Quickly, as I head off to work
@Skism
Essentially, security clearance is controlled by the Government - whether you're US, or any other nation. Private companies have zero control over security clearance, it is entirely the Government. The Government decides who has it based upon strict, stringent, incredibly invasive background checks and more. They decide whether to take it away, and as a rule of thumb, it lapses when you leave their employ. It is based around the presumption of "need"; if there is no need, you do not have it. It isn't a badge you're given, it'll be on a system somewhere. It will get regularly re-validated through interviews and checks again.
So the fact they "kept" (aka the Government didn't remove it from them) indicates that they're working for the Government in a role. Now that role
may be a service provided by an external company, or as a contractor. But it is still a role
for the Government.
Private companies/contractors
may offer jobs that require you to have (or recently held) security clearance. But again, this is because they're doing a job for the Government; they're contracted to do said job. Think the likes of companies building the F35, or military ships/equipment and so on.
Having a security clearance means that you're essentially "trustworthy" - and they'll allow you to work on sensitive things that otherwise you would never be granted access to. By and large, anything protectively marked will mean that disclosure of said material could cause material damage to the nation - financial, reputational, or other.
So what does having security clearance for this Ex-CIA or whatever role he was - mean? It means he works for the Government still. It may be as a contractor, but don't get mistaken, he's executing a job for the Government.
What it means he can't do - he can't (for example) walk up to the CIA and say "Let me in". He can't just start striking up conversations about sensitive stuff that he has no business knowing about either (need to know).
And finally, it absolutely means he cannot sell his knowledge of sensitive material to companies for personal gain. That is completely, wholly, and legally, against the secrets act of any nation. Doing so would mean jail time. His clearance would be revoked in minutes.
So no, while he may have a role as a private contractor to
consult on the Government given his experience and knowledge, he cannot work for external agencies that aren't providing services to the Government (or even if they are) and start leaking secrets to them for their, and his, financial gain.
Anyone (including those websites you link) insinuating, or accusing him, of doing so are smearing his reputation with lies. Do you think for
one second that the Government would neither be aware, or allow, that to happen? No.
So, those media sites you are reading are smearing this guy because they dislike what he is saying.
To recap - his security clearance is to enable him to provide the Government with services that require security clearance. He doesn't have access to everything, only limited information they deem necessary to reveal to him to execute the role they want him for. If he was selling his knowledge of state secrets then he'd have been jailed years ago.
Stop believing every word printed by the press for crying out loud; they're full of garbage and have an agenda - if you hadn't noticed. But isn't it amazing that as soon as 20 odd former heads of intelligence and other agencies criticise Trump, that all the insinuations and revelations about them having clearance being inappropriate, sold for financial gain etc, comes to light? Coincidence? A sudden revelation? No, it's called smears and spin.
Whether he has security clearance is up to the Government and what they wish to continue to use him for. It's not up for the media to decide - they literally know jack shizzle as to what he does.
)
