Trump renews security-clearance threats
He singles out Justice official over wife’s ties
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday that he suspects he’ll “very quickly” revoke the security clearance for a Justice Department official whose wife worked for the firm involved in producing a dossier on Trump’s ties to Russia.
Signaling that his efforts to target clearances over his frustration with the Russia investigation were not over, Trump tweeted that it was a “disgrace” for Bruce Ohr to be in the Justice Department.
“They should be looking at Bruce Ohr, and his wife, Nellie, for dealing with, by the way, indirectly, Russians,” Trump said as he boarded Marine One for a fundraising trip to the Hamptons. Asked about Bruce Ohr’s security clearance, Trump added: “I think Bruce Ohr is a disgrace. I suspect I will be taking it away very quickly.”
His comments came two days after he yanked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan,
saying he had to do “something” about the “rigged” federal probe of Russian election interference. Critics have cast it as an act of political vengeance.
Ohr has come under Republican scrutiny for his contacts to Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS. The opposition research firm hired former British spy Christopher Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign to compile the dossier on Trump and his Russia ties.
Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS during the campaign — something Trump has tweeted about to highlight his assertions of political bias behind the Russia investigation.
Former U.S. security officials Thursday issued scathing rebukes to Trump for moving against Brennan. Trump’s admission that he acted out of frustration with the Russia probe underscored his willingness to use his executive power to fight back against an investigation he sees as a threat to his presidency. Legal experts said the dispute may add to the evidence being reviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller. In an opinion piece in The
New York Times, Brennan said Trump’s decision, announced Wednesday, to deny him access to classified information was a desperate attempt to end Mueller’s investigation. Brennan, who served under President Barack Obama and has become a vocal Trump critic, called Trump’s claims that he did not collude with Russia “hogwash.”
The only question remaining is whether the collusion amounts to a “constituted criminally liable conspiracy,” Brennan wrote.
On Thursday, retired Navy Adm. William McRaven called Trump’s moves “McCarthy-era tactics.” Writing in
The Washington Post, McRaven, who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, said he would “consider it an honor” if Trump would revoke his 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,” McRaven wrote.
McRaven’s letter was followed by a joint letter from more than a dozen former senior U.S. intelligence officials sharply criticizing Trump for what they call his “ill-considered” decision to revoke Brennan’s security clearance.
The signers — who served in Democratic and Republican administrations — say in their joint letter that Trump’s decision this week was a blatant attempt to curb free speech and sent an “inappropriate and deeply regrettable” signal to other public servants.
“We all agree that the president’s action regarding John Brennan and the threats of similar action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances — and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech,” said the letter, whose signers include former CIA directors who served under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
Robert Gates — who served as secretary of defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and director of central intelligence under President George H.W. Bush — also signed the letter after it was first released late Thursday.
Besides Gates, those signing the letter included former CIA Directors William Webster, George Tenet, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta and David Petraeus; former director of national intelligence James Clapper; and former deputy CIA directors John McLaughlin, Stephen Kappes, Avril Haines, David Cohen and Michael Morell.
“This action is quite clearly a signal to other former and current officials,” the letter says. “That signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable. Decisions on security clearances should be based on national security and not political views.”
Then on Friday, 60 former CIA officials issued their own statement, joining a chorus of opposition from the intelligence community to Trump’s decisions to threaten to or actually pull clearances. They said former government officials have a right to express unclassified views on national security issues without fear of
being punished for doing so.
They said they did not necessarily concur with all the opinions expressed by Brennan, or the way in which he expressed them. But they said they believe the “country will be weakened if there is a political litmus test applied before seasoned experts are allowed to share their views.”
NO REGRET, TRUMP SAYS
Trump on Wednesday openly tied his decision to strip Brennan of his clearance — and threaten nearly a dozen other former and current officials — to the ongoing investigation into Russian election meddling and possible collusion with his campaign. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump again called the probe a “rigged witch hunt” and said “these people led it!”
“So I think it’s something that had to be done,” he said.
The president’s comments were a swift departure from the official explanation given by the White House earlier Wednesday that cited “the risks” posed by Brennan’s supposed “erratic conduct and behavior.”
During an appearance Thursday morning on Fox & Friends on the Fox News Channel, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway defended Trump’s action.
“In terms of Mr. Brennan, I see many people saying that this is nakedly political because he’s a Trump critic. No, remember you keep those security clearances as a professional courtesy or to keep an unbroken line for the next successor administration if you can be helpful with respect to national security. He’s proven neither.”
Asked whether Trump plans to yank other clearances, Conway said: “That’s up to the president. He has the authority to do that.”
On Friday, Trump expressed no regret for revoking Brennan’s security clearance.
“I’ve gotten tremendous response for having done that, because security clearances are very important to me,” he told reporters. He said he had “never respected” Brennan, who he claimed never officially reported concerns about Russian election interference before he left office.
“It’s a disgusting thing, frankly,” Trump said.
Attorneys said the revocation appeared to be within the president’s authority. But they noted the power play also could be used to reinforce a case alleging obstruction of justice, after the president’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey and his repeated tweets calling for the investigation to end.
Patrick Cotter, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York and a longtime white-collar defense attorney, said that while a prosecutor could argue that Trump’s targeting of clearances was intended as a warning that “if you contribute to, participate in, support the Russia probe and I find out about it, I’m going to punish you,” it is likely not obstruction in itself.
But, he said the move would be a “powerful piece of evidence” for prosecutors as part of a pattern to demonstrate an intent to use presidential power in connection with the probe.
Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, agreed.
“What it shows is that the president is fixated on the Russia investigation, he’s angry about it, and he wants to do everything he can to discourage or slow down the investigation,” he said.
Mueller and his team have been looking at Trump’s public statements and tweets as they investigate whether the president could be guilty of obstruction.
“I don’t think it advances the criminal obstruction case, but I think it’s factually relevant,” said Mark Zaid, a national security attorney. “I think it shows the state of mind and intent to interfere or impede any unfavorable discussion of his potential connection to Russia.”
Former CIA directors and other top national security officials are typically allowed to keep their clearances, at least for some period.