Jake Sullivan Archives - Dr. Rich Swier

U.S. President Donald Trump announced Saturday the rescission of security clearances for former President Joe Biden, previously defeated challengers Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton, among others.

Trump said in the presidential memo that it was “no longer in the national interest” for the individuals affected to access classified information.

Neither Biden nor “any other member of [his] family” were to retain their security clearances, according to the memo.

Trump said Monday that Biden’s son Hunter’s security detail comprised up to 18 people and that Hunter was “currently vacationing in, of all places, South Africa, where the Human Rights of people has been strenuously questioned.” He added that Biden’s daughter Ashley would also be stripped of her 13-strong security detail.

Trump had announced the revocation of Biden’s security clearance in a Feb. 7 social media post, adding that Biden “set this precedent in 2021” by revoking Trump’s access to intelligence briefings, “a courtesy provided to former Presidents.”

Biden revoked Trump’s access to intelligence briefings in February 2021, citing Trump’s “erratic behavior unrelated to the insurrection” in a CBS News interview.

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, former Republican legislators Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, former Trump European and Russian affairs assistant Fiona Hill, former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, are among individuals affected by the presidential action.

Kinzinger appeared to mock the presidential action against him, saying he never had security clearance.

“So I woke up to MAGA being super angry that I don’t have a security clearance and that Trump’s thing meant nothing to me,” he said in a video statement. “Haha, what else you got, guys? You know, strip my World War II badges? You know, strip my Vietnam combat status? Good one!”

Others affected are New York State Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, attorneys Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, and Andrew Weissmann; and Alexander Vindman — an army veteran and former director in the first Trump administration’s National Security Council.

Reacting to Trump’s decision, Vindman said, “I’m not a weak-kneed billionaire or a massive spineless law firm, so I don’t care what noises @realDonaldTrump makes about a security clearance that hasn’t been active for five years. What’s the point of having throw-away money if you can be easily bullied by an empty suit?”

Vindman in his statement appeared to allude to the decision by the multinational law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP to provide pro bono legal services worth $40 million to the Trump administration’s initiatives, a decision that led to Trump rescinding an executive order targeting the firm.

The firm’s decision has attracted criticism — including from Zaid, who said, “There are many of us,” he said, “who will not be bullied or intimidated, notwithstanding the continuing attacks on lawyers.”

AUTHOR

John Oyewale

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Revokes Security Clearances, Denies Access To Federal Buildings To Slew Of Former, Current Officials

‘You Need A Pitbull’: House Task Force To Probe Whether CIA Misled Congress On JFK Assassination

The question isn’t if Biden will fund the Taliban, the question is how will he fund the Taliban.

There’s a split on that with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan suggesting that US aid may go directly to the Taliban. (Whether it goes directly or indirectly, the Taliban will still unquestionably cash in.)

Sullivan also would not rule out giving the Taliban aid in the future. He said that the US will continue to provide humanitarian assistance “directly” to the Afghan people, which, he said, would not flow through the Taliban but through international institutions like the World Health Organization and other nongovernmental organizations.

But, going forward, aid to Afghanistan through the Taliban directly will be conditioned upon the Taliban’s behavior, including whether the remaining Americans are able to safely evacuate.

“That will be about the Taliban’s actions. It will be about whether they follow through on their commitments, their commitments to safe passage for Americans and Afghan allies, their commitment to not allow Afghanistan to be a base from which terrorists can attack the United States or any other country, their commitments with respect to upholding their international obligations. It’s going to be up to them. And we will wait and see by their actions how we end up responding in terms of the economic and development assistance,” he said.

Then it was Jen Psaki’s turn to insist that Sullivan hadn’t said what he had said.

Q And then on — on the future aid to the Taliban that Jake Sullivan was talking about this morning.

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

Q He said, when it comes to economic and development assistance, the relationship with the Taliban will be about Taliban actions. Should we understand that to mean that economic and development assistance could translate to taxpayer money eventually going to the Taliban at some point? I know that’s different from the humanitarian aid we’ve been talking about — the World Food Programme and things like that — but these specific references that Sullivan made this morning.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would — I would just go back to kind of the earlier question on this. There’s an enormous amount of money they have at the federal — in the Federal Reserve — I shouldn’t say “they” — the government of Afghanistan has in the Federal Reserve, which they don’t have access to right now. That’s actually their money that’s being held there. So that’s one of the questions here.

There are also sanctions that are in place on a number of leaders. Obviously, that prevents them from doing business in various parts of the world. I think that’s really what Jake Sullivan was referring to.

That’s not what Sullivan was referring to since he mentioned “economic and development assistance”.

But few in the media bother calling out Psaki on her constant stream of lies.

Psaki calls the money in the Federal Reserve, “their money”. As I reported in, “Biden Tried to Send Pallets of Cash to the Taliban as Kabul Fell”, that’s not really accurate.

Ahmady estimates that $7 billion of DAB’s assets are being held by the Federal Reserve which includes the gold, the bills and bonds, $300 million in cash, and another $2.4 billion in World Bank funds for aiding developing countries.

A whole lot of money came from us in the first place.

The question is whether Biden is bargaining with the Taliban using the money we already had been giving to Afghanistan or whether he’s playing with new taxpayer monies.

As I wrote…

The Taliban were hoping to get their hands on Afghanistan’s money, but much of it is in the United States. The most tangible part of Afghanistan’s assets, $1.3 billion in gold, is sitting in downtown Manhattan, a little bit south of Ground Zero, in the vaults of the Federal Reserve. If there were any justice, that money would be used to compensate the police officers, firefighters, and workers who died on that day or later on from ailments related to 9/11.

COLUMN BY