Trump takes new swipe at Russia inquiry
Revoking security clearance of former CIA chief is earning president new enemies among the spy set
For more than a year, law enforcement officials have repeatedly rebuffed President Donald Trump’s efforts to use the power of his office to derail the Russia investigation. Stymied, Mr Trump is lashing out in other ways against an investigation that he clearly hates or fears.
The president said on Thursday that he revoked the security clearance of John O Brennan, a former CIA director, because Mr Brennan had been part of what Mr Trump has called the “sham” Russia investigation. That move, and the threats of more revocations, were the latest signs that the president seems determined to punish anyone connected to the Russia inquiry.
Law enforcement officials, lawmakers and members of the intelligence community expressed worry that the president’s act of retaliation will have a potentially chilling effect on the United States’ law enforcement and intelligence officers.
Anxiety about Mr Trump’s next move could give investigators pause as they pursue cases, and it might hamper recruitment of a new generation of agents, they said. The president’s decision to follow through on his threats to revoke Mr Brennan’s security clearance, they said, sent a shudder through the spies and intelligence officials he used to lead.
“This is the politicisation of security clearances,” said David Priess, a former CIA officer who has written a book on presidential intelligence briefings. “It makes national security agencies vulnerable to the selective granting and removal of security clearances, which is something that happens more in a banana republic than the United States of America.”
Aitan Goelman, the lawyer for former FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was fired for writing anti-Trump texts, accused the president of abusing his constitutional authority to silence his critics.
“By revoking director Brennan’s clearance and threatening the security clearance of Pete and seven other former officials on Trump’s ‘enemies list,’ the president has taken us down one more step on the path toward authoritarianism,” Mr Goelman said.
Sen James Lankford, a member of the Intelligence Committee, defended the president’s decision to cut off Mr Brennan’s access to classified information, and he played down the effect on the broader intelligence community. “He’s mad at Brennan clearly — this guy called him treasonous and everything else,” Mr Lankford said. “And so he is responding in a way he can respond, but he’s not trying to silence him. If anything, he’s given him a bigger microphone.”
Indeed, Mr Brennan, who led the CIA under President Barack Obama and has been one of the most vocal intelligence community critics of Mr Trump, drew attention on Thursday by striking back. He dismissed as “hogwash” the president’s claims of “no collusion” with Russia to influence the 2016 election and argued that Mr Trump was trying to silence challengers.
“Mr Trump clearly has become more desperate to protect himself and those close to him, which is why he made the politically motivated decision to revoke my security clearance in an attempt to scare into silence others who might dare to challenge him,” Mr Brennan wrote in The New York Times. He said the move made it more important than ever for the special counsel in the Russia inquiry, Robert Mueller, to complete his investigation.
But others predicted that political appointees who have security clearances will be nervous about saying or doing anything that might make Mr Trump angry, especially about the Russia investigation. And it is likely to worry the consulting firms, defence contractors and other private businesses that have employees with security clearances, they said.
“The message he’s sending is: Don’t cross me,” said Mary McCord, who helped run the Justice Department’s national security division until she left last year. “Career national security professionals are good at blocking out the noise of what’s in the news, but it’s harder to ignore when it’s the president attacking you.”
Elijah E Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, accused the president of failing to follow the procedures for revoking security clearances that are set out in long-standing executive orders. “It appears that President Trump has invented an entirely new standard for revoking security clearances that has no precedent,” Mr Cummings wrote in a letter to the White House.
William H McRaven, a retired Navy admiral who led the Joint Special Operations Command under Obama, wrote an open letter to Mr Trump on Thursday saying that he would consider it “an honour” to have the president revoke his security clearance, as well.
“Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation,” Adm McRaven wrote in the letter, published by The Washington Post. “If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.”
Late Thursday, a group of former senior intelligence leaders, including six former heads of the CIA, issued a signed statement protesting against the revocation of Mr Brennan’s security clearance, saying that “insinuations and allegations of wrongdoing” by Mr Brennan were baseless.
The signers — among whom were former CIA directors David Petraeus, Leon E Panetta and Porter J Goss — noted that not all of them agreed with Mr Brennan’s public comments, but that they did support his right to voice his opinion. Their statement said Mr Trump had used security clearances as a tool, and that he clearly intended to send a signal to former and current intelligence officials.
“As individuals who have cherished and helped preserve the right of Americans to free speech — even when that right has been used to criticise us — that signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable,” the statement said.
Before Mr Trump’s move against Mr Brennan, security clearance revocations were initiated by the agencies and were done for causes such as mishandling classified material, or for personal problems that could be used against an official, such as financial troubles or alcoholism.
But Mr Trump’s initial justification, presented Wednesday in a letter released by the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, centred on Mr Brennan’s “erratic behaviour,” a reference, it seems, to his at times angry denunciations of Mr Trump on MSNBC, where he serves as an analyst.
Mr Trump later explained his decision to revoke the security clearance in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, saying that the Russia investigation is a “rigged witch hunt,” adding, “And these people led it!” He said that revoking Mr Brennan’s clearance was “something that had to be done”.
One major question to be answered is whether Mr Trump’s revocation of Mr Brennan’s clearance will be a one-time event or if the White House will follow through with its threats against other national security officials.
The standard revocation process includes memos that outline why a clearance is being withdrawn, and would allow the former official to offer a defence or a rebuttal. In Mr Brennan’s case, the CIA did no such review of his behaviour or comments. But national security experts and former officials said there was little doubt that Mr Trump has the authority to revoke a clearance, and chances are small that a court would weigh in to overturn the decision. So if Mr Trump were to decide the revocation of clearance was a convenient, if none-too-effective, weapon, little stands in the way of him wielding it again.
Former intelligence officials slammed Mr Trump’s decision but said they doubted it would silence critics or hamper advice that former officials provide companies or the government.