Alex WellersteinVerified account

3. Eisenhower was keenly aware that Oppenheimer probably did not constitute a security risk — he had known him for years and enjoyed his input and policy ideas. He knew that the security risk charges were just old rumors, with nothing new. But...

...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.

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.)...

...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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't disagree with your analysis, Alex, but I think there is an overall similarity: the intention in both cases is to humiliate and remove from the national scene. Different players with different amounts of power, though.