Alex WellersteinVerified account

I guess I just don't think that Oppenheimer's case informs us on Brennan or the other way around. They strike me as VERY different in nearly every aspect. The similarities strike me as very superficial.

Oppenheimer's security issues weren't about high level politics or him criticizing officials or administrations. He was still an "insider" (though already transitioning to an "outsider") when he got his clearance removed. His politics was more about in-fighting more than public.

And unlike Brennan there WERE significant (if exaggerated) security issues involved in Oppenheimer's case. It wasn't just Teller not liking his judgment, which was probably the weakest part of the AEC case against Oppenheimer anyway.

Oppenheimer admitted in sworn testimony to lying to security officers, to having an affair with a known Communist while he was director of Los Alamos, and to appointing people he knew were Communists to key positions at the lab.

I'm not saying he deserved the hearing, which was indeed a farce (punctuated by illegal things like Strauss and the FBI wiretapping his confidential conversations with his lawyer), but it's more than "they didn't like his political opinions." The guy did some legit sketchy stuff!

Forgive me butting in here but do you have a view as to whether he had ever been a CP member, as per Gregg Herkin's work? Clearly the FAECT stuff was quite close.

The most that anyone has ever accused him of being was of being some kind of off-the-books, non-card-carrying, non-CP-discipline-following secret member. I don't really think that counts as being a member; that's just being a fellow-traveler in my book.

Fair enough. Haynes & Klehr say 'secret member', based on Herken, but it's rather indeterminate. I'm writing about Frank O & Caltech's Unit 122 which was essentially a closed cell yet much more than fellow travelling.