Good, about time that some dirtbags be removed from the problematic list.

---

Brennan is the first, but he won't be the last

President Trump’s stripping John Brennan of his security clearance is not a First Amendment or "freedom of speech" issue.

No one has a right to a top secret clearance.

The only American who automatically gets a clearance and doesn’t even have to undergo an interview, let alone a polygraph exam, is the incoming president of the United States.

Moreover, the incumbent president has total and utter control of the classification and clearance system of the U.S. government.

For example, even if one of his staff has a past which would negate their ever being normally granted a clearance, say due to a history of drug abuse, the president can simply “waive” the concerns of the federal investigators and agencies that do background investigations and grant that person a clearance anyway. That, for example, is exactly what the last president did with Ben Rhodes, who was denied even an interim clearance by the FBI but, nevertheless, got to spend the full eight years of the Obama administration working in the White House with a “waived” status and unfettered access to top secret intelligence.

Having a clearance is privilege of government service, service in a very specific capacity wherein you cannot perform your duties to the nation without access to sensitive and classified data. It is not a right.

The argument that some are making that the president’s decision in some way infringes John Brennan’s free speech rights is, in fact, absurd. If John Brennan publicly disclosed any information he had acquired as a result of his clearance, he would be committing a felony. The issue instead has to do with the oath Brennan took when he became a civil servant and the damage he is doing to America’s national security as a private citizen with a very public platform.

Rest - http://thehill.com/opinion/white-hou...nt-be-the-last