All this debate on President Trump pulling Security Clearances baffles me.

It makes no sense to me.

I've had multiple security clearances military, government contract, and restrict access areas.

With each one, two things held true.

1. Need to know.
You only had access to what was nessesary for your job.

2. The security clearance goes with your job.
You no longer work for the government/company which paid for the background check, you no longer have your security clearance.

Obtain a new job, the new employer has you submit forms and obtain clearance once again.
It's not something you maintain to be taken away.

Why would Comey, Brennan, Rice, Clapper even have a security clearance, and what could they access with it absent their government employment?

I’ve been wondering this too as I have one and know how it works.

The ONLY thing I can think of is people of this rank and position in Gov do get to keep them as some sort of courtesy?

I can’t wait to see this assclown Brennan get his yanked. Then he’ll REALLY start screaming!

The same puzzled me, you leave you lose it, next employer or entity must do the process over.

I don't get it either. Do you let an ex-employee still keep his or her door keys or alarm code, or do you change them? Maybe somebody who has or had a security clearance can explain.

quote:

Obtain a new job, the new employer has you submit forms and obtain clearance once again.
It's not something you maintain to be taken away.

Actually, you do retain your clearance, you just don't have any ability to use it - because you have no place to look at materials or talk about the stuff you know.

Different clearance levels last different lengths of time before you need another reinvestigation (5 / 10 years typically).

So you can get hired and in short order you are back in - if you truly don't have a clearance (been revoked or the time period lapsed), you need to do an entire investigation to obtain one (9-12 month process).

To add to what RhinoWSO said, if you have a clearance and are leaving a job, try to find a friend in the contracting world who will allow you to "park" your clearance with their firm. That way it stays semi-active, at least until you need it again or you bump up against a renewal.

Mind you, you have zero access to classified materials in this period, unless you have a need to know, are cleared at the correct level, and have a secure facility at which to handle the materials.

As for yanking thier clearances, its a slap in their face, nothing more, as POTUS would be basically saying the USG no longer trusts them in any way, shape, or form.

.

Yes I believe you are correct on time requirement for another full background investigation.

However, you still do not have a clearance outside of your employment.

New security clearances simply come back approved faster.

That still leaves me baffled with the current debate.

Are you saying the current debate is over ability to ever hold a job in the future which requires a security clearance?

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
As for yanking thier clearances, its a slap in their face, nothing more, as POTUS would be basically saying the USG no longer trusts them in any way, shape, or form.

And it would prevent them from working with some of those high fluting DC consulting firms / think tanks which could require a clearance, since they wouldn't have one.

They could still get paid by CNN to yap and bitch, but that's about it. It could also make it difficult to jump back in a future administration as a non-elected official since they would have to get a new clearance.

Is it a big deal? No but a nice little pimp slap that even Clapper admits is completely in the President's per-view to do.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
However, you still do not have a clearance outside of your employment.

Your clearance will be dormant but you are still eligible at the previous level, all it takes is a days work of paperwork to be back in again.

If you truly don't have a clearance, it will take 6+ months to get any sort of temp clearance.

The real problem isn’t their clearance level, it’s that the need to know requirement is being ignored. The requirements for proper clearance level and need to know are a simple yet effective two step approach to security. But they only work when each is considered as important as the other.

Pulling clearances won’t stop people who are already breaking rules from continuing to break them. Putting a couple of them in jail might though.

All the time I was in military I held clearances with Top Secret the last ten years. Holding the clearance only means you have been screened and are a reliable person. When you get to a job requiring access to material you are read into that systems/employer's program and given whatever access they want you to have. I have been limited to secret level because my job only required that access even though I had a TS clearance. I have also been granted levels way above TS. Yes there are levels above but they are usually designated as a TS with xyz access. When you leave a job you retain the clearance for as long as it is good for but you lose access to what ever you were cleared for in that organization. How it works, I was read into a program by my command that only a few select people had access too and worked in that program for over 6 months. I was sent for temporary duty to another command but was not allowed to see their work on the program for 6 weeks until I was granted access to their program. So access is unique to organization you are read into and not something you take with you. Anyway that's the way it used to be before politicians started using classified material as their own personal toys.

I'm all for revoking security clearances when you leave office - Rep or Dem.

This is kabuki theater. Whether these critters have retained their clearances or not, and whether or not these clearances are on a need-to-know basis is not the issue.

The issue is that in the public mind, where "top secret clearance" carries with it some cachet, it's the APPEARANCE of being in the know.

Claptrap and I-voted-for-a-commie Brennan are doing the talking head thing, going before the public as if they have special knowledge of the deep state because of their special privilege.

And the public buys it. That's the whole point.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:

2. The security clearance goes with your job.
You no longer work for the government/company which paid for the background check, you no longer have your security clearance.

Obtain a new job, the new employer has you submit forms and obtain clearance once again.
It's not something you maintain to be taken away.

Not so. The clearance goes with you. An applicant with a security clearance is much more desirable than one that needs a clearance; a TS clearance can run 80,000 to 100,000 dollars these days. It's not cheap.

I see a lot of employers that won't talk to an applicant unless he comes with a clearance. Even a clearance from another house (eg, DOS clearance applying for a DOD job); the clearance itself isn't transferrable, but it's a lot easier to clear someone who's already holding.

It may just be "We've always done it that way." On Fox yesterday Chris Stierwald said a former senior official might be asked for advice about an old issue that is again under review. By still holding a clearance, some info can be shared with the now retired guy. Uh...no, I don't see Trump asking for advice from Brennan and his cronies.

What if he's writing a book? By holding a clearance he can review all files - classified or not - at his old office (or NARA). He just can't use the classified in his book.

Sandy Berger from the Klinton regime kept - and misused - his clearance.

https://www.realclearpolitics....hat_did_he_take.html

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
It may just be "We've always done it that way." On Fox yesterday Chris Stierwald said a former senior official might be asked for advice about an old issue that is again under review. By still holding a clearance, some info can be shared with the now retired guy.

Someone brought this up in the other thread and at that senior level it does make some sense. You gotta figure cases and investigations can last decades and it might be nice to be able to call some of the senior investigators even after they have retired to ask about some new information.

I have no issue with guys keeping clearance after they leave certain jobs if there is a possible benefit to the government for that retention. But violations in the handling and distribution of classified material need to be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Regardless of if they were done by some stupid Sgt or by, I don't know, say the Secretary of State or something.

You guys are trying to apply logic.
That is just misguided. Most people in the USA don't know anything about Security Clearances, certainly not the average mainstream media consumer.

It is all just more hate-Trump blather forming parts of the Liberal Narrative.

In case they are called in to consult.
In normal cases. But they will never be asked chit by this admin.
Just something the anti's can bitch about.

Missing elements: access to information via secure terminal/network/room AND being read-on (SCI) to the subject. I would hope that they were all “Read-off” when they left the prior administration.

Just having a Clearance doesn’t mean that you know anything or that you have access.

All of that being said, many of them committed crimes when they perjured themselves in front of Congress. Jail sounds about right.