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.
Really nice to get replies on FR from those with direct experience. That is always what makes this place so informative. And I would normally agree with your position. I appreciate it would be a major inconvenience for those with clearance and between positions to have clearance revoked and then have to reapply again. But conditions have so changed now. I favor a clean break. When someone leave the government, any clearance they had is terminated at the same time. The downside outweighs the inconvenience.
These people like Brennan are working for other companies/think tanks - if their current work environment has TS, S and UNCLAS terminals, they would be able to log into their computer accounts on the respective networks. Pertinent question is “have their accounts been disabled/archived/deleted”
You still have a clearance, but you no longer have a “need to know.”
Someone like Brennan would still have his access to classified material at any level, don’t you think? This was/is a crime scene with Comer, Clapper, Lynch, Clinton, Podesta brothers...etc. I believe the corruption is so deep it may never be cleaned up. I image in your day, the FBI was as it should have been.
Revoking those clearances is part of draining the swamp.
No more revolving door from govt to govt contractor.