“”She used to sound sensible from time to time when she was on FOX.””
Occasionally she did - you’re right. I can’t stand listening to any of these people but I would like to hear from one - JUST ONE - a reason why any former administration employees should retain a security clearance. Only FOX has commentators that are saying it’s hogwash.. Is every other outlet so twisted that they don’t think people are asking themselves the same question? Do they just accept the fact that their listeners are braindead?
Shifting the original topic slightly, so would I.
FURTHER, I want to know whether these high level perpetual clearances include access, or are effectively suspended unless there's a need to know. Could Brennan (until last week) or Hillary call up people in the government or CIA and ask for info on current topics now that they are not employed by the government?
For a normal security-cleared person, access depends both on clearance and need to know. But remember, Sandy Burglar (sp) was able to get into the National Archives after he was no longer in a government position, where he attempted to smuggle out some original documents that were embarrassing to the Clintons. Why was he admitted?
This question of continued access is what bothers me. Otherwise, the current noise over whether the clearance is actually revoked, or merely in effect suspended is all hot air.
I don’t understand why they would need security clearance once they’ve left their jobs willingly or unwillingly. If I resign from my job to take another one I don’t get to keep access to my former employer’s files or email service. The day I leave all access is eliminated.
This state of affairs makes me wonder if Hillary kept her security clearance or Holder or Lynch or Jarrett. When is access denied in DC?
“...a reason why any former administration employees should retain a security clearance. “
Because they go to work for private contractors that do business with the intelligence agencies.
And they write books, with permission.