As Twitchy reported, former CIA director John Brennan lost his security clearance this week and decided to frame it as a First Amendment issue:
This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out. My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent. https://t.co/TNzOxhP9ux
— John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) August 15, 2018
The Washington Examiner reports that on Friday, 60 former CIA officials signed a letter condemning the Trump administration’s action.
60 former CIA officials sign letter condemning Trump's treatment of Brennan https://t.co/r6BYhglSXx
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) August 18, 2018
We’ll put that letter on one side of a balance and Kris “Tanto” Paronto’s fiery assessment of Brennan’s character on the other side to see which has more weight with our readers.
The letter reads, in part:
Our signatures below do not necessarily mean that we concur with the opinions expressed by former Director Brennan or the way in which he expressed them. What they do represent, however, is our firm belief that the country will be weakened if there is a political litmus test applied before seasoned experts are allowed to share their views.
How is Brennan not allowed to share his views? He was just on with Rachel Maddow last night walking back his tweet about Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki being “nothing short of treasonous.” No wonder the 60 signers put in that disclaimer.
This "protect the guild" argument would go down a whole lot better if they'd taken Brennan to task for violating his duties while in office. Like presenting NDAs to Benghazi survivors to keep them quiet, and lying to Congress about the CIA hacking Senate computers. https://t.co/w10JNmEMQQ
— Mo Mo (@molratty) August 18, 2018
Seriously, where tf is that letter?
— Mo Mo (@molratty) August 18, 2018
No kidding. We all saw him lie on TV. It's not as though these men deserve even a modicum of the prestige they've already looted.
— RabbitHoleRedux (@everSoTweetly4u) August 18, 2018
But … 60 former CIA officials!
https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1030906239260213249
Thats 60 former agents who are corrupted. They out themselves
— Clinton Morgan (@PuneSaloon82) August 18, 2018
No one cares what these former employees thinks. @POTUS did the right thing. Brennan is the tip of the spear as far as the coup attempt goes.
— Mr. Faded Glory ✨17✨ (@Der_BattleToad) August 18, 2018
I can understand their concern. On the surface, a change in thought about holding clearances post-employment could have a significant impact on the post-Agency opportunities of these individuals. Those clearances have significant fiscal value for their holders. (1/2) https://t.co/DBKRSRAwvi
— ConservativCrat (@conservativcrat) August 18, 2018
I support stripping Brennan's clearance b/c his misuse of it to facilitate unsubstantiated political attacks & profiting off of them. He's participating in worst kind of post-employment behavior. This kind of behavior deserves punishment, goes beyond just offering opinion (2/2)
— ConservativCrat (@conservativcrat) August 18, 2018
So really, you could argue that his both his time as CIA director and his behavior after retiring merit his losing his security clearance.
How many former CIA officials are there? There have to be thousands… and why didn't they sign the letter? My guess–and it's just a guess–is because they don't think Brennan deserves security clearance. https://t.co/Vx5l3Su3uD
— Doug Sheridan (@dougsheridan) August 18, 2018
Without his security clearance, Brennan is just another blue-check celebrity like Rosie O’Donnell or Rob Reiner screaming “Treason!” every day on Twitter, and it suits him.
Related:
BACKTRACK time? John Brennan now not completely sure Trump's behavior is "nothing short of treasonous" https://t.co/KTATkRdKSf
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) August 18, 2018
Join the conversation as a VIP Member