THREAD: minus some inconsequential detours, I spent about 14 years in government in uniform and as a contractor. One of my responsibilities was personnel security, first as a clerk in my late teens and then as a security manager in my 20s. Here’s Brennan’s actual exposure 1/x
2/x Brennan has been selected for revocation. There is a process, it’s not optional, and it is firmly in the hands of CIA. Not up for debate, there is no “but”, and that’s just how it works. A revocation is not permanent, and he can be granted PCL (clearance) again in the future
3/x Personnel security clearances are not political gifts and they’re not predicated on public sentiment. They look at the whole of person, and determinations are made based on cold, hard data, not feelings—not even positive feelings. You can be imperfect, and still be cleared.
4/x in the end, Brennan will have to follow the revocation procedure, which does, unarguably, include a review, a hearing, and an appeal (not in that order). If it is demonstrated in the future the trigger was political, he will be granted personnel security clearance again.
5/x It’s clear that the Trump administration views clearances as some sort of political token doled out to loyal vassals. There is nothing the insular, prideful, introverted, and secretive security people hate more than meddling and politicization. It will sort itself out.
6/x ah, yes, I almost forgot. Almost. Doing anything other than what I said in this thread is a violation of the Privacy Act, which is admittedly rarely enforced, but also a useful mechanism to open a full field counterintelligence investigation, which is not fun. Ask Carter Page
7/x Final note: it is difficult to fully politicize the 1. background investigation and 2. adjudication processes necessary to obtain or lose a clearance. WH is making a valiant effort. But there are trap doors, and practical technical proficiency will always triumph over theory.
