What he doesn’t know can’t hurt us
Would you share sensitive information with a person who has demonstrated that s/he is out to get you? How about if you were entrusted to safeguard secrets that could be used to harm more than 320 million Americans and their allies abroad, would you share that information with a person who has already demonstrated a propensity for betrayal and for putting politics above country?
I would hope not, and that’s why President Trump was right to right to revoke the security clearance of former CIA Director and Bush family protégé John Brennan who has apparently become a disgruntled former employee and who seems to have demonstrated that he has an ax to grind with the current administration. And the timing of the White House rescinding his clearance hardly seems accidental, coming as it does after the release of Omarosa’s clandestine recordings. It’s no wonder that the White House is looking to tighten up access to sensitive areas and info.
The (over)reaction for many in the press isn’t surprising either, given that they may be losing a “credible” source of classified information whose clearance is now about as valuable as a Blockbuster gift card. Funny though, I doubt that you will hear about that from many of those in the media who are now complaining the loudest or about how such ulterior motives potentially represent an under/undisclosed conflict of interest on the part of such reporters.
And I’m especially flabbergasted by the specious 1st Amendment argument that some of these pundits are trying to make. It’s nothing short of ridiculous. Of course someone’s security clearance can be revoked if they start saying concerning things or giving other warning signs that they may not be trustworthy. When a person with classified access starts doing that, it would be irresponsible for the White House not to revoke that person’s clearance to obtain information which includes troop movements, secrets with which we have been entrusted by our allies, and the identities and locations of intelligence operatives. In fact, by any reasonable standard, I can think of a certain former secretary of state who probably never should have been given top secret access in the first place and there is a reason that the White House and the president are entrusted with the unilateral power to revoke security clearances, power which the administration is expected to exercise in situations like this.
Further, this isn’t a free speech issue and implying such, as some have, is the height of hypocrisy. No one is taking this former clearance holder off of social media, no one is approving wiretaps or warrants for his home, businesses, or lawyer’s offices, no one is issuing a gag order prohibiting him from speaking to journalists about non-classified matters, etc. — unlike what we’ve recently seen happen to myself, InfoWars, Alex Jones, Julian Assange, TeleSur, Lee Camp, Roger Stone, the Pelletier family, Barrett Brown, or Trump attorney Michael Cohen — just to name a few.
And let’s remember which president went after more whistleblowers than all of his predecessors combined.
(AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)
Marty Gottesfeld is considered a prisoner of the Massachusetts Democratic establishment for helping to save the life of medical kidnapping victim Justina Pelletier when she was endangered by Harvard-affiliated Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH). To donate, learn more about him, or follow him on social media, go to www.FreeMartyG.com.