Thanks to Donna for the above.
Posted on 08/19/2018 11:30:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
If government officials or former government officials are so politicized against the president to the point he can no longer trust them or the "deep experience and advice" they are offering to the administration, is that sufficient grounds for POTUS to pull their security clearances?
That he doesnt like the color of the subordinate’s tie is sufficient grounds for removal.
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)
Unless Congress passes laws that intervene, a president’s power over security clearances is absolute.
Of course it is. Nobody is “entitled” to access to america’s Top security sensitive defense secrets. And any such access is supposed to be on a need to know basis - when someone is no longer employed to work on defense secret matters, the access used to be automatically stopped. Need to know, not just access by anybody at anytime
Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, et al...
Love going through those idiotic scanners at the airport, because Chertoff was smart enough to craft sections of “The a patriot Act” in order to give his company the imprimatur to impose any number of inconveniences on us, the proletariats
5 years to get rid of them? I don’t agree. The bureaucracy badly needs trimming. The day they are terminated or retire they should lose their clearances as would happen in any business. Just plain COMMON SENSE!
These azz hats use their security clearance to secure lucrative employment and contracts.
I can see some key positions needing to keep their SC for a time during the transition so their replacement is informed and kept up to speed but at some point when it isn’t actively being used for the BENEFIT of the current admin; it should be put in an administrative suspended status so the person can quickly be brought back under the umbrella of secrecy if needed for the good of the country.
I would think by 6 months after the new Administration has gotten their sea legs; all those SC’s from past Admins should be suspended. They no longer have a need to know. Of course exceptions should be allowed as needed as well. Some SC’s may not be in a need to know the second their position ends so those should be suspended at that time. Many may simply be ended rather than suspended just as those leaving the military are.
Cabinet level secretaries serve at the pleasure of the President. If it no longer pleases the new President to hold on to Obama holdovers, there is no reason to maintain their credentials as their service is no longer needed.
Pearl clutchers should dab their mascara and go get some fresh air.
Jim, section (a) below shows that our President can rescind anyone’s security clearance.
U.S. Supreme Court
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)
Department of the Navy v. Egan
No. 86-1552
Argued December 2, 1987
Decided February 23, 1988
484 U.S. 518
Syllabus
Title 5 U.S.C. Ch. 75, provides a “two-track” system for undertaking “adverse actions” against certain Government employees. An employee removed for “cause,” §§ 7511-7514, has a right of appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board), § 7513(d), that includes a hearing. The Board reviews such removals under a preponderance of the evidence standard. § 7701. An employee is also subject to summary removal based on national security concerns. Such a removal is not appealable to the Board, but the employee has certain specified procedural rights, including a hearing by an agency authority. § 7532. Respondent was removed from his laborer’s job at a submarine facility after the Navy denied him a required security clearance. Without a security clearance, respondent was not eligible for any job at the facility. Upon respondent’s appeal of his removal under § 7513(d), the Board’s presiding official reversed the Navy’s decision, holding that the Board had the authority to review the merits of the underlying security clearance determination and that the Navy had failed to show that it reached a reasonable and warranted decision on this question. The full Board reversed and sustained the Navy’s removal action, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that, since the Navy had chosen to remove respondent under § 7512 rather than § 7532, review under § 7513 applied, including review of the merits of the underlying security clearance determination.
Held: In an appeal pursuant to § 7513, the Board does not have authority to review the substance of an underlying security clearance determination in the course of reviewing an adverse action. Pp. 484 U. S. 526-534.
(a) The grant or denial of security clearance to a particular employee is a sensitive and inherently discretionary judgment call that is committed by law to the appropriate Executive Branch agency having the necessary expertise in protecting classified information. It is not reasonably possible for an outside, nonexpert body to review the substance of such a judgment, and such review cannot be presumed merely because the statute does not expressly preclude it. Pp. 484 U. S. 526-530.
(b) The statute’s express language and structure confirm that it does not confer broad authority on the Board to review security clearance determinations. A clearance denial is not one of the enumerated “adverse actions” that are subject to Board review, and nothing in the
Page 484 U. S. 519
Act directs or empowers the Board to go beyond determining whether “cause” for a denial existed, whether in fact clearance was denied, and whether transfer to a nonsensitive position was feasible. The application of § 7701’s preponderance of the evidence standard to security clearance determinations would inevitably alter the “clearly consistent with the interests of the national security” standard normally applied in making such determinations, and would involve the Board in second-guessing an agency’s national security determinations, a result that it is extremely unlikely Congress intended. Respondent’s argument that the availability of the alternative § 7532 summary removal procedure compels a conclusion of reviewability, since an anomalous situation would otherwise exist whereby the more “drastic” § 7532 remedy would actually entitle a removed employee to greater procedural protections — particularly to a preremoval trial-type hearing — than would § 7513, is unpersuasive. Section 7532 provides a procedure that is harsh and drastic both for the employee and for the agency head, who must act personally in suspending and removing the employee, and removal thereunder, even as envisioned by respondent, would not have amounted to “more” procedural protection than respondent received under § 7513. The procedures under the two sections are not anomalous, but merely different. Pp. 484 U. S. 530-534.
802 F.2d 1563, reversed.
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and STEVENS, O’CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 484 U. S. 534. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Page 484 U. S. 520
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/484/518/
Thanks to Donna for the above.
pull them all and make them take a lie detector test before reissue
thanks for posting that statement by Sen. Burr. He is now stepping up to the plate and hitting homeruns. Good for him!
This is true in all large bureaucracies, and Fed.gov is among the biggest in the world.
Trump is absolutely an outsider, whereas Clinton had 25 years to plant her allies and cronies throughout the government. As we see with Brennan, Comey and Strzok, as a very small, but representative sample, these are in no way “neutral bureaucrats.” They are smug, arrogant, self-righteous political operators.
And many still exist in a city and Federal Bureaucracy that still hates Trump.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Imo, it’s not just they hate trump, they hate America.
Trump is right to pull their clearances for security reasons, but it’s also good politics.
Trump seems to relish being attacked by his political enemies - he rarely seeks reconciliation - instead he escalates.
The only explanation for this behavior is that he knows he has the moral high ground with his America First and Drain the Swamp agendas. When you have the moral high ground, a public confrontation brings out the worst in your enemies.
Trump seems to be picking fights wherever he can - he winds up smelling like roses while his enemies embarrass themselves. The Left is trying to spin this security clearances thing into a Nixonian “enemies list” scandal, but if recent history teaches us anything, Trump will bait them into overplaying their hand, and they’ll wind up looking like the tyrants - not him.
It’s entirely possible that the POTUS is purposely prolonging the Mueller investigation as part of this same political strategy. They have nothing on him after a year and a half of digging, and it is being run out of his own DOJ, yet he has done nothing to stop it.
I’m not a Q follower, but I do think Trump has a plan - and being seen as the innocent victim of a deep state witch hunt is a part of it.
Yes, Jim. Drain the Swamp.
If it isn't done swiftly, the Deep State will find a rogue judge to defy the Constitution for them. If it isn't all of them, the cry will be that it was done for political reasons.
President Trump is at his best when he's decisive and trusts his instincts. This seems to be a case where he knows exactly what needs to be done, so DO IT!
JMHO
Working in the government, security clearances are routinely revoked if you are going to another position that does not require a security clearance. The ONLY reason these “high level” people maintain their security clearance is in case they are needed to advise the president. It is clear that the President Trump will NEVER ask Brennan for advice nor would Brennan give it to Trump. Thus there is no need for Brennan to have a security clearance.
Quite frankly, I’m surprised that many of these people still maintain their security clearances and if I was Trump I would ax them. Republicans argue that if a Democrat gets into power they will do the same. But the reason for the clearance is to give advice to the President if necessary so this is a stupid argument. If the President doesn’t want to ask for their advice, there is no need for them to have a clearance.
How is this not common sense? Washington DC is full of insane people.
Yes, when that VW executive left the company and sold his corporate secrets to the rival auto company it is quite similar to disgruntled types like Brennan and Comey and many more having national security secrets to sell to the meanest and highest bidder (China,North Korea, Iran,Putin) and also get fodder for book deals and a cable news panel slot.
Lots of incentive to put national security and the American peoples’ interests far down on their list if on the list at all.
...and they despise all of you participating in FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.