Frankly, once someone leaves office, their security clearance should be removed. Seriously, if an successor of an agency wants their predecessors’ viewpoint, it’s not like they can’t be summoned and read into it for their examination.
I’ve thought about highlighting some of the articles surrounding Brennans’ security clearance, but I honestly find that a pointless endeavor given the debate right now isn’t about; whether, others and Brennan should have security clearance after leaving appointed office/agency but instead of sought to redirect what amounts to access to serve as an “consultant”.
Lets keep in mind that politicians aren’t just limited to elected positions; they include agencies up to and including the military aka military politicians. The easiest way to spot them is that their consultation or otherwise conduct in appointed office/agency centers on ‘fighting the last war’.
Now riddle me this. Why would a successor need the consultation of their predecessor if they are changing course or conducting a course correction?
Now riddle me this. If the politician’s entire career is based on information that is either outdated, miscalculation, or rendered invalid as a course correction would result, would any politician serving an agency, office, or otherwise institution/organization admit that they were either wrong or provide legitimate consultation to more successfully course correct?
Take a look at Brennan’s statements, I just might do another article using articles on this particularly topic and issue. I can only conclude that Brennan is attempting to protect his career and consultation given security clearance should be removed once the individual no longer serves that agency or appointed office.