Some can have their access revoked, while they still maintain their clearance on paper.
Formally revoking the clearance is kind of a disciplinary action - something that has to be done for cause, and can be appealed - like reducing someone’s rank.
Cutting off their access (especially to higher classification levels/compartments) is a much simpler administrative/operational procedure. Once they leave their position, they no longer have a need to know - read them out, cancel their account, take back the keys, change the combinations - just like they do to regular employees who leave. Allowing continued access to classified systems and information is a perk afforded to top people. The President can revoke that with a verbal command.
it’s an anonymous source at NYT, so who knows the truth as yet.
also, Examiner states:
A CIA spokesperson declined to comment, telling the Washington Examiner the agency does not discuss individual security clearances. The White House did not immediately return a request for comment...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-never-revoked-john-brennans-security-clearance
this needs to be cleared up fast and, if Brennan hasn’t lost his clearance, it should be taken away now.
Glad to see someone post this. I saw the same or similar explanation at the time this was news. Maybe you posted that too. Having a security clearance doesn’t mean you have access to anything.
Much obliged for the details.
No need to know, and regardless of how high your clearance was, you don’t get to know.
“Cutting off their access (especially to higher classification levels/compartments) is a much simpler administrative/operational procedure. Once they leave their position, they no longer have a need to know - read them out, cancel their account, take back the keys, change the combinations - just like they do to regular employees who leave. Allowing continued access to classified systems and information is a perk afforded to top people. The President can revoke that with a verbal command.”