3 comments
How are you going to fire someone for supposedly egregious performance and behavior and not revoke clearances knowing that their jobs were the only reason for those clearances in the first place?
How are you going to fire someone for supposedly egregious performance and behavior and not revoke clearances knowing that their jobs were the only reason for those clearances in the first place?
What you said is logical, completely reasoanble, and would be a sensible way to operate. But keep in mind this is a government job, so that question is meaningless.
What you said is logical, completely reasoanble, and would be a sensible way to operate. But keep in mind this is a government job, so that question is meaningless.
Good, every other 'normal' person loses their security clearance when they are no longer in the job. Why should these folks be any different? If you go onto another government job that requires it, it can be transferred. But if you're out of the position, giving speeches for cash, writing books, or commentating on CNN or Fox, what justification is there for you to maintain access to national security information?