And what about the entire time that she was involved with her businesses?  How about that dolt of a husband - Jared - how does he rate having security clearance?  He hasn't divested himself of his businesses either.

A person is not required to divest themselves in order to receive a security clearance. 
But once they are no longer employed by the government, they should also no longer have a clearance. 

To my knowledge there are no examples of her using their clearance to make money. Because someone buys something because it has the Trump name is not their fault, anymore than it was Obama's fault people were buying things with his image on it. It comes with the territory.  
The ones losing their clearances used them to get jobs on NEWS networks...a bit different. 

Because of the Emoluments Clause, a person in the administration is not permitted to earn income based on the fact they are in the government.  This was why Cheney was required to sell his stock or put it in a blind trust.  None of the Trumps/Kushners have done that.  Trump is profiting from having his security detail stay at his golf course premises as well as visiting dignitaries.  He doesn't do this for free - the taxpayers are paying for them to stay there and, considering he spends weekends at one or another of his golf courses, he is profiting.  As for Obama buying items with his image on it, he didn't manufacture it and was not directly profiting from those sales.  

The ones losing their clearances are losing them because they are very vocal about their mistrust and dislike of Donald Trump and the way he is conducting himself and the business of the country.  He made a big deal about adding McCabe and Comey to his list, but neither of them had clearances after they were dismissed.  It was grandstanding.  

As for those who made money from appearing on news programs, none of them are permanent employees of any news station - they are consultants or appear periodically.  There is nothing that says someone can't be employed by a news outlet once they are out of government.  To my knowledge, none of them have given away any state secrets to any news media.  

This might give you a better picture of why it's important for certain people to retain their clearances:

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/24/631760720/trump-aims-to-pull-clearances-of-ex-officials-critical-of-him

No it does not say cannot earn income. What it says is: This post was edited by my2cents at July 26, 2018 6:50 AM MDT

I just came across this ruling regarding emoluments which was reported on PBS News Hour:

"What the judge said

Messitte ruled that the definition of emoluments is broad and should include any profits, including those gained from private transactions. The opinion did not rule on the merits of the case, but did allow the lawsuit to move forward.

“In the Court’s view, the decisive weight of historical evidence supports the conclusion that the common understanding of the term “emolument” during the founding era was that it covered any profit, gain, or advantage, including profits from private transactions,” Messitte wrote in his opinion.

Lawyers for Maryland and D.C. argued the court should use definitions common at the time the Constitution was drafted, which define “emolument” as any “profit,” “gain” or “advantage.”

You can find the full article (not long) at 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a-judges-broad-definition-of-emoluments-strengthens-lawsuit-over-trumps-d-c-hotel

Thank you. I would have to look into the history of our Presidents and their incomes to see if I agreed with this judge. 

I did notice this quote from your link which I was not aware and to me could in fact void the whole issue. 

 "Trump handed control of the company over to his two adult sons and placed his assets into a blind trust."

Without being able to see Trump's tax returns, there doesn't seem to be any way to prove that, but he may have to do that in furtherance of Maryland and Delaware's lawsuit, so we shall see.

EDIT:  "But ethics experts and watchdog groups have criticized the arrangement, arguing that Trump has continued profiting from his business empire while in office, presenting numerous conflicts of interest." 

XX This post was edited by SpunkySenior at July 26, 2018 10:52 AM MDT

:):):)

:):):)

So you don't want previous high quality individuals available to mentor or "fill in the blanks" for their replacements if so asked---which of course would be difficult without them maintaining their security clearance.

You say "When I leave a job....I have to turn in my keys and they take me out of the security system, remove my computer logins etc"

That just tells me your job has value but anyone holding it is easily replaced.

Not the same for people in national security positions.

Everyone is replaceable. If someone needs to be used to mentor etc.  then they can be apply again for the clearance.

You are treating such complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are.

Only you can fix that.

No, it is that simple. They do not work for the government anymore. Make thr clearance inactive....revoke it....whatever. If they are needed make reversible if needed. 
It is that simple.....making it more complicated just allows for games that they play now.
Trump has the right and authority to remove them and he should have the day they left or his day one whichever was first.

How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?

Calling something simple doesn't make it so.

:):):)

Are they working for the government? No, they are working for CNN....they should not have a gov clearance.

 :):):)

I just looked up "afflatus" Sharon. Never heard of or saw the word before. Very fitting. Thanks for the new word, for your reply as well as the graphic. Yikes. Geez. Sheesh. OMG. Pick one or a couple or all of 'em! Happy Wednesday. SIGH. Wonder what lies ahead this day? :(.