Mark Zaid stripped of security clearance

[Anonymous]

He is one of the country’s preeminent lawyers who represents whistleblowers and others who are in the crosshairs of the federal government. Without a security clearance, his ability to defend his clients is severely compromised because he cannot view national security evidence.

https://bsky.app/profile/markzaidesq.bsky.social/post/3lhpcmuuskk2g

[Anonymous]

That's the point. People have to find someone else.

[Anonymous]

No, the point is retaliation. Letitia James also had her security clear revoked - but she doesn't even have clearance.

This one is easily challengeable. And the more of these purely retaliatory and illegal decisions that Trump makes, the easier the argument that he is incompetent becomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, the point is retaliation. Letitia James also had her security clear revoked - but she doesn't even have clearance.

This one is easily challengeable. And the more of these purely retaliatory and illegal decisions that Trump makes, the easier the argument that he is incompetent becomes.

They can challenge, but it will be an uphill battle. They will have to justify why they need a clearance again. Zaid can ask a judge to order he be given it back, but he will have to prove his lack of a clearance will prejudice his clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the point is retaliation. Letitia James also had her security clear revoked - but she doesn't even have clearance.

This one is easily challengeable. And the more of these purely retaliatory and illegal decisions that Trump makes, the easier the argument that he is incompetent becomes.

They can challenge, but it will be an uphill battle. They will have to justify why they need a clearance again. Zaid can ask a judge to order he be given it back, but he will have to prove his lack of a clearance will prejudice his clients.

Yeah. That's going to be pretty easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, the point is retaliation. Letitia James also had her security clear revoked - but she doesn't even have clearance.

This one is easily challengeable. And the more of these purely retaliatory and illegal decisions that Trump makes, the easier the argument that he is incompetent becomes.

Is this true? What cases support the notion that anyone can challenge the revocation of their security clearances? Pretty sure extreme deference is given on this issue, and courts almost never get involved in security clearance decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the point is retaliation. Letitia James also had her security clear revoked - but she doesn't even have clearance.

This one is easily challengeable. And the more of these purely retaliatory and illegal decisions that Trump makes, the easier the argument that he is incompetent becomes.

Is this true? What cases support the notion that anyone can challenge the revocation of their security clearances? Pretty sure extreme deference is given on this issue, and courts almost never get involved in security clearance decisions.

Correct, and even if Zaid could prove he needs it, the clearance will be limited to just the case at issue. Once the case is over, the clearance goes away.

There are plenty of whistleblower lawyers who have clearances.

[Anonymous]

Where did he go to law school? I hear Starbucks will only be hiring from the Ivies but he might get a gig at Compass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the point is retaliation. Letitia James also had her security clear revoked - but she doesn't even have clearance.

This one is easily challengeable. And the more of these purely retaliatory and illegal decisions that Trump makes, the easier the argument that he is incompetent becomes.

They can challenge, but it will be an uphill battle. They will have to justify why they need a clearance again. Zaid can ask a judge to order he be given it back, but he will have to prove his lack of a clearance will prejudice his clients.

This is incorrect. There are procedures for revocation that Trump didn't follow, and Trump's reason for revocation is impermissible. He violated Zaid's due process rights.

Trump isn't a king. Or even rational anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the point is retaliation. Letitia James also had her security clear revoked - but she doesn't even have clearance.

This one is easily challengeable. And the more of these purely retaliatory and illegal decisions that Trump makes, the easier the argument that he is incompetent becomes.

They can challenge, but it will be an uphill battle. They will have to justify why they need a clearance again. Zaid can ask a judge to order he be given it back, but he will have to prove his lack of a clearance will prejudice his clients.

This is incorrect. There are procedures for revocation that Trump didn't follow, and Trump's reason for revocation is impermissible. He violated Zaid's due process rights.

Trump isn't a king. Or even rational anymore.

They would likely have to prove he revoked their clearances based solely on retaliation for exercising their constitutional rights. The President has broad authority, with very limited judicial review allowed. The fact that there is a procedure for removing a clearance is not dispositive, assuming it's not actually being followed.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile Trump signed an EO removing background checks from his new hires, including the international cyber criminal who calls himself "Big Balls" who was given read and write access to all the information the government has about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the point is retaliation. Letitia James also had her security clear revoked - but she doesn't even have clearance.

This one is easily challengeable. And the more of these purely retaliatory and illegal decisions that Trump makes, the easier the argument that he is incompetent becomes.

They can challenge, but it will be an uphill battle. They will have to justify why they need a clearance again. Zaid can ask a judge to order he be given it back, but he will have to prove his lack of a clearance will prejudice his clients.

This is incorrect. There are procedures for revocation that Trump didn't follow, and Trump's reason for revocation is impermissible. He violated Zaid's due process rights.

Trump isn't a king. Or even rational anymore.

They would likely have to prove he revoked their clearances based solely on retaliation for exercising their constitutional rights. The President has broad authority, with very limited judicial review allowed. The fact that there is a procedure for removing a clearance is not dispositive, assuming it's not actually being followed.

This is oldtalk. Judges are ruling against Trump's illegal actions left and right, and Trump already publicly declared that he will ignore any ruling that doesn't agree with him.
His entire Presidency is illegitimate.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, no, good move. Major natsec issues with this guy.

“I've gotten clearances for guys who had child porn issues”

[Anonymous]

https://x.com/markszaidesq/status/962537227757682688?mx=2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the point is retaliation. Letitia James also had her security clear revoked - but she doesn't even have clearance.

This one is easily challengeable. And the more of these purely retaliatory and illegal decisions that Trump makes, the easier the argument that he is incompetent becomes.

They can challenge, but it will be an uphill battle. They will have to justify why they need a clearance again. Zaid can ask a judge to order he be given it back, but he will have to prove his lack of a clearance will prejudice his clients.

Yeah. That's going to be pretty easy.

Yeah+ That's going to be super duper duper easy ...