National security attorney Mark Zaid once represented a client who was at risk of losing his security clearance "because he stole pens from an embassy when he was 14 years old," or so the agency he was at odds with claimed. The "ludicrous" example, as Zaid described it, was used to block his client from accessing sensitive information, thus precluding him from performing the duties of his job after he fell "out of favor" with his boss.

It's that sort of thing — the stealing of pens as an adolescent or the failure to report meetings with foreign officials as set forth by guidelines — that President Trump could rely on to strip Justice Department official Bruce Ohr of his security clearance.

Ohr, a career employee of the top law enforcement agency, was relatively unknown until his name appeared in a presidential tweet last week about ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who authored the now-infamous Russia dossier.



The big story that the Fake News Media refuses to report is lowlife Christopher Steele’s many meetings with Deputy A.G. Bruce Ohr and his beautiful wife, Nelly. It was Fusion GPS that hired Steele to write the phony & discredited Dossier, paid for by Crooked Hillary & the DNC.... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 11, 2018



"The big story that the Fake News Media refuses to report is lowlife Christopher Steele's many meetings with Deputy A.G. Bruce Ohr and his beautiful wife, Nelly. It was Fusion GPS that hired Steele to write the phony & discredited Dossier, paid for by Crooked Hillary & the DNC," Trump wrote.

Ohr's wife Nelly previously worked with Fusion GPS, the commercial research firm that subcontracted Steele to compile the dossier of damning information about Trump during the 2016 presidential election. The relationship between Ohr's wife and Fusion GPS has fallen under scrutiny by the president and his allies, who have repeatedly claimed the dossier was used to justify the launch of a federal investigation into Trump campaign associates and their potential collusion with Russian officials.

Ohr's name resurfaced Wednesday during a daily briefing at the White House, when press secretary Sarah Sanders mentioned the security clearances belonging to him and five other former U.S. officials were under review. Former CIA Director John Brennan had already been stripped of his clearance, Sanders simultaneously announced.

"Unlike the others on that list, if their security clearances are revoked or terminated, it doesn't matter much. It's more symbolic," Zaid said, noting that former intelligence officers rarely find themselves needing to access classified information after they leave government. "But for Ohr, if his clearance was revoked, he would lose his job."

The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the timeline for a decision on Ohr's clearance. Asked Wednesday if the review of his clearance indicated Trump wanted him fired, Sanders declined to answer directly.

"It's very easy to take someone's security clearance away if you are hell-bent on doing so," Zaid said, adding that Trump could "come up with a pretext of some bogus allegations that have some substantive value" if he decides to strip Ohr of his access to government secrets.

In a statement about Brennan's clearance, Trump provided two examples of instances in which the former CIA director "contradicted" the findings of an internal agency watchdog or "other senior officials in the intelligence community."

"In 2014, for example, he denied to Congress that CIA officials under his supervision had improperly accessed the computer files of congressional staffers," Trump said. "The CIA's Inspector General, however, contradicted Mr. Brennan directly, concluding unequivocally that agency officials had indeed improperly accessed congressional staffers' files."

Should Trump determine that Ohr is unworthy of having access to sensitive information, he would have two options to strip him of his clearance.

"The president could take it upon himself to revoke Ohr's clearance or he could somehow pressure the FBI to take action," said national security expert Brad Moss, who claimed the first option is more likely to occur.

"If it's the latter, the FBI would have to have civil servants and high-level officials putting their names on documents about why they want to revoke Ohr's clearance," he explained. "I would be surprised if FBI personnel would be ready to do that."

Both Zaid and Moss said it was unusual for Sanders to reveal the president was even looking at revoking the clearance of a current U.S. official, as the White House has repeatedly declined to comment on the status of Jared Kushner's clearance after reports emerged that his approval was still pending.

"It's something that they're supposed to know not to discuss," Moss said, noting that White House officials are not supposed to disseminate "Privacy Act-protected information" unless there is an overriding public interest.

According to congressional testimony, Ohr spoke with Steele on multiple occasions after the FBI told the former spy in November 2016 they were uninterested in hearing more about his alleged findings involving Trump. A House Intelligence Committee memo released earlier this year noted that "before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr."

Ohr is scheduled to speak with lawmakers later this month about his contact with Steele, House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C, announced Monday.

Though some Republican lawmakers have said they take no issue with Trump's decision to strip Brennan of his security clearance, they have not weighed in about the possibility of the president forcing a current official out of his role by revoking his access to classified information.