How exactly is it a “national security threat” to revoke security clearance of someone who no longer works for the government, but now works as an analyst for CNN ? Finally taking away security clearance from him, as well as from John Brennan, who now works for MSNBC, James Comey and others who worked for Obama makes perfect sense.

As Sarah Sanders noted yesterday:

….“They’ve politicized and in some cases monetized their public service and security clearances,” Sanders said during the daily press briefing. “Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia, or being influenced by Russia, against the president is extremely inappropriate and the fact that people with security clearances are making these baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence.”….

Via NewsBusters.

The media are in a tizzy over the recent revelation that President Trump might revoke security clearances from former intelligence officials with a penchant for going on television. During a concern-filled installment of CNN’s The Situation Room on Monday, host Wolf Blitzer anxiously posited that revoking the clearance of CNN national security analyst James Clapper would constitute a “potential national security threat.”

Blitzer was quick to get Clapper on the phone after it was revealed that his security clearance might be in danger.

During the interview, which took place in the 5:00 p.m. Eastern hour of the show, Blitzer frequently reiterated how much time Clapper had spent in the military. “How personally irritated are you right now that someone with your background in the military – 30 or 40 years, whatever it was – is being treated like this?” he asked obsequiously….

The general consensus was that the President was abusing his executive authority to silence some of his harshest detractors. “These are people who are critics of the President,” pointed out CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger. She then added, “Some of them served for Obama, so that’s another strike against them.”

Washington Post assistant editor David Swerdlick scoffed at White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s claim that the likes of Brennan and Clapper had “politicized the process” by taking jobs at MSNBC and CNN, respectively. “Actually, this is politicizing the process,” he snarked. Swerdlick then implied that revoking a former official’s security clearance somehow constituted a breach of the First Amendment: “They’re citizens; remember that. They have the right to free speech like everybody else.”….

What? The right to free speech? I thought we were talking about “national security clearance.”

Lying Liar James Clapper Just Lied Again About His Previous Lies About NSA Spying

Paul Says Trump Should Revoke Clearances of Ex-Obama Officials: Brennan ‘Almost Cost the Life of a Double Agent’

This section is for comments from's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Alain41 says:

    Most elected Congressmen do not have access to top level confidential information. You have to be a member of the House Intelligence Committee like Devin Nunes (assume same process in Senate). Don’t see why former gov’t officials should have access to information that most current Congressmen don’t.

  2. Maynard says:

    I’m flashing back to 2005, when Bush was president and Clinton’s old national security adviser, Sandy Berger (AKA “Sandy Burglar”), was caught smuggling terrorism-related classified documents out of the National Archives in his underwear, which he destroyed (that is, he destroyed the stolen documents, not his underwear). But that was dismissed with a big yawn, and nobody will even remember. Yes, ongoing security clearance by people with political agendas is a problem.

  3. Maynard says:

    Also flashing back to 2011 (“Sherman, set the WABAC machine!”) when Clapper told us, “The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ … is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.” So it seems that full access to the inner workings of the intelligence community didn’t do Clapper much good, and we’d be doing him a big favor by cutting him off.

You must be logged in to post a comment.