There was a great outcry among Democrats and their liberal media allies on Wednesday when it was announced that President Donald Trump had revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.
Brennan, who now works as a paid analyst for NBC and MSNBC, has been a harsh critic of the president and has even accused him of committing “treason” against America. That’s an ironic accusation, given the strong suspicion that Brennan was thoroughly involved in what appears to be a “treasonous” scheme by the Obama administration to spy on, undermine and ultimately overthrow the Trump campaign-turned-presidency.
Nevertheless, while the left wails about Brennan’s loss of a security clearance — which has absolutely nothing to do with his “freedom of speech,” and only affects his freedom to leak classified materials — there are plenty who support the move that strips Brennan of his access to sensitive information.
The Independent Journal Review noted that one individual who supported the move was author and retired Army Brig. Gen. Anthony Tata, who explained why Brennan was a “clear and present danger” who never should have been granted a security clearance to begin with.
“I think it’s the right move by the president. Communist John Brennan never should’ve had a security clearance,” Tata stated on “Fox & Friends” on Thursday.
Co-host Brian Kilmeade interjected that Brennan had admitted in the past that he voted for a Communist Party USA candidate in the 1976 presidential election.
“And he supported that way of life,” Tata stated. “And the president made the right decision in revoking his security clearance.”
But Tata wasn’t just talking about Brennan’s politics from decades ago.
“You look at what he did in his official capacity … he oversaw the Iran deal and all of the intelligence, he manipulated (Islamic State group) intelligence for President Obama, he was part of the Russian hacking, he was standing down the cyber team to allow the Russia hacking in 2016,” Tata said.
“He had a secret meeting in March of 2016 with Russia. He flew to Moscow, and so there is a lot of evidence here. He met with Harry Reid and gave him parts of the unverified, Clinton paid-for dossier,” he continued.
Kilmeade interjected again to point out that Reid had stated the impression he received along with the dossier was “go and announce this,” implying that Brennan had utilized Reid to get the unverified dossier out into the public domain.
“And then he spied on American citizens and lied in front of Congress about that spying. And question 29 on the security clearance form says ‘have you ever supported overthrowing the U.S. government’ — all you gotta do is look at Brennan’s tweets and he supports the removal of this president, and right there that’s enough evidence to get rid of his clearance,” Tata declared.
IJR reported that Tata added, “I think that John Brennan is a clear and present danger and a threat to this nation.”
The general made a rather compelling case for why Brennan should have been stripped of his security clearance, a case echoed by the official White House statement read by press secretary Sarah Sanders about the matter, in which she stated that Brennan “has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.”
While Brennan’s loss of security clearance may indeed be “unprecdented,” as the media made abundantly clear in their lamentations, that is true only insofar as he appears to be the first former CIA director to have involved himself in an equally “unprecedented” conspiracy to undermine and overthrow a duly elected president.
As was also made clear by the White House on Wednesday, Brennan may be the first high-level former Obama official to be stripped of his security clearance, but he likely won’t be the last.
Sanders included a list of other Obama administration officials who still retain security clearances, but whose credentials are “under review.”
That means they’re also at risk of being stripped of their clearances soon. And good riddance, truth be told. It’s about time.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.