Yesterday, a dozen top-level ex-intel officers accused Trump of suppressing John Brennan’s free speech.
Their true motive, in my opinion, is to preserve the old imperial and unipolar order that Trump is intent on destroying. That’s what MAGA means. The 12 are first and foremost deep-staters, and they show this by supporting Brennan.
“The dozen stressed that while they don’t necessarily agree with comments made by Brennan, who’s become a frequent guest on liberal news channels, they believe he has the right to voice them.”
This is a phony appeal to gain support for Brennan. They act as if Trump has shut Brennan’s mouth through a court order or done something wrong and against Brennan’s rights. Trump hasn’t in the least done anything of the sort. Brennan’s right to voice his opinions is entirely unimpaired by his loss of security clearance. In fact, Brennan counter-attacked Trump immediately, saying that Trump’s denial of Russian collusion is “hogwash”. Brennan also said that he would not relent in his criticisms of Trump.
I’d like to know several things about these 12. I’d like to know what support to free speech these 12 have displayed in the past. I’d like to know how they benefited from their former government positions by maintaining their security clearances. I’d like to know the extent they have made this statement in order to support, not free speech, but the power and prestige of the deep state positions they once occupied.
The 12 accuse Trump of making a decision based upon Brennan’s political views. This charge is imprecise and unworthy of the supposed analytical capabilities of intel officials. Trump didn’t refer per se to Brennan’s political orientation, left, right, or middle, or Brennan’s political philosophy or ideals. He referred to partisan attacks in the context of being validated by “real or perceived access to sensitive information”.
In other words, the charges by a Brennan who has security clearance are likely to be accorded great weight. Brennan wants Trump removed from office. Brennan’s words: “Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin.”
Since Brennan is leading the attack on Trump’s policies and presidency itself, his clearance accords him undue weight in impeding those policies, including most importantly Trump’s peace overtures. Is Trump supposed to supply the rope for his own hanging? Is that what the 12 want?
Trump sees Brennan as impeding national interests, of which peace with Russia is one and reshaping trade relations with China is another. The question here is “Who is the elected official in charge of foreign policy, Brennan or Trump?” Brennan acts as if he’s still heading the CIA while also having the room to accuse a president of treason openly in the media. This is not a situation that Trump can tolerate and preserve his powers.
In revoking Brennan’s clearance, Trump has done nothing beyond the scope of his job and sworn oath.
An advisory bulletin written in 2014 states bluntly “A security clearance may be revoked at any time.”
Earlier this year, Trump wrote “As the Supreme Court has acknowledged, however, the Constitution vests in the president the authority to classify information relating to the national security and to control access to such information.”
All well and good legalese, but the conflict between Trump and Brennan goes back to the early days of Trump’s candidacy. It’s a power struggle. Brennan, using his prestige and previous position, has been openly anti-Trump for years. He has helped engineer a soft coup against Trump and he continues to impede Trump’s peace agenda. Trump has now taken Brennan down a peg. That’s enough to bring out the deep-state 12 punching.
In my judgment, free speech is not their real concern. Not in the least. That’s a sweet-smelling mist to cover their real motives. They stand for the deep-state “order” or “establishment” and its global policies. They stand against Trump’s movements away from the old order.9:16 am on August 17, 2018 Email Michael S. Rozeff