۞ No, Connies - Hillary is not going to have her security clearance revoked ۞

[Markle]

She won't need any security clearance.

 

[paperview]

No.
The president gets an automatic security clearance.

Bone up.

"So her getting her clearance revoked would not disqualify her from being President but the fact she had a Top Secret clearance revoked creates a trust issue with briefing her on classified subjects."

She won't get her clearance revoked.

You need to bone up, if it gets revoked BEFORE she holds that office it DQ's her from running for that office.

It won't be revoked.

You can take that to the bank.

At this point in life she is only a civilian. Its REAL easy, REAL easy.

OK.

Give it your best shot at how this would be accomplished.

This should be good.

"
"The basis for revocation or denial is laid out in Executive Order 12968 which, ironically, was signed by President Bill Clinton. It states:

"Access to classified information shall be granted only to employees whose personal and professional history affirmatively indicates…strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment…and willingness to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information.”
Gregg Jarrett: Could Hillary serve as president if her security clearance is revoked? | Fox News

Sorry.

You blew it.

Quoting a stupid Fox article just shows you as an idiotic CEC consumer.

I guarantee you I am right.

And you are wrong.

I'll place month long sig bet on it.

You game?

 

[paperview]

"
Effect of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearances
Although, Criminal Conduct is always a security concern; it becomes a potentially disqualifying condition under the Adjudicative Guidelines when it involves: A single serious crime (felony) or multiple lesser offenses (infractions or misdemeanors); Discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; Allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted; Individual is currently on parole or probation…
Effect of Criminal Conduct on Security Clearances - ClearanceJobs

"Did Hillary Clinton break the law?" Chaffetz asked.

Comey: In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not, "

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is really bizarre because the President actually DOES NOT hold a clearance BUT is privy to any and all classified information based on a "Need to Know". I only recently became aware of this nuance.

So her getting her clearance revoked would not disqualify her from being President but the fact she had a Top Secret clearance revoked creates a trust issue with briefing her on classified subjects.

No.
The president gets an automatic security clearance.

Bone up.

"So her getting her clearance revoked would not disqualify her from being President but the fact she had a Top Secret clearance revoked creates a trust issue with briefing her on classified subjects."

She won't get her clearance revoked.

I suggest you "bone up". You are incorrect, the President holds no clearance.

You are severely misinformed.

Actually, I believe that you are both correct (and basically agreeing with each other).

In the sense that "clearance" is permission to access specific secure information, the President does not have or need one - he does not need permission because he is the source of that permission.

Security "clearance", and its various levels are the results of Executive Orders.

 

[MarcATL]

Why don't the Republicans all just go on bended knees and beg the American people "pleas, please, please, pleeeeeez!!! Don't vote for Hillary." Because that's essentially what they've been doing with these desperate and pathetic stunts these last couple of years.

ROTFLMBAO!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[paperview]

This is really bizarre because the President actually DOES NOT hold a clearance BUT is privy to any and all classified information based on a "Need to Know". I only recently became aware of this nuance.

So her getting her clearance revoked would not disqualify her from being President but the fact she had a Top Secret clearance revoked creates a trust issue with briefing her on classified subjects.

No.
The president gets an automatic security clearance.

Bone up.

"So her getting her clearance revoked would not disqualify her from being President but the fact she had a Top Secret clearance revoked creates a trust issue with briefing her on classified subjects."

She won't get her clearance revoked.

I suggest you "bone up". You are incorrect, the President holds no clearance.

You are severely misinformed.

Actually, I believe that you are both correct (and basically agreeing with each other).

In the sense that "clearance" is permission to access specific secure information, the President does not have or need one - he does not need permission because he is the source of that permission.

Security "clearance", and its various levels are the results of Executive Orders.

Thanks.

 

[SwimExpert]

But the ever over-reaching GOPpers are going to try.

They introduced a bill, called the TRUST Act:

"Today U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) joined Senator Core Gardner (R-CO) and Senator Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) to introduce legislation aimed at revoking the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security clearance."
Sen. Tim Scott joins group aimed at revoking Clinton's security clearance | WCIV

A bill to prohibit any officer or employee of the Federal Government who has exercised extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information from being granted or retaining a security clearance.

“If the FBI won’t recommend action based on its findings, Congress will. At the very least, Secretary Clinton should not have access to classified information and our bill makes sure of it,” Gardner said in a statement.

Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance | TheHill'

Now, five points to the first person who can tell us why this bill

1) will never pass
2) wouldn't affect Hillary
3) is unconstitutional

Even if it did happen, it would be irrelevant to her ability to perform if elected in November. Contrary to rube wet dream, the President has inherent clearance.

 

[paperview]

But the ever over-reaching GOPpers are going to try.

They introduced a bill, called the TRUST Act:

"Today U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) joined Senator Core Gardner (R-CO) and Senator Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) to introduce legislation aimed at revoking the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security clearance."
Sen. Tim Scott joins group aimed at revoking Clinton's security clearance | WCIV

A bill to prohibit any officer or employee of the Federal Government who has exercised extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information from being granted or retaining a security clearance.

“If the FBI won’t recommend action based on its findings, Congress will. At the very least, Secretary Clinton should not have access to classified information and our bill makes sure of it,” Gardner said in a statement.

Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance | TheHill'

Now, five points to the first person who can tell us why this bill

1) will never pass
2) wouldn't affect Hillary
3) is unconstitutional

Even if it did happen, it would be irrelevant to her ability to perform if elected in November. Contrary to rube wet dream, the President has inherent clearance.

The rubes also think they have the ability to revoke her security clearance during the election.

They don't.

Idiots.

 

[paperview]

Have a closer look at this bill:

Text - S.3135 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): A bill to prohibit any officer or employee of the Federal Government who has exercised extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information from being granted or retaining a security clearance.

114th CONGRESS 2d Session​

S. 3135
​

To prohibit any officer or employee of the Federal Government who has exercised extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information from being granted or retaining a security clearance.​

---

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES​

July 6, 2016​

Mr. Gardner (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Scott, Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Heller, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Perdue, and Mr. Isakson) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs​

---

A BILL​

To prohibit any officer or employee of the Federal Government who has exercised extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information from being granted or retaining a security clearance.​

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.​

This Act may be cited as the “Taking Responsibility Using Secured Technologies Act of 2016”.​

SEC. 2. Findings; sense of Congress.​

(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following: (1) On July 5, 2016, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (in this section referred to as the “FBI”), James B. Comey, made a statement relating to the investigation into the use of a personal e-mail system by Hillary Clinton during the period that she was Secretary of State.
​

(2) The FBI found evidence that Secretary Clinton and her colleagues were extremely careless in handling very sensitive, highly classified information.
​

(3) The FBI also found that any reasonable individual in the position of Secretary Clinton, or in the position of the Federal employees with whom Secretary Clinton was corresponding about these matters, should have known that using an unclassified system was inappropriate when conducting classified conversations.
​

(4) Because of the conduct of Secretary Clinton and her colleagues, the FBI concluded that it is possible that hostile actors gained access to the e-mail account of Secretary Clinton.
​

(5) In similar circumstances, other individuals who engaged in this kind of activity would often face adverse consequences, including security or administrative sanctions.
​

(6) Presidential candidates typically receive classified briefings even if the candidates lack the requisite security clearance.
​

(b) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) Secretary Clinton should—
​

(A) have any security clearance that she holds revoked; and

(B) be denied access to classified information unless and until she earns the legal right to such access; and

(2) colleagues of Secretary Clinton who demonstrated extreme carelessness in their handling of classified information should no longer have access to that information.

What's that called when you single out any one person in legislation to punish them?

 

[SwimExpert]

What's that called when you single out any one person in legislation to punish them?

Will of Retainers....Dill of attainbers.....Oh, I got it! Bill of Attainder! It also has a somewhat ex post facto feel to it.

 

[paperview]

What's that called when you single out any one person in legislation to punish them?

Will of Retainers....Dill of attainbers.....Oh, I got it! Bill of Attainder! It also has a somewhat ex post facto feel to it.

Attainder? I hardly even knew her!

 

[SwimExpert]

What's that called when you single out any one person in legislation to punish them?

Will of Retainers....Dill of attainbers.....Oh, I got it! Bill of Attainder! It also has a somewhat ex post facto feel to it.

Attainder? I hardly even knew her!

In some cases it's not necessary to know her before you attainder.

 

[mikegriffith1]

How is a law unconstitutional if it stipulates that people cannot hold a security clearance if they house Top Secret SCI/Special Access information on a private unsecured server? How?

Do liberals even care about the fact that Hillary put many of our secret agents in danger by exposing Special Access information to being easily hacked?

If Hillary had rolled a baby in a baby carriage down a steep hill but the baby survived with no apparent harm, I guess liberals would be screaming that it would be "a witch hunt" to try to prosecute her for endangering the baby. The difference here is that we don't yet know if bad guys obtained information on our secret agents and other things.

 

[SwimExpert]

How is a law unconstitutional if it stipulates that people cannot hold a security clearance if they house Top Secret SCI/Special Access information on a private unsecured server? How?

Pay attention and you won't have to ask stupid questions.

 

[buckeye45_73]

But the ever over-reaching GOPpers are going to try.

They introduced a bill, called the TRUST Act:

"Today U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) joined Senator Core Gardner (R-CO) and Senator Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) to introduce legislation aimed at revoking the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security clearance."
Sen. Tim Scott joins group aimed at revoking Clinton's security clearance | WCIV

A bill to prohibit any officer or employee of the Federal Government who has exercised extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information from being granted or retaining a security clearance.

“If the FBI won’t recommend action based on its findings, Congress will. At the very least, Secretary Clinton should not have access to classified information and our bill makes sure of it,” Gardner said in a statement.

Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance | TheHill'

Now, five points to the first person who can tell us why this bill

1) will never pass
2) wouldn't affect Hillary
3) is unconstitutional

Anything for the cause.......eh comrade?

 

[paperview]

But the ever over-reaching GOPpers are going to try.

They introduced a bill, called the TRUST Act:

"Today U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) joined Senator Core Gardner (R-CO) and Senator Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) to introduce legislation aimed at revoking the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security clearance."
Sen. Tim Scott joins group aimed at revoking Clinton's security clearance | WCIV

A bill to prohibit any officer or employee of the Federal Government who has exercised extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information from being granted or retaining a security clearance.

“If the FBI won’t recommend action based on its findings, Congress will. At the very least, Secretary Clinton should not have access to classified information and our bill makes sure of it,” Gardner said in a statement.

Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance | TheHill'

Now, five points to the first person who can tell us why this bill

1) will never pass
2) wouldn't affect Hillary
3) is unconstitutional

Anything for the cause.......eh comrade?

Anything else to say about the idiots who wrote that bill?

 

[buckeye45_73]

But the ever over-reaching GOPpers are going to try.

They introduced a bill, called the TRUST Act:

"Today U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) joined Senator Core Gardner (R-CO) and Senator Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) to introduce legislation aimed at revoking the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security clearance."
Sen. Tim Scott joins group aimed at revoking Clinton's security clearance | WCIV

A bill to prohibit any officer or employee of the Federal Government who has exercised extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information from being granted or retaining a security clearance.

“If the FBI won’t recommend action based on its findings, Congress will. At the very least, Secretary Clinton should not have access to classified information and our bill makes sure of it,” Gardner said in a statement.

Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance | TheHill'

Now, five points to the first person who can tell us why this bill

1) will never pass
2) wouldn't affect Hillary
3) is unconstitutional

Anything for the cause.......eh comrade?

Anything else to say about the idiots who wrote that bill?

It's the right thing to do, and you support a traitor that does not care about the national security of the united states, but we knew that when she let an ambassador die, I guess he didn't contribute enough to the central committee.

 

[paperview]

But the ever over-reaching GOPpers are going to try.

They introduced a bill, called the TRUST Act:

"Today U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) joined Senator Core Gardner (R-CO) and Senator Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) to introduce legislation aimed at revoking the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security clearance."
Sen. Tim Scott joins group aimed at revoking Clinton's security clearance | WCIV

A bill to prohibit any officer or employee of the Federal Government who has exercised extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information from being granted or retaining a security clearance.

“If the FBI won’t recommend action based on its findings, Congress will. At the very least, Secretary Clinton should not have access to classified information and our bill makes sure of it,” Gardner said in a statement.

Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance | TheHill'

Now, five points to the first person who can tell us why this bill

1) will never pass
2) wouldn't affect Hillary
3) is unconstitutional

Anything for the cause.......eh comrade?

Anything else to say about the idiots who wrote that bill?

It's the right thing to do, and you support a traitor that does not care about the national security of the united states, but we knew that when she let an ambassador die, I guess he didn't contribute enough to the central committee.

And she murdered Vince Foster with her bare hands.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

BTW, revocation of her clearance does not actually require a law to be passed at all.

The power to grant security clearances resides with the Commander in Chief.

Acquaint yourself with this phrase: Separation of Powers.

I was in the military associated with a special ops group, none of my processing paperwork and background checks went through the commander-in-chief to determine whether or not I would be granted classified, secret, or top secret clearance. It helps to actually have prior military or government agency background in order to have a clear understanding of how security clearance is lost or obtained.

 

[paperview]

BTW, revocation of her clearance does not actually require a law to be passed at all.

The power to grant security clearances resides with the Commander in Chief.

Acquaint yourself with this phrase: Separation of Powers.

I was in the military associated with a special ops group, none of my processing paperwork and background checks went through the commander-in-chief to determine whether or not I would be granted classified, secret, or top secret clearance. It helps to actually have prior military or government agency background in order to have a clear understanding of how security clearance is lost or obtained.

The Commander in Chief is the ultimate authority.
You really should know that.

If some podunk tried to revoke Hillary's security clearance, the president could 'em to pound sand.