA employee and former head may have valuable information. That is why they talk to him and all the others on trumps enemy list.

[katzgar]

Why all the bitching about revoking that privilege? No....Mr. Trump is denying the traitor Brennan the continued use of that clearance in order to get future Jobs where he (according to his record of lying under oath as part of the congressional record) can place the information of any future employer at risk. Brennan has been "Bitch Slapped".

Can the president revoke those clearances? Yes......he has already demonstrated the answer to that moronic question...ask Brennan. Is Brennan rushing out to the court system to address his supposed constitutional grievances......no.....he is going to the propaganda networks to address his butt hurt. He will not go to the courts....because HE CANNOT.

you knuckle draggers do like to be stupid. the only thing trump gained is pandering to you opioid addicts.

[Nordberg]

Why don’t you think poor Brennan will sue? Could it be he has no case?

He doesn’t need a security clearance.

Already posted it. I knew you cannot read. There is a procedure and the person with a clearance has rights. Trump is playing king again. Brennan said today, he may sue after all. he has a great case. yeah, he is a CIA resource and he needs clearance.

[Nordberg]

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?




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/c...planning-coup/

Wow!

43 years ago. No time to change. He was in the CIA for 25 years and headed it for 4. That seem like a communist to you? But Trump who is involved with Rusian oligarchs and sides with Russia againsyt our allies, is a real American? WOW.

[SmarterthanYou]

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.