The threat to revoke the security clearance from several former government officials is yet another example of the Trump administration’s threats that are just smoke and mirrors.

There truly isn’t a better answer. As the Washington Post’s Shane Harris says, “how exactly the president could revoke or suspend a clearance isn’t well understood, because it hasn’t happened.”

On Lawfare, Bradley Moss argues:

“The president could claim the inherent constitutional authority to revoke the clearance eligibility of each of the individuals without any due process. There is no precedent for such an action, as no president (at least as far as I am aware) has ever personally intervened in the clearance revocation (or approval) of an individual. That has never happened before because past presidents—whatever their flaws or scandals—knew there were certain institutional norms and customs that a president simply should not disturb.”

Sarah Sanders said one reason they want to yank clearance from these particular individuals is that this group of people “monetized their public service.” Harris wonders “What does the WH mean that these former officials have “monetized” their clearance? Do they mean they have private sector jobs that require clearance? So do hundreds of thousands of people. Pull their clearances and the government would grind to a halt.”

It’s clear the real reason the White House is making this threat is to try to punish critics, but it’s not clear how this truly hurts them. Certainly, this won’t silence them. Free speech is still alive and well, you can’t revoke that.

ABC’s Dan Abrams says, “the idea that the president would be revoking security clearance not based on wrongdoing, just based on words, is shameful,”