The Plot to End the Investigation
President Trump stripped former CIA Director John Brennan of his security clearance on Tuesday. While Trump’s original statement claimed it was due to Brennan’s “erratic” statements in the media, in a Wall Street Journal interview he added a more insidious rationale: that Brennan was one of those who began the Russia investigation.
The President also presented a list of those being considered for “stripping.” They all were involved in the Russia investigation in one way or another. Former CIA Director Mike Haden, former DNI James Clapper, and former FBI Director James Comey, along with Brennan, were at the January 2017 meeting informing then President-elect Trump of Russian interference. Comey famously stayed after the meeting to tell Trump about the Steele Dossier’s most salacious sections.
When Trump then spoke out, stating that there wasn’t proof of Russian involvement, these four stood together behind their findings that the Russians did interfere. While the others left with the end of the Obama Administration, Comey was later fired by the President “…to end the Russia thing.”
Some others listed are former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strozk, and former Justice Department lawyer Lisa Page. They were all involved in the beginnings of the Russia investigation. Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice were Obama appointees that Trump has picked out for special attention; Rice because of her role in the Carter Page investigation, and Yates for warning the White House about Mike Flynn’s compromised position.
All of these individuals are no longer in government service (all but Rice and Page were fired.) Taking away their security clearances doesn’t change what they are doing now. What it does do is take away the government’s ability to use their memory and experience with current problems: if they don’t have clearances, they can’t be approached for information.
It also denies them the ability to look at their own files to refresh their memories. When called to testify to Congress or in Court, they can’t confirm their testimony with “the record.” This might create a potential perjury situation, but more likely makes it easier for the White House and their apologists, who can review the record, to contest their statements.
And, perhaps more ominously, the President is threatening the clearance of Bruce Ohr, currently in the FBI. If Ohr loses his clearance, he will no longer be able to do his job. Trump would be effectively firing Ohr, without any “due process,” because he was a friend of Christopher Steele and vouched for his credentials.
Some commentators see the Brennan attack as the beginning of a slow-motion “Saturday Night Massacre,” effectively ending the investigators ability to investigate the Russian involvement. And while Nixon’s “massacre” drew Congressional rebuke, and resulted in a new Special Counsel with even greater authority, this slow motion attack has not drawn the same kind of criticism. In fact, moderate Republicans like Senator Richard Burr head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Lindsey Graham, have recognized that this is within the President’s authority.
So far, outside of the media and Democrats, the only voices being raised against Trump are former leaders of the intelligence agencies themselves. Former commander of Special Operations, Admiral William McRaven, specifically asked Trump to strip his clearance so he could stand with Brennan, while a dozen former intelligence officials, including Leon Panetta, Robert Gates and David Patraeus, publicly support Brennan.
So who’s next? If this is Trump’s retribution for the Russia investigation, will the clearances of Robert Mueller or other members of the Special Counsel’s office turn up on the list? Will the President reach down into the CIA to find those who brought the Russia information? Is this a “kill the messenger” situation, or a larger attempt to actually kill the message?
Clearly this is the ultimate attempt to coerce potential witnesses against him, and obstruct justice. The President has been given the legal advice that he has these powers, and therefore has the authority to do this. The “unitary executive” principle his advisors espouse states that since the President is the ultimate authority in the executive branch, anything he does is legal and within his authority.
We will see if this theory holds up. It didn’t work for Richard Nixon, who ultimately was rebuked by the Supreme Court, and finally by the Congress for obstructing justice. And perhaps President Trump is enjoying the “threat,” without actually intending to proceed. It certainly has achieved one goal: it has changed the subject again.
Mr. Mueller, do what you have to do. But please, if you could hurry, that would be good too.
