Thats easy actually. Along with the job title/position will come the description of required clearance. Whatever job clearance is required in THEIR position to do THEIR job should be provided.

It should have been revoked the moment that Trump said " so help me God" and the Chief justice said "thank you Mister President"

Except that they no longer have those jobs.

then I don't personally see why they need the clearance or ANY other person not in a clearance job needs clearance.

Same here. When the job is gone, the security clearance should be gone, too, regardless of who the person is.

It should have been revoked the moment that Trump said " so help me God" and the Chief justice said "thank you Mister President"

then I dont personally see why they need the clearance or ANY other person not in a clearance job needs clearance.

But then again, I dont know completely the precedent or the reasons people may retain those clearances and Im wondering why it would not just be a standard rule for ANYONE not in a clearance position, as opposed to just isolated or singled out individuals.

I wonder if its just another juicy tidbit our POTUS likes to dabble in to keep the masses rooting for him, because it makes sense that if this is the precedent, that clearances be revoked when someone leaves, it would already have happened and would be a non issue. I always have to wonder until I research because the POTUS has been known to throw things out as fact or issue even though he doesnt really know if they are.

the reason I heard they still keep their clearance is to help in transition of officials or to provide past details on matters concerning individuals or events.

Thats easy actually. Along with the job title/position will come the description of required clearance. Whatever job clearance is required in THEIR position to do THEIR job should be provided.

then I dont personally see why they need the clearance or ANY other person not in a clearance job needs clearance.

But then again, I dont know completely the precedent or the reasons people may retain those clearances and Im wondering why it would not just be a standard rule for ANYONE not in a clearance position, as opposed to just isolated or singled out individuals.

I wonder if its just another juicy tidbit our POTUS likes to dabble in to keep the masses rooting for him, because it makes sense that if this is the precedent, that clearances be revoked when someone leaves, it would already have happened and would be a non issue. I always have to wonder until I research because the POTUS has been known to throw things out as fact or issue even though he doesnt really know if they are.