The left is in meltdown over president Trump exercising his constitutional authority to revoke ex-CIA Chief John Brennan's security clearance.
CNN reported that former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper was incensed by Trump's action. Naturally it was CNN who reported it. After all, Clapper is one of their employees, as are a number of other Obama ex-intelligence hacks.
In a July interview, Clapper said he thought he and his fellow leftists were being targeted by Trump. "The bigger issue to me is the jeopardy to First Amendment rights," Clapper said. "That, to me, is the much bigger issue here where we're being suppressed or oppressed because of our outspoken political views or criticism of the current president."
First Amendment rights? Now I realize most of CNN's readers and viewers probably can't name even two or three of the five First Amendment rights, but one would hope that the former DNI could.
On second thought, I'm sure Clapper can; but we know he is a liar and an actor. Working for CNN has afforded him the ability to just throw out inane claims he knows will play to the left and win him acclaim from the other CNN talking heads. And of course, no one on the left will ever fact-check or even question him. The quick answer, which I'm sure Clapper knows, is that one voluntarily forgoes some First Amendment rights when dealing with classified material.
To recap, Trump issued a statement, read by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, that – for national security reasons – he is revoking Brennan's security clearance, meaning his access to secure material and information. Oh, and that he is a dirt-bag liar and leaker of intelligence.
Okay, so Trump didn't use those "exact" words, but the gist was the same.
It is unclear whether Brennan's "access" and "eligibility for access" were both revoked. There is a difference.
When a person is granted a security clearance, whether it be confidential, secret or top secret, it affords him or her "eligibility for access" to classified material. "Access" is the further step taken by whichever agency to provide the means to utilize the classified material.
In other words, one may retain his or her "eligibility for access," with no means to access materials. That is, in effect, what happened to James Comey when he was shown the door. His access was revoked, but he retained his "eligibility."
Now to President Trump's authority, which the left chooses to completely discount or disregard.
Lawfare writes, "The entire process of granting, denying or revoking someone's security clearance is derived from the president's Article II authority as commander in chief."
I might also add to his authority as the ultimate head of the Executive Branch, which is why he has the ability to unilaterally declassify anything he chooses. Trump, as president, is the definitive classifier of information and the ultimate decider on who is granted access to classified information.
And lest anyone on the left think that they may, as they always do, just get liberals on the court to countermand Trump's authority, that was taking care of by a decision of the Supreme Court in 1988: Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). The ruling was "that Congress had not afforded it the jurisdictional authority to review the substantive merits of a security clearance determination."
So regardless of the caterwauling of the left and their supposed legal and intelligence experts, the president did exactly what he is authorized to do. Game over.
Now, Mr. President – how about the rest of them, like Sally Yates, James Clapper, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe and Michael Hayden?