Letter claimed to be from NSA advisor McMaster lets Susan Rice keep beyond-Top-Secret clearance

On February 20th of this year Trump appointed a 3-star Army general named H.R. McMaster to replace Mike Flynn as National Security Advisor.

McMaster is a West Point graduate who's had a stellar military career.  But now as National Security Advisor he's fired several people who were "Iran hawks"--people who believe the mullahs of Iran are thoroughly bad actors who are not to be trusted to honor the "great deal" negotiated by Team Obama.

Thus a reasonable person is moved to ask:  Is McMaster loyal to the president, and a sound thinker, or is he another in a long, long list of "deep-state" operatives determined to undermine Trump and thwart his agenda (whatever one believes that might be)?

This isn't a trivial question.  It's reasonable to assume that Trump didn't know the guy personally, but that one of Trump's advisors suggested McMaster for the post.  If McMaster is a bad guy, and if the person who nominated him is still in his position, that's a guarantee of future sabotage.

McMaster's service record is indeed stellar:  second member of his West Point class to make general, good combat record, has punched every ticket the Army has.  It's hard to imagine that an officer with such a record would deliberately sabotage the president who appointed him.  So some analysts are already making the case that McMaster is still a good guy; that the actions he's taken are actually positive; and that the campaign against him is actually the Deep State trying to sabotage an effective supporter of the president.

How can we decide?  I don't know the people he's fired, so can't comment on that, but just 22 hours ago a website called "Circa" released what they claim is a letter from McMaster that if genuine, would make that determination a lot easier.  It's undated, purporting to be from McMaster to "Susan"--purportedly former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice--declaring that she can keep her beyond-Top-Secret security clearance even though she is no longer in the government.

Here's the alleged letter:

There are LOTS of red flags here:  First is the lack of a date, which is not how the military does things.  Second is that the addressee is simply "Susan" instead of using full name and formal title.  But IF the letter is genuine, two items ring alarms:  Both are in the following statement:

I hereby waive the requirement that you must have a ‘need-to-know’ to access any classified information contained in items you 'originated, reviewed, signed or received while serving,' as National Security Advisor.

If you only get your "news" from mainstream outlets you may have missed that Rice has been accused of violating national security regulations, specifically by demanding that wiretapping agencies "unmask" the names of Americans whose conversations with foreigners were intercepted.  It's unthinkable that any responsible person would continue to allow Rice to continue to have access to information beyond Top-Secret regardless of her prior position.

The second is the writer's waiving the "need-to-know" principle.

So...is the undated letter to "Susan" genuine?  I have no idea, but Circa reports what seems to be a revealing hint:  That the White House has refused to comment.
 
So let's look a little deeper at McMaster's background:  Wikipedia--a totally left-wing outfit that always slants summaries of history and sociology to the Left--says this about him:

In 2004 he was assigned to command the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.  Shortly after McMaster took command the regiment...was assigned [to secure] the city of Tal Afar. That mission [was successful].  President Bush praised this success, and the PBS show Frontline broadcast a documentary in February 2006 featuring interviews with McMaster. CBS' 60 Minutes produced a similar segment in July,^[7] and the operation was the subject of an article in the April 10, 2006, issue of The New Yorker.

If you're former military your alarm bells should be going off like mad:  How often do Frontline or 60 Minutes or The New Yorker praise a military operation or a military officer?  Virtually never.  For all three of these leftist organs to do pieces praising this guy is as unlikely as drawing 3 consecutive straight-flushes in Vegas.

Certainly this might just be such a hugely improbable string of events.  I'm hugely skeptical.  On the other hand it seems to me extremely unlikely that an officer with such a sterling record would seek to block the agenda of the president who appointed him.

Of course far stranger things have happened.

But if this letter is a fake, why did the White House not simply say so, instead of refusing to comment?