Should he go to court and risk “shameful defeat?”
The Chicago Tribune article titled, Brennan, says he is willing to take Trump to court over security clearances, reports his statement, “to prevent these abuses.”
Was Brenan’s freedom of speech violated by President Trump revocation of his security clearance, or was it because of a King Solomon wisdom proverb which explains a simple something else reason?
King Solomon
Just because you’ve seen something,
8 don’t be in a hurry to go to court.
For what will you do in the end
if your neighbor deals you a shameful defeat? (Proverb 25:8)
What’s My Point?
I became curious about this latest news issue which is being blown up by a lot of news media and former government employees who now are being paid to be news commentators and pundits. So I looked up the official State Department Policy on security clearance. Here is one Excerpt statement.
Excerpt
“Access to classified information will be terminated when an individual no longer has need for access.”
In My Opinion
John Brennan has a Right to Free Speech to express his political opinions about President Trump.
President Trump as the authority to enforce State Department policy on security clearances..
Judgment and opinions are two different “worlds”.
You Decide
If this issue goes to court, and this policy is presented by President Trump, how would you judge the merits of John Brennan chances of winning when the judge asks him why he has a need for the information when he no longer is a government employee.
Is this a simple, or complicated, or a political issue being blown out of proportion by the mass media?
Is John Brennan wise or foolish to go to court? And if he loses, would it be a “shameful defeat?”
What would you do if you were President Trump?
Regards and good will blogging.
Source Links
Chicago Tribune Article and Image
All About Security Clearances
https://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/c10978.htm
Rudy u Martinka 
Everything you just posted is all just “noise” (not at you.. but as it relates to the issue).
No one is arguing Brennan’s free speech.
No one is arguing a president’s power to remove clearances at whim.
The entire issue is Trump’s stated reason for doing so.. in other words his (arrogant) intent. Either one of the two explanations regurgitated by the White House that I am aware of set some reason, if not partially, on Brennan’s vocalness against Trump. Hence, Trump used his power for political retribution in an attempt to get even.
If Trump simply had just took the clearance away and mumbled some typical nonsense about “security of the nation”.. no one would still buy into that, but it doesn’t reveal his real intent for the record. But his arrogance will do him in.
Brennan’s issue now , and with the hundreds of others stepping up to object to clearance removals done in a willy-nilly political fashion, is that doing this is placing the country in some security risk. No president in any sort of recent history has considered (and likely will deliver) a mass clearance removal for no acceptable reason.
Another thing about this propensity for conservatives to cite when defending Trump’s latest buffoonery presidential action , is always “the President has the power to do so without answering to anyone.” Of course he has that power. But what he CAN and WILL be judged on is if he should use that power, and for what reason that will benefit the country.. and NOT self-interest. Just because he can does not mean he should.
Thus endeth the lesson.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another thing about this propensity for leftist to cite when defending Brennan’s latest buffoonery action , is always “the former CIA Director has the right to say what he wants to without answering to anyone.”
Of course former Director Brennan has that right to say what he wants. But what he CAN and WILL be judged on is if he should use that right, and for what reason that will benefit the country .. and NOT self-interest. Just because former Director Brennan can say what he wants to does not mean he should.
Thus endeth the lesson.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Uhh.. you are totally mixing apple and oranges here.
Regarding the practice of free speech in this debate.. Brennan=All Americans.
You said…
“Of course former Director Brennan has that right to say what he wants. But what he CAN and WILL be judged on is if he should use that right, and for what reason that will benefit the country .. and NOT self-interest.”
1. Brennan is not the president with any sort of presidential powers to impose on another…
2. Brennan, since he is currently not working for the government in any way, can indeed say whatever the hell he wants whether it benefits the country or his own self-interest. Thus is idea of free speech.
3. Nice try to spin my words around but it just proved your own misconceptions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point Doug, that is the same logic of Trump.
“He has the right to do what he wants.”
Only problem is Brennan just got “Trumped.”
Regards and good will blogging
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, Trump is trolling him and looking for a foil. He found one. Not very becoming I think but that is his style.
Blessings, grace and peace!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good comment! Fine post. Funny too!
Brennan abused his office as CIA Director. He used agency resources to spy on the Senate. Then he lied about it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/john-brennan-famous-for-lying-and-spying-on-the-senate-baselessly-accuses-trump-of-treason
The scandal here is that high mucky-mucks are retaining “their” clearances after they leave government service. Instead of discussing that scandal, we have Brennan arguing Trump infringed on his right to free speech.
What does Brennan intend to do? Blab classified information? Is he going to put top secret files on an unprotected in his basement? The man no longer has the need to know. Trump’s motives may not be perfect, but it a cinch he won’t ask that man for advice.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John Brennan and most of today’s political pundits could use a lesson in the differences between constructive and destructive criticism in my opinion.
“The difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism is the way in which comments are delivered. Although both forms are challenging your ideas, character or ability, when someone is giving destructive criticism it can hurt your pride and have negative effects on your self-esteem and confidence.” (google)
I believe King Solomon might relate constructive as wisdom, and destructive as folly..
Note both Brennan and Trump have huge egos so you are right in my opinion that Trump will not ask that man for his advice.
Sad. another indication of the need for wisdom and virtue education.
Regards and good will blogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As usual you miss the point. Someone told Trump he could “get back” at Brennan and others for mouthing off against him (Trump) by removing their clearances. Trump’s intent was NEVER stated to have been some interpretation of past performance issues or some exaggerated “scandal”. It’s all about Trump’s intent.
And yet again… just because you might be an ex-office holder and still retain your clearance after, does NOT mean at all that these folks can just saunter into the CIA and peruse secret files on a whim… or take some home and hide them in the basement.
Anyway.. given the current events piling up against Trump… he’s got much more important things to do to try and save his own butt than play his usual retribution games.
LikeLike
@Doug
Difficult to read minds. I’ll leave that to experts. Whether Trump intended it or not, Brennan has made it obvious he should not have a clearance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Doug
I read your opinions and believe you missed the crux of my post pertains to wisdom of John Brennan.
You may have heard this idiom, “Never Bite The Hand That Feeds You,’ to explain the
importance of acting respectfully toward those you depend upon.
Example of use: “I know the boss isn’t always nice, but remember: Never bite the hand that feeds
you.”
In other words, Brennan, instead of criticizing Trump should have offered him suggestions, in my opinion.
Trump being, “the hand” that allows him to be fed with information might have listened to suggestions. However, instead of wisely respecting and understanding that Trump has the responsibility to make the final decisions, Trump decided Brennan’s opinions were foolish and it was best for our nation to quit feeding national security information to a shortsighted fool. .
You’ll find wisdom on the lips of a person of insight,
but the shortsighted needs a slap in the face. (Proverbs 10:13)
Regards and good will blogging.
LikeLike
Brennan left public office on the day Trump became President as a result of him having having been an appointment from the Obama administration. Trump never “fed” him.. nor did Brennan ever feed Trump.
You are confusing Trump’s agreed power to terminate.. to his reason for doing so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How do you know for certain what Brennan did or did not do with the information he had access to?
Seems to me Trump acted prudently with Brennan since he has no reason to be privy to national security matters after he resigned.
Regards and good will blogging.
LikeLike