Should Trump continue to receive intel briefings?

[BmorePat87]

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/536785-white-house-reviewing-whether-trump-should-continue-receiving-intel?fbclid=IwAR038qbLcXkkRAlQetwhC5h4StY1fctIAgf-5GXGZt3iMMmd8Qrx9Tyb9Ik

The immediate joke is "well he never read them anyways, they had to give him pretty pictures", but former presidents usually continue to be given access to security briefings.

The Biden admin is reviewing this decision while a former Trump deputy DNI warned in an oped that he cannot be allowed access as he is “unusually vulnerable to bad actors with ill intent.”


Should POTU in general be given access? If yes, should Trump?


I'd say that the tradition should not be a tradition, but rather a decision the next POTUS can make if they use the former POTUS as an unofficial advisor or confidante. In Trump's case, he has shown that he cannot be trusted to put this nation before personal gain and aims.

[Benton]

First question: at the discretion of the current potus. Second question: no one impeached should be a good subclause.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

None of them should receive them. Why would they? They have zero input on policy, have zero first hand power and are private citizens. Now, if a POTUS wants to bring a former POTUS into a meeting or briefing with them, that's fine. But to continue to receive briefings as a matter of policy is stupid. I see literally no reason for it.

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2021, 06:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: None of them should receive them. Why would they? They have zero input on policy, have zero first hand power and are private citizens. Now, if a POTUS wants to bring a former POTUS into a meeting or briefing with them, that's fine. But to continue to receive briefings as a matter of policy is stupid. I see literally no reason for it.

My thoughts as well. If a POTUS sees something that maybe a prior president would need to know (former presidents can be targets) or that they may be able to have input on in an advisory capacity, then read them in. Otherwise, what's the point?

[Dill]

(02-01-2021, 06:48 PM)Benton Wrote: First question: at the discretion of the current potus. Second question: no one impeached should be a good subclause.

This sounds reasonable.

I do see a great advantage in giving former presidents access, but not at their discretion.

I can imagine many scenarios in which it might be valuable to confer with previous presidents about past negotiations, off-record discussions, and the like, but in which they would have to be brought up to speed with current intel to help sort out what, from the past, is now relevant.

I can also imagine current events or conflicts regarding which a past president's take might be extremely valuable, but he'd be unable to deliver without current intel bringing him up to speed. Think of Obama and Bush on Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or Putin. 

The subclause sounds good because Trump comes to mind, but it would include Clinton if you mean impeached but not convicted in the Senate.

I don't rule out potential value in a Trump consultation (though I'm sure there is much less there to be gleaned than from any other president), but I don't think he would be temperamentally suited to sitting for other's questions. Clinton, as serious policy wonk, might have valuable counsel in some situations--e.g. NAFTA or Balkan problems.

Trump DEFINITELY should not be allowed access to intel at his discretion, given how careless he was of it during his presidency. Could he resist an impulse to monetize that intel, if possible?

[GMDino]

So basically we are all in agreement.  I see no need for an ex-president to continue to receive any kind of intel unless the current president wants their input based on their experience.

[NATI BENGALS]

Definitely. He will be reinstalled as prez any minute now right? So he needs to be prepared