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

[paperview]

"Investigations can be ongoing, a criminal indictment made"

There will be no criminal indictment. Deal with it.

"and she CAN be made to step down from her position."

What position? Presidential candidate?

:

The problem is she is guilty, we know she's guilty and so do the American People.

Majority Disapprove of Not Charging Clinton

Just because her friends in High Places didn't charge her, doesn't mean she is worth a fuck.

The poll was done July 6 -7th.

"This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cell phone from July 6-7, 2016, among a random national sample of 519 adults."

Comey's testimony was on July 7th.

We learned much more information then. So, for people following it, his testimony might have changed their mind, but it was still fresh, ongoing and not that many people could have had a chance to hear the full testimony live

For those not following it closely - all they got was a snip here and there, if at all.

A full year of negative drumbeats still echo.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

As those who are actually served in the military and are familiar with the process and seriousness surrounding classified information can testify, you are not made to sit and wait for the Commander-in-Chief to get his approval and make the determination if you are really indeed fit to receive classified information. As SwimExoert was able to figure out, there are individuals who are given that authority ... who are fully capable of handling that duty over the need to get the president involved. In short they are fully competent to handle that determination and governing responsibility.

Now enter the FBI, who we are told are fully capable to handle an independent investigation, that would mean without the interference from the president or influence from his administration so as to remain unbiased.

As Paperview points out the Commander-in-Chief can grant someone the ability to obtain security clearance WHEN that individual has been deemed trustworthy under that position to be given the responsibility to handle government sensitive information [there lies the determining factor, the ability to maintain that trustworthiness]. Now that trustworthiness, as well as their responsibility to handle sensitive government information, would include that individual's ability of using "good judgement". Now with the findings of IG stating she deliberately violated federal procedure, that would place the trustworthiness or good judgment into question. So when the FBI conducts their own investigation, meant to be independent of political influence and with their own likewise delegated authority, for the president to make his own determination (as paperview believes he can do) would undermine the delegated authority given to the FBI investigation. Likewise you could never say any executive final determination would NOT be biased or politically motivated, when you so adamantly believe the Commander-in-Chief holds the ultimate authority. There most certainly would be political bias based on that belief.


Yet it's interesting to note how liberals in the past have come to the criticism of President George W Bush, to include then senator Obama, in saying Bush had overreached or even abused his executive authority. Yet now we are seeing liberals making every little excuse they can to try and justify the right of Obama's use of his executive influence. Only to find Obama has used more executive power to influence political decisions than was initially criticized of President Bush. Can there be any more hypocrisy for the use and excuse of executive power, than we have found during these nearly 8 years of Obama?

Whole lot of words there not amounting to diddlysquat or refute what I said.

Why is it, Shak, after me placing this information for you here at least five times, you completely ignore it? Can you explain yourself?


The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position <snip>"

I already explained the president's authority that's given is based on that individual's trustworthines, which includes their ability to handle classified information (as the IG report states she violated federal policy, and the FBI investigation hasn't released a report that completely exonerates the IG report of handling government information).

If you want to state the president can override any such decision, then

1) that undermines ANY statement that the administration is capable of conducting an independent, uninfluenced, and unbiased investigation. You do know what independent, uninfluenced, and unbiased, mean, don't you?

2) It nullifies the authority of those conducting such an investigation, as what is revealed would carry absolutely no authoratative weight behind it. This means absolutely NO accountability to the person under investigation.

3) would NOT prove the administration's own decision is impartial and not politically motivated.

Simply reposting the same reasponse 5 times has not disproved ANY of those three positions above. Why is that?

Nothing in your statement would protect an individual from facing a criminal indictment based on an the findings of an independent, uninfluenced, unbiased, investigation.

 

[paperview]

Completely incorrigible. ^^

 

[TooTall]

Looks like ti didn't help you very much.

The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

So are the GOP going to vote on revoking for three former secretaries of state..

Did all three have private servers so they could delete any emails they didn't want anyone to see? Or did just one of them do that in order to avoid the FOIA?

Where are Colin Powell's emails?

Oh, you can't find them?

Go figger.

"The Post reports that "1,600 Clinton emails" have been "retroactively classified all or in part, according to a senior congressional aide with access to the material, with the vast majority in the lowest-level category of 'confidential.'"

22 of these 1,600 emails contained "top secret" information.

At the end of the piece we learn that the inspector general's (IG) office reviewed emails to and from Clinton's predecessors "dating between February 2003 and June 2008."

The IG found that a grand total of 12 – 2 emails sent to Powell and 10 to members of Condoleezza Rice's staff – contained "classified national security information."

Of course, 1,600 is far greater than 12.

And there is nothing in the Post's account indicating that any of these 12 emails contained "top secret" information."

They only looked at a few of Powell's and Rice's emails.

Unlike the trove of Clinton's. Powell deleted all of his emails on his private line, commercial AOL account - and never handed them over, as he was supposed to.

Classified information was found.

You were wrong when you said "you can bet your last dollar the retired General didn't send anything classified on a public server."

The only thing that was marked classified in Hillary's account - were three - improperly marked - Confidential items.

Did you know that those three classified confidential items could have been sent via US mail with just a first class postage stamp?

Learn to read.

You post"
"The only thing that was marked classified in Hillary's account - were three - improperly marked - Confidential items."

The facts:

22 of these 1,600 emails contained "top secret" information.

You quote me.
"you can bet your last dollar the retired General didn't send anything classified on a public server."

The IG facts.
"2 emails sent to Powell"

 

[BluesLegend]

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

Ahahaha she's going to have her entire political career revoked fool, then Trump's AG is going to send her to prison to make an example out of these corrupt establishment hacks. Suck on that!

 

[Rozman]

Can't we just put her in the corner for a time out....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

The president's job is to appoint advisers to his cabinet, who is to tackle the "position" of Secretary of State . If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone, then any FBI or CIA investigations regarding a certain individual's conduct of handling government classified information would only be a formality, a political ruse if you will as only the president's opinion would be the final resulting factor to make such a determination.

" If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

The power to control access to classified information lies with the President and the Executive Branch. The President has the ability to delegate that power to anyone in the Executive Branch that he chooses, but that does not change the fact that he is ultimately in charge. The buck stops with the President.

 

[paperview]

So are the GOP going to vote on revoking for three former secretaries of state..

Did all three have private servers so they could delete any emails they didn't want anyone to see? Or did just one of them do that in order to avoid the FOIA?

Where are Colin Powell's emails?

Oh, you can't find them?

Go figger.

"The Post reports that "1,600 Clinton emails" have been "retroactively classified all or in part, according to a senior congressional aide with access to the material, with the vast majority in the lowest-level category of 'confidential.'"

22 of these 1,600 emails contained "top secret" information.

At the end of the piece we learn that the inspector general's (IG) office reviewed emails to and from Clinton's predecessors "dating between February 2003 and June 2008."

The IG found that a grand total of 12 – 2 emails sent to Powell and 10 to members of Condoleezza Rice's staff – contained "classified national security information."

Of course, 1,600 is far greater than 12.

And there is nothing in the Post's account indicating that any of these 12 emails contained "top secret" information."

They only looked at a few of Powell's and Rice's emails.

Unlike the trove of Clinton's. Powell deleted all of his emails on his private line, commercial AOL account - and never handed them over, as he was supposed to.

Classified information was found.

You were wrong when you said "you can bet your last dollar the retired General didn't send anything classified on a public server."

The only thing that was marked classified in Hillary's account - were three - improperly marked - Confidential items.

Did you know that those three classified confidential items could have been sent via US mail with just a first class postage stamp?

Learn to read.
"2 emails sent to Powell"

In a cursory check.
He deleted all the others and never turned them over, according to the Federal Records Act.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

The president's job is to appoint advisers to his cabinet, who is to tackle the "position" of Secretary of State . If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone, then any FBI or CIA investigations regarding a certain individual's conduct of handling government classified information would only be a formality, a political ruse if you will as only the president's opinion would be the final resulting factor to make such a determination.

" If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

I'm not flip-flopping.

Try reading it again:
You said: " If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

And:



"The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

^ Know who said that?

You most certainly did flip flop. You said the Commander-in-chief is the "ultimate authority" regarding security clearance. In your view the decision resides only with him and Hillary's clearance can't be removed because the president holds that power and decision. So an investigation by the CIA would carry no weight and can't be stripped because the president (according to you) has the overall ultimate authority behind Hillary's security clearance.

Ultimate authority also contradicts your "separation of powers" argument, as you are saying no one can oppose a president's decision. That's more in line with a dictatorship than an example of separation of powers.

When it comes to controlling access to classified information, the President cannot be overrulled or "opposed". That power is solely held by the Executive Branch.

That's my argument-
He doesn't hold the "ultimate authority" his position really just grants the president the ability to appoint advisers to his cabinet, such as who is to handle the position of Secretary of State. If he DID have the ultimate authority, then (as I have said before) any FBI and CIA investigation regarding an individual's conduct of handling classified information would only be a mere formality, a political ruse, because they wouldn't have any power behind their investigation as the president has the ultimate power and say.

Then in your next response you said that decision is left with those he appoints to handle the investigation. So which is it?

Does the FBI or CIA have the authority granted to them to remove an individual from a position that handles classified information, or is it a mere formality that carries no authority to remove and charge with an indictment?

I say again, I was placed in a position to handle classified information. I went through the process and the paperwork, and not one time did I have to wait for the Commander-in-Chief to grant me access. At the same time, there has been investigations through the military where clearance has been removed without authority of the president. That being said, clearances of handling classified information CAN most definitely be removed by a position of authority outside of the presidency. Now the president can make the choice to pardon Hillary if she is indicted, but if the investigation shows mishandling of sensitive government information she CAN be removed as a result of their findings apart from the president.

The FBI and the CIA have the authority (given via Executive Order) to grant and remove an individual's classification - but that authority is granted to them by the President, and the President is the ultimate authority on the matter.

 

[TooTall]

Did all three have private servers so they could delete any emails they didn't want anyone to see? Or did just one of them do that in order to avoid the FOIA?

Where are Colin Powell's emails?

Oh, you can't find them?

Go figger.

"The Post reports that "1,600 Clinton emails" have been "retroactively classified all or in part, according to a senior congressional aide with access to the material, with the vast majority in the lowest-level category of 'confidential.'"

22 of these 1,600 emails contained "top secret" information.

At the end of the piece we learn that the inspector general's (IG) office reviewed emails to and from Clinton's predecessors "dating between February 2003 and June 2008."

The IG found that a grand total of 12 – 2 emails sent to Powell and 10 to members of Condoleezza Rice's staff – contained "classified national security information."

Of course, 1,600 is far greater than 12.

And there is nothing in the Post's account indicating that any of these 12 emails contained "top secret" information."

They only looked at a few of Powell's and Rice's emails.

Unlike the trove of Clinton's. Powell deleted all of his emails on his private line, commercial AOL account - and never handed them over, as he was supposed to.

Classified information was found.

You were wrong when you said "you can bet your last dollar the retired General didn't send anything classified on a public server."

The only thing that was marked classified in Hillary's account - were three - improperly marked - Confidential items.

Did you know that those three classified confidential items could have been sent via US mail with just a first class postage stamp?

Learn to read.
"2 emails sent to Powell"

In a cursory check.
He deleted all the others and never turned them over, according to the Federal Records Act.

"At the end of the piece we learn that the inspector general's (IG) office reviewed emails to and from Clinton's predecessors "dating between February 2003 and June 2008."

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

The president's job is to appoint advisers to his cabinet, who is to tackle the "position" of Secretary of State . If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone, then any FBI or CIA investigations regarding a certain individual's conduct of handling government classified information would only be a formality, a political ruse if you will as only the president's opinion would be the final resulting factor to make such a determination.

" If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

The power to control access to classified information lies with the President and the Executive Branch. The President has the ability to delegate that power to anyone in the Executive Branch that he chooses, but that does not change the fact that he is ultimately in charge. The buck stops with the President.

Where is the accountability and poiitical impartiality if someone is found to have mishandled classified information?

What would be the purpose in having the FBI investigate the misappropriate handling of sensitive documents when the president can simply override their findings based on his own predetermined authority?

Are you suggesting government investigations into Hillary Clinton are not to be taken seriously but mere public display that carries no real weight at all?

 

[paperview]

Where are Colin Powell's emails?

Oh, you can't find them?

Go figger.

"The Post reports that "1,600 Clinton emails" have been "retroactively classified all or in part, according to a senior congressional aide with access to the material, with the vast majority in the lowest-level category of 'confidential.'"

22 of these 1,600 emails contained "top secret" information.

At the end of the piece we learn that the inspector general's (IG) office reviewed emails to and from Clinton's predecessors "dating between February 2003 and June 2008."

The IG found that a grand total of 12 – 2 emails sent to Powell and 10 to members of Condoleezza Rice's staff – contained "classified national security information."

Of course, 1,600 is far greater than 12.

And there is nothing in the Post's account indicating that any of these 12 emails contained "top secret" information."

They only looked at a few of Powell's and Rice's emails.

Unlike the trove of Clinton's. Powell deleted all of his emails on his private line, commercial AOL account - and never handed them over, as he was supposed to.

Classified information was found.

You were wrong when you said "you can bet your last dollar the retired General didn't send anything classified on a public server."

The only thing that was marked classified in Hillary's account - were three - improperly marked - Confidential items.

Did you know that those three classified confidential items could have been sent via US mail with just a first class postage stamp?

Learn to read.
"2 emails sent to Powell"

In a cursory check.
He deleted all the others and never turned them over, according to the Federal Records Act.

"At the end of the piece we learn that the inspector general's (IG) office reviewed emails to and from Clinton's predecessors "dating between February 2003 and June 2008."

Dude.

Stop.

They didn't scour his emails, because he had nothing to turn over. They plucked some .gov accounts he sent things to. Try again.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

The president's job is to appoint advisers to his cabinet, who is to tackle the "position" of Secretary of State . If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone, then any FBI or CIA investigations regarding a certain individual's conduct of handling government classified information would only be a formality, a political ruse if you will as only the president's opinion would be the final resulting factor to make such a determination.

" If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

The power to control access to classified information lies with the President and the Executive Branch. The President has the ability to delegate that power to anyone in the Executive Branch that he chooses, but that does not change the fact that he is ultimately in charge. The buck stops with the President.

Where is the accountability and poiitical impartiality if someone is found to have mishandled classified information?

The President can hold that person responsible. Barring that, you could impeach the President, but that's about it.

What would be the purpose in having the FBI investigate the misappropriate handling of sensitive documents when the president can simply override their findings based on his own predetermined authority?

What's the point of having a criminal justice system at all, if the President can pardon anyone they want?

Are you suggesting government investigations into Hillary Clinton are not to be taken seriously but mere public display that carries no real weight at all?

Yeah, basically.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The president's job is to appoint advisers to his cabinet, who is to tackle the "position" of Secretary of State . If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone, then any FBI or CIA investigations regarding a certain individual's conduct of handling government classified information would only be a formality, a political ruse if you will as only the president's opinion would be the final resulting factor to make such a determination.

" If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

The power to control access to classified information lies with the President and the Executive Branch. The President has the ability to delegate that power to anyone in the Executive Branch that he chooses, but that does not change the fact that he is ultimately in charge. The buck stops with the President.

Where is the accountability and poiitical impartiality if someone is found to have mishandled classified information?

The President can hold that person responsible. Barring that, you could impeach the President, but that's about it.

What would be the purpose in having the FBI investigate the misappropriate handling of sensitive documents when the president can simply override their findings based on his own predetermined authority?

What's the point of having a criminal justice system at all, if the President can pardon anyone they want?

Are you suggesting government investigations into Hillary Clinton are not to be taken seriously but mere public display that carries no real weight at all?

Yeah, basically.

At least I have someone willing to admit that this is nothing more than a political show, and the idea that the Obama administration can hold an investigation that is unbiased, impartial, and transparent is rather laughable. This is precisely why 56% don't agree with the handling of the FBI investigation, they have seen just how corrupt the administration and Mrs. Clinton can actually be. Should we really be surprised?

 

[paperview]

In addition to that stupid unconstitutional bill dumb senate connies tried to introduce -- Paul Ryan wrote a letter to the DNI, asking him to deny intelligence briefings to to Hillary Clinton for the rest of the 2016 campaign.

http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/documents/RyanLetterToClapper.pdf

Today, Clapper told him to pound sand.

"Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, in a letter to Mr. Ryan, wrote, “I do not intend to withhold briefings from any officially nominated, eligible candidate,” according to a copy of the letter reviewed by The Wall Street Journal."

Hillary Clinton Will Receive Intelligence Briefings Despite GOP Pressure, Official Says