What do you guys think about the term "erratic" being used as a primary reason for revoking a security clearance?  This particular case is unprecedented as the individual in question has been charged with nothing, and other than exclusively using the term "erratic" and "increasingly frenzied commentary,” there has been no indication of any violation in the terms of holding such a clearance.

 I find it interesting as I hold security clearance and have had it during periods of time between jobs, I am very aware of what's involved.

 I can't find anything that points to this decision being anything more than a warning to others to not speak negatively.  Has anyone else?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/us/politics/john-brennan-security-clearanc...

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

— Theodore Roosevelt

2 things.

If,  indeed it is, ’silencing/punishing’, for speaking out against him.
It is a bad thing.
Just as bad, as when Obama, sent the IRS, on people who did not believe in him.
(Yet not nearly as public, and very, hushed up)

If it it not a violation of the 1st,
than a, ‘Clue’, is the accusers, using the word, ‘Clue’,
in talking about possibilities of why it was done.

Which is it, to early to tell.
We know 80+% of the media will blow this up.
I believe it is better to find out the truth.
And, nytimes.com, is NOT well known for telling the  Truth !

Serowbot wrote on 08/16/18 at 16:19:04:

He's already put out an "enemies list" of people he's threatening to revoke security clearances from.
You need more?....

(T&T will be proud I used the word, “…Proof…” !)

Where is your, “Proof’, that Trump has called a list,
a,  “enemies list”  ?

And, if it is, targeting, exactly HOW, is that worse,
than Obama doing the Same Thing, when he used the IRS ?

I’ll wait until the spinning media gets tired of this story,
or until another one comes along.
(Maybe a he/she called TT will publish a Manifesto on how to reduce 70% of elect production in the US)
Then I will see what falls out.

Why does America need people who are no longer part of the government to continue to have such clearances?

"Why does America need people who are no longer part of the government to continue to have such clearances?"

 Depends on the clearance.  A lot of people will be called back in over the years for deposition, consult and similar.  Many will do this voluntarily.  To pull a clearance immediately upon retirement means a full re-issue must commence if they are ever asked to testify, look at, or in any way use any of the information they had access to over their career.  I have been called in to consult on activities that took place as far back as 2002.  The time and cost of re-issue is not worth it as there are already legal ramifications for abuse.

 The issue here is that there is no abuse claimed by anyone, even the White House indicates that it has to do with personal statements and not crime.  The President just doesn't like the guy's personal opinions and is using it as leverage from what I can tell from his personal statements on the issue.

If you have high level security, you get to keep it for a while in case the new administration needs information from you to continue a course of action.

However, when an ex CIA chief goes on talk shows sounding like Rachael Maddow, you clearly can’t be trusted to give sound council so you lose clearance. Pretty simple.

 What part of acting like Rachel Maddow reduces ones ability to testify of the job they did when they were employed as CIA director?

 What advantage does threatening other staff have from a national security level?  Not supporting the President is not a national security issue.

 I agree but the WH will not use those terms, I imagine because in order to do so they must define how.  Undermine is not what they are saying, they are saying erratic.

 What is he doing that is illegal, or a security risk?