The media are in a tizzy over the recent revelation that President Trump might revoke security clearances from former intelligence officials with a penchant for going on television. During a concern-filled installment of CNN’s The Situation Room on Monday, host Wolf Blitzer anxiously posited that revoking the clearance of CNN national security analyst James Clapper would constitute a “potential national security threat.”

Blitzer was quick to get Clapper on the phone after it was revealed that his security clearance might be in danger.

During the interview, which took place in the 5:00 p.m. Eastern hour of the show, Blitzer frequently reiterated how much time Clapper had spent in the military. “How personally irritated are you right now that someone with your background in the military – 30 or 40 years, whatever it was – is being treated like this?” he asked obsequiously.

A discussion of the story in a later segment quickly devolved into a spitballing session in which panelists took turns floating potential arguments against such a move by the Trump administration. Blitzer kicked off the conversation by asking panelists, “Why is this threat so troubling?”

The general consensus was that the President was abusing his executive authority to silence some of his harshest detractors. “These are people who are critics of the President,” pointed out CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger. She then added, “Some of them served for Obama, so that’s another strike against them.”

CNN legal analyst Anne Milgram warned of a “slippery slope” whereby current officials could be stripped of their clearance for criticizing the President. “Do you evaluate people who currently have security clearances in the law enforcement agencies on their political beliefs, on their political party?” she pondered.

Washington Post assistant editor David Swerdlick scoffed at White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s claim that the likes of Brennan and Clapper had “politicized the process” by taking jobs at MSNBC and CNN, respectively. “Actually, this is politicizing the process,” he snarked. Swerdlick then implied that revoking a former official’s security clearance somehow constituted a breach of the First Amendment: “They’re citizens; remember that. They have the right to free speech like everybody else.”

Blitzer responded with a deductive leap of impressive proportions: “If you remove security clearances from a James Clapper, for example...” – just for example – “that’s a potential national security threat.”

The analytical minds on the panel came up with a great many reasons for why revoking James Clapper’s security clearance would be a very poor decision. But none seemed interested in pointing out that if Clapper – a CNN analyst – were denied access to sensitive information, it might affect his ability to provide colleagues with insider knowledge.

Transcripts for both segmets are below. Click expand to read:

CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer

07/23/2018

5:19:31 – 5:25:36 p.m. EDT

6 min, 5 sec WOLF BLITZER: First of all, what do you think that the fact that you're being targeted along with some of your former colleagues by the white house? JAMES CLAPPER: Well, it's pretty obvious, Wolf, what the reason, you know, why we were singled out for this contemplated action is because of, you know, the criticism that we have expressed about and reservations we expressed about the

President. BLITZER: What's to stop the President from revoking security clearances for anyone that criticizes him? I take it he has the right to do so. CLAPPER: Well, he does and that's a key question. If now when someone applies for security clearance are they going to add to the standard form 86 a pledge of allegiance to President Trump? Unswerving, complete loyalty to the President. As a new criteria for a clearance? That's a pretty chilling thing. BLITZER: Have you ever seen anything like this before? Is this unprecedented? CLAPPER: Absolutely not. I’ve never seen anything like it. I was amazed. I was watching the White House press conference today. And that's the first I'd heard of it. And, yeah. I was taken aback to say the least. BLITZER: You served in both -- under Democratic and Republican administrations. Democratic presidents, Republican administrations. You worked your way up to become a four-star general. I think you spent 35 or 40 years in the U.S. Military. Would you have ever considered advising a president to revoke the security clearances of former intelligence officials for simply being critical of the current – of the then-current administration? CLAPPER: Absolutely not. And I think the arch recent example is Mike Flynn, his criticism of Hillary Clinton. And the Obama administration. And it never crossed my mind to even raise the issue about revoking his security clearance. BLITZER: Why would someone who no longer works in the government like you right now, you're retired, need a security clearance in the first place? CLAPPER: It's more to take advantage of the experience and corporate memory of people, particularly those that spent a long time in the business. And I've had occasion to consult over the last year and a half with Trump administration officials who will remain nameless so I can protect them, to take advantage of the history and the background that I have. And the same is true of the others on our – on the bad boy list. BLITZER: Well, I know for a fact that current officials in the Trump administration whether Mike Pompeo as CIA director spoke with his predecessors. Dan Coats is director of national intelligence, I assume he's consulted with you on several occasions over the past year and a half. I wonder if you could confirm that. CLAPPER: I'm not going to go into who I have or haven't consulted again, to protect the confidentiality of those conversations and, frankly, to protect them. BLITZER: Because it's very, very common for current officials to speak with their predecessors, to get some sense if they're having a sensitive meeting, for example, with a foreign intelligence official, they may want to call in a predecessor, maybe of a different party, maybe somebody who has a different experience just to get a sense of what it was like. That's why I've been told you still need some security clearances. CLAPPER: Well, yes. And I did that in the positions, senior positions I occupied. As Director of Defense Intelligence Agency, Director of Naional Geospatial Intelligence Agency, and certainly as DNI, I called upon formers, mainly to get smart on history of certain issues and things that I was – I had under consideration at time. So, it is a useful resource to draw on. BLITZER: Certainly is. What do you think? Will this have a chilling affect on former government officials to express their own political opinions once they leave office? CLAPPER: Well, I think it does. It's a very sad and disturbing thing for the first amendment. BLITZER: And one quick question. Tell us, General Clapper, how many years did you serve in the active U.S. Military, and how personally irritated are you right now that someone with your background in the military, 30, 40 years, whatever it was, is being treated like this? CLAPPER: Well, obviously, I think it's pretty shabby. And I'm not – and that’s just not me. I served 34 years in the military altogether, counting my Marine Corps reserve time, and then 32 years in the Air Force. And then another 16 years in 3 different civilian capacities in the government. Two of which were political appointee positions in both Republican and Democratic administrations. And I think it's – this is terrible. You know? The substantive importance of it for me is minimal. I don't get classified briefings anymore. None of us do. And per my cadence tweet earlier today, has no impact on what I say or do. It could for some people, particularly if they are under

employment with a defense contractor where a security clearance is required. Well, it could have real impact. In my particular case it doesn't. BLITZER: General Clapper, thanks so much for joining us and thanks for all of your service to our country. We're appreciative. CLAPPER: Thanks, Wolf. Thanks for having me.