FORMER US security officials have issued scathing rebukes to Donald Trump for withdrawing a former spy chief’s security clearance in what they cast as an act of political vengeance.
The president insisted he had to do “something” about the “rigged” federal probe of Russian election interference.
His admission that he acted out of frustration about the Russia probe underscored his willingness to use his executive power to fight back against an investigation he sees as a threat to his presidency.
Legal experts said the dispute may add to the evidence being reviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller.
In an opinion piece in the New York Times, former CIA director John Brennan said Trump’s decision to deny him access to classified information was a desperate attempt to end Mueller’s investigation.
Brennan, who served under Barack Obama and has become a vocal Trump critic, called the president’s claims that he did not collude with Russia “hogwash”.
The only question remaining is whether the collusion amounts to a “constituted criminally liable conspiracy”, Brennan wrote.
Later, the retired navy admiral who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden called Trump’s moves “McCarthy-era tactics”.
William H McRaven said he would “consider it an honour” if Trump would revoke his clearance as well.
“Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation,” McRaven wrote.
That was followed by a joint letter from 12 former senior intelligence officials calling Trump’s action “ill-considered and unprecedented”.
They said it “has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances – and everything to do with an attempt to stifle free speech”.
The signatories included six former CIA directors, five former deputy directors and former director of national intelligence James Clapper.
Two of the signatories – Clapper and former CIA director Michael Hayden – have appeared on a White House list of people who may also have their security clearances revoked.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here