Thanks to Donna for the above.
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 reissueTrump 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.
Yes. And anyone who vouched for him should lose theirs too.
The First Amendment argument that Brennan would try to use in court should fail for that reason and because, as you intuit, First Amendment cases involving public employment have an exception for policy-making jobs or sensitive jobs that handle or can access confidential information related to policy-making, such as executive secretaries. For such positions, the rule is that public officials and employees can be fired or transferred at will for political reasons or even simple personal distrust or dislike without doing offense to the First Amendment.
At most, I think that Brennan could argue that revoking his national security clearance was purely a matter of political retaliation without adequate explanation and impaired his future private sector employment as a commentator and consultant by limiting his ability to access low-level classified material. Before a sympathetic federal judge, that line of argument might be enough to get past a motion to dismiss and generate some press coverage.
Even with free legal help and a favorable judge though, I think that Brennan will not try his luck in court or even in an administrative proceeding because he would have to explain under oath the basis for his claim that Trump had committed treason and to account for the spurious Russian dossier and the unjustified spying on Trump. In short, Brennan has no legal claim and is not in a position to file a court case because of his own aggravated misconduct.
Trump needs to fire them first. And a leftist Federal judge will stop Trump cold. Trump just doesn’t realize that he is just a token compared to Mueller and the criminal left Courts.
If you are not doing a job that requires security clearance, there is no need to have a security clearance.
Simple rule, In government, security clearance; out of government, no security clearance.
As a FORMER government official, who is now a partisan liberal pundit, he has as much right to a high security clearance as say you, Jim.
The president has every authority to revoke someone's security clearance.
Grounds enough to fire them, IMO. Pull all clearances & all benefits.
It begins:
Security clearances are not personal "perks".
A security clearance is basically a set of restrictions placed upon an individual for the convenience of the government. (It provides for application of labor and brainpower to tasks that must be kept secure.)
As soon as the "Need to Know" (for the benefit of the government) ends, (typically upon termination of employment) the clearance should be terminated. And, at that time, the formerly-cleared individual should be "debriefed" and "read the riot act" re their (felony-level) responsibilities of protecting any and all classified and related knowledge acquired consequent to that clearance.
The entire concept of allowing post-employment clearances as "courtesies" is totally at odds with the concept of National Security. Such never should have been allowed to happen!!
IMO, POTUS should issue a blanket Executive order
We’ve wondered why incoming Repub presidents don’t automatically clean house. This is part of what that would look like.
Yes - as a Security Manager I saw several cases of clearances being pulled due to the uncovering of facts that would have precluded the person from getting a clearance in the first place - once integrity and reliability are gone, so goes the clearance...