The President's threat to snatch security clearances from some of the nation's most decorated former intelligence officers could prove to be a clbadic Trump distraction that triggers a media storm and stifles stories that hurt the White House. But the idea that she is seriously contemplated will send a deterrent effect through Washington
The use of presidential power to punish eminent critics would dangerously bring this White House closer to potential abuses of it. executive authority – perhaps moving it to the territory has never been tested by a commander-in-chief since Richard Nixon
So isolating former dissident officials is a normative power game that could appear tamed in the political systems controlled by the Russian Vladimir Putin and the Chinese Xi Jinping. , who admires Trump. But he would be fueled by the instinct of a strong man that these two leaders could recognize.
The idea that a president might establish a political test for the hundreds of thousands of government employees current and former security clearance – including in the secret top secret world – could inflict significant damage to vital institutions. The possibility that he could use such a test to stifle criticism of his actions is almost unthinkable.
"It seems to me that Donald Trump is talking about building a list of enemies," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon on Monday. on the "Erin Burnett OutFront." from CNN.
Such a claim is valid because Susan Rice, the second national security adviser to the Obama administration, was on television as recently as criticizing Trump and questioning her links with Russia. Perhaps one of the most breathtaking aspects of the controversy was that the White House did not hide the fact that Trump was considering revoking authorizations for individuals, including former CIA directors Michael. Hayden and John Brennan and former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, because they had criticized him.
"Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia agains White House spokeswoman, Sarah Sanders, said:" The President is extremely inappropriate and the the fact that those holding security charges make these accusations unfounded confers improper legitimacy to charges without evidence. to the allegations that he or his campaign in 2016 have collaborated with a Russian intelligence effort to put it in place, which seems to have become even more acute since his deferential behavior towards Putin in Helsinki last week, in the middle of a Amazing public debate about it was compromised by Moscow
Sanders had an ostensible justification for the president's plan – which barely pbades the laugh test.
"The president is exploring mechanisms to remove security clearance because they politicize, and in some cases monetize, their public service and security clearances," Sanders said.
The irony that Trump, of all people, criticizes others for politicizing the intelligence community or taking advantage of the public service are indeed rich.After all, he accused intelligence agencies of behaving as if they were in Nazi Germany and relentlessly attacked the FBI and the subsequent investigation of the special adviser on alleged electoral collusion with Russia as a "witch hunt."
Trump family to take advantage of the presidency, and its mandate included multiple scandalous episodes of cabinet officials being debauched with the government money.
Unprecedented Time
While Trump's threat to revoke security clearances is unprecedented, the time is over. During the previous period, former senior intelligence officials often openly criticized a sitting president
. Some of the comments of the former senior intelligence officers have certainly crossed the boundaries set by their predecessors, Many supporters have been content to stay in the shadows.
Many Trump supporters, receptive to the multi-month presidential campaign against the Russian probe and attacks on "deep state" in Washington against the conservative media, the shock that has rocked Washington since the threat of Trump.
Some of Trenn's critics, who included a charge of "treason" on the part of the president in his dealings with Putin last week, surprised some former colleagues by their vehemence. they doubt that he is sincere in his criticism.
Former Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who chaired the House Intelligence Committee, said Trump's hreat was worrisome, but he also questioned Brennan's outspokenness.
"It's insignificant, it's certainly below the stature of the President of the United States," Rogers told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead."
Hayden and Clapper, who both work for CNN as commentators, also criticized Trump, although they were typically more moderate in their language: every man worked for the Republican and Democratic Presidents and never sought to enter Politics – but both said that they feel compelled to express themselves because they see the institutions of the country at risk.
Clapper publicly asked if the Russians had anything on Trump.Hyden wrote that the President is the incarnation of a
"It is quite obvious that the reason is the following: why we were chosen for this action is considered because of criticism that we have expressed, and reservations that we have expressed about the president "The former DNI also said that it would never have occurred to him to recommend the revocation of the security clearance of the former advisor Trump's campaign and ephemeral national security adviser Michael Flynn for "vitriolic" criticism of Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.
Some voters might wonder why former national security officials need a security clearance – since many of them hold lucrative jobs in the security and media sectors. the statute allows former government officials to be consulted by their successors on matters of vital national security interest where their institutional experience and knowledge can provide an invaluable context.
If Trump thinks he can prevent senior spies from staying in the know, misunderstanding, since such officials build vast networks at home and abroad.
Trump's Inconvenience
Eve So, as Monday's rage was raging, it was clear that he shared similar characteristics to many of the other people. other controversies of the Trump administration.
It reflected a desire to attack anyone badociated with the Obama administration, for whom the president has a contempt among those on the list, there were apolitical appointees who served the presidents of the two. gone.
The announcement was also random and may not have been fully thought out. Two of the people on the list – James Comey, former director of the FBI, and Andrew McCabe, former deputy director of the FBI – do not even have such authorizations anymore.
But it is a useful drama for Trump because he opposes it to the Washington establishment. – always a nice spot that the pleasant President at the base seeks to occupy.
In a more sinister sense, the desire to censor former intelligence officials also corresponds to the president's long obvious inclination to test the limits of his power – for example, by demolishing the traditional walls between the FBI and the White House intended to isolate the office of political interference.
On Monday, Sanders hinted that Trump may have to be more "involved" in the Russian investigation because he sees her as a "witch hunt".
The idea of stripping security clearances seems to have evolved from a suggestion by Senator Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, a Trump ally sometimes, that Brennan should be singled out. But he has been a frequent subject in conservative media. The president usually takes ideas from Fox News vortex and turns them into political fodder.
Finally, Monday's developments pose another test for American institutions that have so far largely controlled Trump's autocratic instincts. But they also raise the question of what will follow. If a president can use his power to impose political retribution, are the freedoms that Americans take for decades to come into jeopardy?
