CBS This Morning – Page 7

Donald Trump revoked the security clearance of John Brennan, former CIA Director under President Obama, on August 15. Brennan’s clearance wasn’t taken away for misconduct, or for any illegal activities; it was revoked because he criticized Trump. The Trump administration had been hinting since late July that it might take away John Brennan’s security clearance, as well as those of others Trump felt had verbally attacked him.

Among John Brennan’s vocal criticisms of Trump were his comments following Trump’s visit with Putin in Finland, when Trump disparaged U.S. intelligence findings in favor of Putin’s claim that there was no Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Brennan termed Trump’s behavior “treasonous,” and called for his impeachment.

Following Trump’s inflammatory remarks and name-calling directed at Omarosa Manigault Newman on the release of her tell-all book, Brennan tweeted, “It’s astounding how often you fail to live up to minimum standards of decency, civility, & probity. Seems like you will never understand what it means to be president, nor what it takes to be a good, decent, & honest person. So disheartening, so dangerous for our Nation.” Brennan’s security clearance was revoked the following day.

Though Trump, as President, has the legal authority to revoke an official’s security clearance, past presidents, as a rule, have never done so for political motives or without reasonable cause — and certainly not to be vindictive. “Cause” would include security concerns, such as mishandling of classified documents, alcoholism, or financial issues.

Michael V. Hayden, CIA Director under George W. Bush, and also an official whose security clearance the Trump Administration has threatened to revoke, has suggested that Trump is using clearance revocations to “pressure his critics into silence.”

John Brennan tweeted, “This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics…It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out.”

Since Brennan lost his security clearance, numerous other former National Security officials have quickly responded in support of him. Currently, three joint letters signed by former officials, both Democrat and Republican, have been written on Brennan’s behalf. The most recent one, written on Monday, August 20, contained 177 signatures backing John Brennan.

“The country will be weakened if there is a political litmus test applied before seasoned experts are allowed to share their views,” said Monday’s letter.

John Brennan is considering taking Donald Trump to court over the security clearance issue. “If my (security) clearances and my reputation – as I’m being pulled through the mud right now – if that’s the price I have to pay to prevent Donald Trump from doing this to other people, to me, that’s a small price to pay,” said Brennan.

Brennan may take Trump to court over security clearances | Fox Business [2018-08-20]

Line crossed in Trump revoking Brennan security clearance? | CBS This Morning [2018-08-18]

On Tuesday, June 26, as the result of an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit that began on behalf of a 7-year-old Congolese child separated from her mother, U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw ordered that the Trump administration stop its family separation policy at the Mexico-U.S. border. The order also requires that children and parents separated as a result of the family separation policy be reunited within specified time limits.

The court order does not prevent the U.S. government from prosecuting illegal migrants, or from enforcing immigration laws. It does, incidentally, underline the fact that the family separation policy was not an immigration law; nor was it a law at all.

“The facts set forth before the Court portray reactive governance – responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the Government’s own making. They belie measured and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of due process enshrined in our Constitution,” Sabraw said.

Here’s what the court order requires:

That federal officials stop detaining adults separately from their minor children, except when the parent is determined to be unfit, or when the parent declines to be detained with his/her children
That all parents be reunited with their children who are under the age of five within 14 days
That all parents be reunited with their minor children who are age five and over within 30 days
That parents be allowed to have contact with their children by phone within 10 days, if not already in contact with the child(ren)

Some have argued that the Trump administration’s family separation policy is no different from separating American children from their parents if their parents are jailed. After all, they say, those crossing the border illegally are also breaking the law.

Sabraw pointed out, however, that when an American is jailed, the government keeps track of not only his or her children, but also even personal effects such as money, cars, etc. Trump’s family separation policy had no provision for keeping an account of the migrant children separated from their parents at the border. Consequently, the federal government now faces the challenge of reuniting many of the approximately 2,000 children – many of them too young to talk – with their families.

Nevertheless, citing the vast resources the U.S. government can access when it really needs to get something done, Sabraw, the ACLU, and many others remain optimistic that reuniting these families is possible. What’s more, the court order against the family separation policy is an important hopeful step toward preventing similar practices in the future.

Federal judge orders families separated at border to be reunited within 30 days | CBS This Morning [2018-06-27]

Federal Judge Orders U.S. to Reunite Migrant Children with Their Families After Separation at Border | Democracy Now! [2018-06-27]

Category: CBS This Morning

Trump Revokes John Brennan’s Security Clearance

Federal Judge Stops Trump Family Separation Policy