'Not normal times': Ex-intel officials brace for retribution following J.D. Vance vow

Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has vowed to strip security clearances from dozens of former intelligence officials who signed a letter less than a month before the 2020 election warning that the Hunter Biden laptop bore the “earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

The targeted individuals include some of the top intelligence officials from the administrations of at least two former presidents. Among them are James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence under President Barack Obama, and three former CIA directors—John Brennan, Leon Panetta and Mike Hayden—who served in the Obama and George W. Bush administrations.

Mark Zaid, an attorney who represents seven of the signatories, told Raw Story that the move to revoke the security clearances could be only the first salvo in a wider offensive to punish political enemies and stifle voices critical of the incoming administration.

“There’s nothing to be done to prevent them from doing anything untoward or against the norm — until they do it,” Zaid said.

ALSO READ: What Trump's win really means for America

Vance pledged during a podcast interview two months ago that the incoming administration would “strip” 51 former intelligence officials “who said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation” of their security clearances.

Kash Patel, a former Department of Defense official under the first Trump administration who is widely believed to be under consideration for the job of CIA director or another top position, told a podcaster that he “recommended” to Trump that the former officials lose their security clearances, according to an ABC News report.

“They have had the opportunity to recant, and all 51 of them have doubled down and tripled down,” he said. “So, pull them. I think we will.”

Zaid said he believes that most signatories no longer hold active security clearances. But, he said, talk about targeting them could indicate a wider range of efforts to mete out punishment.

Before releasing the October 2020 letter, Zaid said the CIA had pre-cleared the document, stating that it contained no classified information. However, he said nothing would prevent Patel or another CIA director appointed by Trump from reassessing and reaching a new determination about whether or not classified information was released. Or, he said, the next CIA director could reclassify the information and find the former officials to be in breach after the fact. He said they could face prosecution under the Espionage Act in either case.

As a candidate, Trump has promised “retribution” for a wide array of grievances. His allies, including Vance, have claimed that the former officials lied in the October 2020 letter so that they could damage Trump’s reelection prospects.

“You cannot lie, take your position of public trust, and lie to the American people for political purposes,” Vance said. “It’s disgraceful. And people have to suffer consequences for it.”

A joint report issued by House Republicans in May 2023 took a swipe at the former intelligence officials by concluding that allegations that Hunter Biden’s laptop and emails “were the product of Russian disinformation were false.”

Clapper, Brennan and other signatories have insisted that they did not lie in the letter.

Nowhere in the letter did the former intelligence officials state conclusively that the laptop or its contents were the work of a Russian influence operation, only that the emails had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” In the fifth paragraph, the authors wrote explicitly that they “do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”

In contrast to the cautious language in the letter, the headline in a story published by Politico presented the intelligence officials’ assessment as conclusive.

“Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say,” the headline read.

During his final debate with Trump in October 2020, Biden pushed the claim even further than the Politico story, saying, “Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what [Trump is] accusing me of is a Russian plan.”

Clapper told the Washington Post the Politico story amounted to “message distortion.”

“All we were doing was raising a yellow flag that this could be Russian disinformation,” he said. “Politico deliberately distorted what we said.” (Politico stood behind the reporting in a statement to the Post.)

House Republicans also charged in a report released last month that efforts by government officials in 2020 to cast doubt on the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop amounted to “election interference.”

Zaid told Raw Story that the incoming Trump administration could retaliate against the former intelligence officials through various means.

“Could they concoct some crazy criminal case to say that they conspired to violate some election law?” he said. “Maybe. Do I think so? No. But I’m not going to put anything past possibility.”

To financially punish the former intelligence officials, Zaid said President-elect Trump could cut their pensions, although such a move would be unprecedented. He said some senior-level former officials likely earn money by serving on corporate boards. The incoming administration might pressure the companies to sever ties with the former officials as a condition of continuing to do business with the federal government.

Emails from Raw Story to the Trump campaign seeking comment on whether the incoming administration intends to follow through on Vance and Patel’s pledge went unreturned.

A retribution campaign against the former intelligence officials could easily dampen criticism of the incoming administration, Zaid said. Some of the signatories hold contributor contracts with media organizations. For example, Brennan, the former CIA chief, serves as an analyst for NBC and MSNBC.

Zaid noted that all of the signatories held an SCI, or sensitive compartmentalized information clearance, a high-level clearance that allows access to classified information about intelligence sources. Federal law requires people with SCI clearance to obtain pre-clearance from their respective agencies before making public remarks or statements.

In policy and practice, Zaid said it’s not uncommon for former intelligence officials to go on television and comment on emerging global crises. Technically, the former officials could face criminal penalties or find themselves on the receiving end of a civil lawsuit from the government, Zaid said.

“Rarely does the government do that,” Zaid said. “I could count on both hands the number of times the CIA and DOD has done that in 60 years. That’s normal times. This is not normal times.”

NOW READ: The 50-year war on democracy that built Trump's oligarchy and killed the American dream