Posted on 07/23/2018 12:07:54 PM PDT by seanmerc
President Trump is looking into revoking the security clearances of several top Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday.
During the daily press briefing, Sanders told reporters that the president was considering taking away clearances for former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former CIA Director John Brennan, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and former Director of National Security Michael Hayden (who worked under President George W. Bush).
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
My understanding was that your security clearance was put in a kind of "suspended animation" for one year after you retired so that it could be turned back on fairly easily if you got a job with a contractor that required a clearance.
If it doesn't get reactivated after that year, the clearance is zapped and you start at square one.
That being said, no way should Brennan working for NBC have a clearance or receive any classified anything.
“Because you still are in whatever shadow government there is?”
You have named the true reason for extended security clearance.
These folks are addicted to the info they get from their security clearances. Like any other addict, cut them off and they’ll find another way to get their fix. But it’s a great start.
LOL....Cnn is losing it. fainting couch, clutching pearls and they need some smelling salt.
These aren't usual times and these people aren't friends of America - REVOKE NOW.
After you leave the government, you might go to work for a company that does business with the government—business that requires cleared employees.
When you leave a position that requires a clearance and go to a position that doesn’t require a clearance, security officials make your clearance inactive. With an inactive clearance, you cannot log in to see secret info, nor do you receive classified updates, briefings or information of any kind.
Access to classified information doesn’t just require a clearance. You must also have a valid need to know. If you have a clearance but not a valid need to know, you will not be allowed to access the information in question (assuming those who control access to the info are doing their jobs correctly).
If your clearance goes inactive, it will expire at the end of the active period (usually 5 years).
Do you agree with this policy?
When I had clearance, access to classified info required both a clearance and a “need to know”. No one with a secret clearance could go thru any secret document just for sh-ts and giggles. In fact even the president does not see everything that is top secret. For instance a source’s name will not be revealed unless the president has a need to know. These clowns have no need to know, and should be denied access even if they retain clearance.
I doubt they get briefings, BUT they are leaked top secret info from their buds still in the deep state employ - and when revoked these leaker would be prosecutable for serious crimes if they shared top secret information.
The clearance does not matter, it is “access” that is important. I retired in 2009, I still retain a secret clearance which will,expire next year if not renewed. What I do not have is “access.” The level of clearance determines level of access. Just because I have a clearance does not automatically give me access to sensitive material. There is a process to obtain access. Since the individuals mentioned are no longer working at their respective agencies, they should not have access to classified material at any level, Revoking a clearance is a serious step as it prevents future employment unless a clearance is reinstated. I have seen revoking a clearance for cause used to terminate contractors and military personnel.
It doesn’t much matter whether I agree with the policy. It has been the policy for as long as I can remember. I’m certainly not the guy who makes the policy.
While it should be done, it won’t have much practical effect. The IAs are so larded with holdover Clinton and Obama moles that Brennan will be able to get whatever intel he wants.
It’s a start. While he is at it, how about running an initial security clearance on Hussien? That I would like to see.....
Your posts seem to be defending extended clearances for fired employees and retirees. Please tell me I’m wrong.
Better late than never. This should have already been done. Good grief.
Constitutional office-holders are exempt from security clearance.
Security clearances are the exclusive jurisdiction of the Executive Branch, and can be changed at will by the President with Executive Orders.
I can’t understand this.
Why wouldn’t their clearances be revoked when they are no longer serving in the government. It’s like turning in your company credit card, security pass, having your passwords changed when you leave a job.
Just unbelievable.
Excellent explanation thank you. Maybe in an alternate universe, journalists provide this sort of information inside the article, so people actually know what the article is talking about.
Sounds like a DEEP STATE PERK. Kill it already!
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.