Posted on 07/24/2018 5:00:44 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
Now Trump can revoke their clearances...meaning they will no longer be able to get access to classified intel in the future. That is a different matter. No one apparently knows enough to point this out!
Need to know and access are the limiting factors.
For those who may need a refresher:
Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to federal investigators. But for lying after stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives — in an apparent attempt to alter the historical record on terrorism, no less — former Clinton national security adviser and Kerry campaign adviser Sandy Berger will get a small fine and slap on the wrist. He will pay $10,000 and get no jail time. His security clearance will be suspended until around the end of the Bush administration — meaningless for a career Democrat like Mr. Berger. It makes us wonder who at the Department of Justice is responsible for letting such a serious offense go virtually unpunished.
There are plenty of defense contractors out there with security clearances. This is perfectly fine. A clearance is an administrative background check that permits a person to receive classified information up to that clearance level.
Just because you have a clearance however, doesn't mean you get access to any piece of classified information. You get access to information on a need to know basis, as in, you have a job related to the government, and you need the information in order to do your job.
There's no reason why Clapper and Comey should have access to classified information since leaving the government.
Yes, but that can't be adequately conveyed while everyone is hyperventilating. Most people seem to think these guys can officially just log on or make a phone call and see anything classified they want, which is certainly not true.
Actually, they can find out almost anything they want, just not legally. That's what comes from keeping Obama/Clintonoids in place.
Heard a couple of retired Army grunts bitching about “that major” that pulled all that crap during the Reagan Administration. I finally got it out of them that it was Ollie North, and told them he was a light colonel. Their attitude was “Even so, no light colonel has that kind of power. “ They couldn’t grasp that working st NSA was different than an infantry posting.
For a while I worked on the Tomahawk Cruise missile. I had a TS security clearance because I had to know things about how a nuclear warhead would fit in the missile.
I was not in the government.
Suggestions on how I could do my job without the clearance?
HOWEVER, what rationale can be advanced for allowing these privileges to those who were FIRED from their positions for violating various agency policies, insubordination or 'lack of candor'?
Mr. Berger smiles.
My recollection is that security clearances, at least the TS/SCI versions, require a periodic RENEWAL.
An important element of that RENEWAL is a POLYGRAPH. I think Trump should order this up for the full list, Brennan et al, and see what they say. Refusal automically terminates their clearances.
“Revocation of a clearance, to my understanding, is a more serious matter than inactivation”
After reading your explanation, I think I understand now why Rand Paul and the White House are objecting on the basis that these ex officials are “monetizing their security clearances”.
In other words, they are profiting by the fact of having a security clearance, which, even though inactive, can be used to suggest that their opinions as pundits may be based on classified Intel (even though they are not).
Notice that by using the word “monetizing” RP and the WH are avoiding any accusation that they are actually trading classified information.
Thanks for the clarification.
Question:
How many persons from the Reagan administration still have security clearances?
From the Nixon administration?
From the JFK administration?
From the Ford administration?
From the George Bush 41 administration?
From the Jimmah Carter Administration?
From the Bill Clinton administration?
From the George Bush 43 administration?
I see absolutely NO reason for anyone who no longer has the job to have such ‘clearances’.
If they are being handed out like business cards at a convention, then what value are they?
What kind of vetting does a person get before they are granted a security clearance?
NONE of this behavior is one bit funny.
That’s totally different.....geesh I meant if you weren’t WORKING for the Govt!!! Do you still have it?
Excellent idea!
Polygraph, and make sure access is restricted to need to know. It sounds better than revoked, and if they dont take the poly...it can be revoked, anyway...for cause.
I’m surprised Freepers could come up with some juicy questions for the poly exam.
DJT/staff/Q — are ya listening?
DJT/
In above post, I meant to type sure, rather than surprised.
Still wondering why it’s necessary to have or maintain a security clearance in order to guarantee an agency’s “continuity” or to provide background on PAST operations. And in the rare cases where new secrets must be revealed in order to tap old heads, couldn’t temporary clearances be granted?
What it’s really all about is ACCESS, need-to-know or not; and the degree of authority a valid clearance lends (viz. to a pundit, a rival, etc.). Both of these serve the individual far more often than they aid the current government.
Clearances, all of them, should be revoked with the end of a term of service.
No, I no longer have it and that is appropriate. BUT, I do still have a copy of my PSQ from 1978. If I needed a clearance again there had better not be a difference between what I said the first time and a new one. ;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.