...he also knew that to not suspend his clearance would leave him (Eisenhower) open to attack from McCarthy and his ilk. So the prudent political move was to suspend the clearance, like it or not. So that's a pretty big difference by itself from the Brennan affair as I see it.
-
Show this thread
-
4. Under AEC regulations, Oppenheimer was given opportunity to have a hearing on his clearance suspension. That worked out poorly for him, in the end, resulting not only in the upholding of its suspension, but the airing of a lot of dirty laundry (affairs, bad judgment, etc.)...
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
...I don't know (but would love to know) whether Brennan and the potential "others" have the ability to contest? I suspect not. But I am not up to date on the regs for this. If not, then that's another key difference between the two.
3 replies 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
5. Lastly, it is clear that Trump is doing this to Brennan because he wants to silence his critics. Purely political. The Oppenheimer affair was more complicated, a mix of the political and the personal, and again, only reluctantly participated in by Eisenhower.
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
I only write these things because I've seen some historians assert historical parallels. I think it's kind of a weak comparison, in the sense that the Oppenheimer affair was pretty complex, and the Brennan affair seems to be "merely" a form of ugly politics.
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likesShow this thread -
The Oppenheimer affair, for all of its injustice, was not merely an attempt to silence a critic, or cut him off from potential income. The Brennan affair looks *only* like that, at least from my vantage point. FIN.
3 replies 2 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @wellerstein
Missing here is that Brennan has no professional requirement to have a security clearance, nor is it relevant to his public statements. I debriefed all my "tickets" when I left the AF, so why should SES/Generals/FOs get to keep theirs? For what purpose? 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CobraBall3 @wellerstein
Moreover, if Brennan was relying on his clearance for the content of his public remarks that is inappropriate. It also gives him public credibility that is inherently biased ("he should know, so he must be right"). Clearances have nothing to do with freedom of speech. 2/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CobraBall3
I think any attempt by the POTUS to "punish" critics is a freedom of speech issue, because of the power inherent in the job. (The POTUS is not acting as a private individual here, but as an official government agent.) So that's an issue no matter what.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wellerstein @CobraBall3
As for Brennan's need for a clearance — plenty of people who leave their immediate office continue to consult in positions that require clearances. My understanding is that Brennan was doing that. This is why clearances are NOT typically revoked upon leaving the job.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
If Trump's revocation is entirely based on political ill-will — which it appears to be — then it's a pretty nasty use of the clearance system. Does the POTUS have the ability to revoke a clearance at will? It seems so. Does that make it a good thing? No.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.