“Having a security clearance doesn’t mean you have access to anything.”
I had a SECRET CLEARANCE in the 1960’s to work on classified military weapons programs. The Clearance is issued so IF you have a “need to know” something, you can be told about it. You cannot see any classified material at your level unless you need to know about it to facilitate you work. So in Brennan’s case, since he’s out of government, he has absolutely no “need to know” anything. Furthermore, it would be a breach of security for anyone to allow him access to any classified material.
I think you’re confirming what I said. The clearance alone doesn’t get you any information or entry into classified areas. You also need access which is a permission all of its own right?
The explanation I read some time ago for why security clearances are revoked when the job requiring them ends is that it takes years and lots of money to get the clearance so it would be inefficient and expensive to repeat the process over and over for the same people who might move from one high clearance job to another. Revoking access takes care of security without revoking the clearance.
Anyway, I agree, Brennan had no ‘need to know’ anything once he left his job.
After Hillary's email server, do you still think ANYONE in the Deep State gives a rat's ass about security breaches?
You're so...trusting.
Actually the need-to-know is WAY more important than the official security clearance. In an emergency you can give anyone TS information if they have a need-to-know. They are granted a temporary TS clearance and given the information.
In the 60’s I was hired as an underground miner at the Mercury test site, north of Las Vegas.
I had to clear an FBI background check to be hired...what was funny, there were four of us hired and I was the only one who made it to the project. My pals had, ahem, several questionable brushes with the law and were sent packing. I was only about 20 at the time and had a squeaky clean record...and still do.