We begin today’s roundup with the powerful op-ed by retied Navy admiral William H. McRaven, who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, which is an open letter to Donald Trump:
I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency. […] If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.
Catherine Rampell points out the hypocrisy on the right by all the self-styled free speech conservatives:
Curiously, Republican politicians and conservative pundits who call themselves staunch defenders of the Constitution have allowed, and at times encouraged, the president to run roughshod over the First Amendment.
Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), John Neely Kennedy (La.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.) celebrated Trump’s revocation of Brennan’s security clearance.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee oversaw a hearing titled “Free Speech 101: The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses,” refused to condemn Trump’s calls for the firing of NFL players engaged in peaceful protest. Instead, in September, he attacked the media for giving the “false impression” that Trump spent too much time attacking the NFL.
Writing in USA Today, Cindy Otis, who worked at the CIA for a decade, explains the damage Trump has done:
Trump’s retaliation against Brennan is sadly not unexpected given the president’s almost daily insults against perceived opponents over Twitter, the war he continues to wage against our constitutional rights to a free press and free speech, and his disdain for the intelligence community. It is more important than ever before that national security professionals speak truth to power, as Brennan has long advocated.
However, Trump’s politicizing and weaponizing of something as important as security clearances could discourage those currently serving from doing so. And that is exactly what the president wants.
The Washington Post editorial board:
The real victim here is not Mr. Brennan, who will get along fine without his security clearance, but the national security of the United States and its democratic norms. National security is harmed because administration officials and members of Congress benefit when they can draw upon the wisdom and experience of long-serving public servants such as Mr. Brennan. Mr. Trump has threatened eight other former officials , and even one current official, with similar treatment. Over time, that would make their advice less useful to officials who might otherwise benefit from it.
The New York Times editorial board examines other instances of Trump’s petty retributions and how he often blows the White House cover spin:
At this point, one might ask why the White House even bothers to invent cover stories that the president himself will inevitably contradict. Mr. Trump obviously cherishes — and actively cultivates — his reputation as someone who will work to crush those who dare defy him.
At The Atlantic, Dan Rather and Elliot Kirchner write about Trump’s attacks on free speech as well:
The institution of a free press in America is presently in a state of crisis greater than I have ever seen in my lifetime, and perhaps in any moment in this nation’s history. The winds of instability howl from many directions: a sustained attack on press freedom from those in political power, crumbling business models, rapidly changing technologies, and some self-inflicted wounds. This is a test, not only for those of us who work in journalism, but also for the nation as a whole. The most immediate threat comes from the dangerous political moment in which we find ourselves. We have seen individual journalists and some of our best press institutions singled out for attack by the highest of elected officials for reporting truths that the powerful would rather remain hidden; for pointing out lies as lies; and for questioning motivations that deserve scrutiny. It would be easy to fill this essay, and indeed entire volumes, with examples of these recent outrages against the press and to call out the chief culprits in these assaults on our constitutional freedoms. I suspect much scholarship in the future will be dedicated to just such topics. But I am less interested in naming names than in explaining the larger forces at play, which have been years, if not decades, in the making.
On a final note, don’t miss Jamal Smith’s write-up at Rolling Stone of Aretha Franklin’s political power:
The blossoming of “Respect” into one of the most important songs that an American has ever sung is a reflection of how, unintentionally, blackness and womanhood becomes fodder for public debate and examination. We don’t mean to be political, but our skin is. Our bodies are. Even our voices. Franklin, taken by pancreatic cancer Thursday morning at the age of 76, was singular in that she contained our multitudes unlike any singer before her — both in her songs and in her skill. Her music spoke to the demand for equality along gender and racial lines simultaneously, knowing that one freedom could not exist without the other. The Queen of Soul was the first woman inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, yet those two musical genres only hint at the breadth of her talent. It stretched from country to opera, and always back to gospel. But even as she sang to Americans in churches and concert halls, Franklin was never shy about reflecting black reality and encouraging those fighting for civil rights.
