Last week President Trump revoked the security clearances of the 51 former U.S. intelligence officials who dismissed the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden laptop story in the last month before the 2020 presidential election.
While many people criticized Trump’s order as vindictive, in truth it was the right thing to do, and was a pretty good start.
John Brennan was one of the 51 former intelligence officials who were affected by the order and was the one who complained the loudest. He was appointed by President Barack Obama as Homeland Security advisEr, then later as CIA director.
Since leaving the agency in 2017, Brennan has worked as a senior national security and intelligence analyst on MSNBC, and it was on that network where he tried to make his case.
"[Trump] misrepresented the facts in that executive order because it said that we had suggested that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation," Brennan said.
"No, we said it was all the hallmarks of Russian information operations, including the dumping of accurate information, which is what we said in that letter."
Actually the letter’s language was carefully crafted in order to give the public the impression that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, according to George Washington University law Professor Jonathan Turley.
He believed that "the letter was clearly arranged by Biden campaign supporters with the intent to influence the election."
Turley added that “The letter contradicted the view of the intelligence agencies themselves and signatories like [Doug] Wise later acknowledged that he assumed that many of the emails were likely authentic."
Doug Wise is a former Defense Intelligence Agency deputy director, who currently teaches at the University of New Mexico.
Turley concluded that "Biden then used the letter, as intended, to deflect questions on the influence-peddling scandal."
Biden also used the letter on the debate stage in 2020 to contradict claims Trump raised about the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Anyone who watched the debate was left with the belief that the laptop story was Russian disinformation.
Turley did make one statement in Brennan’s favor, however.
He believed that the security clearances should not have been lifted, stating, "There are a variety of arguments against the removal, including hampering discussions between current and former officials."
That belief was shared by Mark Zaid, a lawyer representing eight of the former national security officials whose clearances were revoked.
He claimed that "no president has ever done this before."
The question is, why not? If they’re retired or no longer working in a capacity that requires a security clearance, why do they need one?
Notwithstanding Turley’s argument, restricting discussions between current and former intelligence officers may be a good thing — it restricts groupthink, a tendency among a group’s members to come to a consensus at all costs.
If the group’s decision is bad, no individual can be held accountable. It was a group decision.
More to the point, why should former intelligence officers continue to have access to classified information?
Nevertheless, Zaid added that "by law, revoked clearances entitle individual to procedural & substantive due process."
Revocation of security clearances of former government employees shouldn’t require a hearing with due process, nor should it take a presidential order; it should be automatic — standard procedure.
The Hunter Biden laptop "Russian disinformation" letter arguably changed the course of the 2020 election, and revoking the clearances of the 51 signatories to that letter was a good start.
Now let’s take the next step and revoke the security clearances of all former government employees, beginning with those who have already demonstrated that they may be poor risks.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to Newsmax. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and a Second Amendment supporter. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.