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

[paperview]

... 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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

... 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.

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.

Making yourself an exception through a different set of standards, and placing yourself above those who must adhere to a different set of rules is actually synonymous with names like Kennedy and Clinton in the world of politics given their history. Is it really any surprise that you would find a democrat behind the support of such legislation? It's no wonder you find a divided nation behind a growing distain for government.

Regardless of how it plays out with Mrs. Clinton, as her polls show with the amount of distrust tied to her name, by placing herself above the law any reputation as Mrs President is already tarnished before her administration even has a chance to begin.

 

[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.

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 .

 

[paperview]

... 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.

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.

Making yourself an exception through a different set of standards, and placing yourself above those who must adhere to a different set of rules is actually synonymous with names like Kennedy and Clinton in the world of politics given their history. Is it really any surprise that you would find a democrat behind the support of such legislation? It's no wonder you find a divided nation behind a growing distain for government.

Regardless of how it plays out with Mrs. Clinton, as her polls show with the amount of distrust tied to her name, by placing herself above the law any reputation as Mrs President is already tarnished before her administration even has a chance to begin.

Did you quote the wrong post?

 

[paulitician]

It should be revoked. And she shouldn't be President. Nuff said.

 

[SwimExpert]

That's not what I said, is it?

Nobody cares what you said. For some reason raging straw man arguments, flagrantly inserting nonsense that can't even be called a tangent because it's so unrelated has become about 70% of the posts around here all of a sudden. Not sure why, but I suspect Flint, MI water has been spreading across the country.

 

[SwimExpert]

It should be revoked.

Why?

And she shouldn't be President.

Why?

Nuff said.

Why?

 

[CowboyTed]

... 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.

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..

 

[Rozman]

I bet if she wins the election the secret service bar her from the Oval office....
They set up a little school desk in the hall for her to use.
Well I would like for that to happen anyway...

Just trying to see Hill struggling to get that huge body in a little school desk... lol

 

[Darkwind]

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

So, now I know WHO you are....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Conservatives: masters of the red herring fallacy.

 

[TooTall]

You can keep your points but -
1 - The dems are not going to go for it.
2 - Ex post facto
3 - It's not unconstitutional in any way. The government is under no onus to keep or reject a particular persons security clearance.

The FBI was actually rather clear - in any case similar to Hillary's administrative actions should and would have been taken and that includes revoking clearances. If she were any other person in any other situation she would have lost her clearance immediately. Because of who she is and her position (candidate for the presidency) such will be ignored.

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

THE SECURITY CLEARANCE

Eligibility for access to classified information, commonly known as a security clearance, is granted only to those for whom an appropriate personnel security background investigation has been completed. It must be determined that the individual’s personal and professional history indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and a willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information. A determination of eligibility for access to such information is a discretionary security decision based on judgments by appropriately trained adjudicative personnel. Eligibility will be granted only where facts and circumstances indicate access to classified information is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States. Access to classified information will be terminated when an individual no longer has need for access.

The Bureau of Human Resources determines if a Department of State position requires a security clearance based on the duties and responsibilities of the position. If the position requires access to classified information, the position will be given an appropriate security classification. Individuals applying to these positions must undergo a personnel security background investigation.

Security clearances are subject to periodic reinvestigation every 5 years. The Office of Personnel Security and Suitability notifies the individual when it is time for their reinvestigation. The individual will submit an updated security package and another background investigation will be conducted. The investigation will again cover key aspects of the individual’s life, but will start from one’s previous background investigation.

All About Security Clearances

 

[TooTall]

... 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.

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?

 

[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

So, now I know WHO you are....

lol.

Is this you announcing you're slow on the uptake?

 

[whitehall]

One thing about democrats is that they protect their own and they have their ace in the hole with the liberal media which is nothing but the propaganda arm of the Hussein administration. When the IRS was accused of being a political tool of the administration to punish political enemies, the director merely invoked his 5th Amendment right of self incrimination and there was absolutely no outrage in the liberal media and nobody was indicted much less fired. The FBI and the ATF engaged in a criminal conspiracy when they concocted the ridiculous "Operation Fast and Furious" shipping over 3,000 illegal weapons to Mexican drug cartels.There was absolutely zero concern in the liberal media when a U.S. Border Patrol Officer was killed with one of the weapons along with hundreds of Mexican citizens and nobody was indicted much less fired.. Why does it come as a surprise when the FBI makes a case for the indictment of Hillary Clinton and then declines to prosecute?

 

[paperview]

You can keep your points but -
1 - The dems are not going to go for it.
2 - Ex post facto
3 - It's not unconstitutional in any way. The government is under no onus to keep or reject a particular persons security clearance.

The FBI was actually rather clear - in any case similar to Hillary's administrative actions should and would have been taken and that includes revoking clearances. If she were any other person in any other situation she would have lost her clearance immediately. Because of who she is and her position (candidate for the presidency) such will be ignored.

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

And?

THE SECURITY CLEARANCE

Eligibility for access to classified information, commonly known as a security clearance, is granted only to those for whom an appropriate personnel security background investigation has been completed. It must be determined that the individual’s personal and professional history indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and a willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information. A determination of eligibility for access to such information is a discretionary security decision based on judgments by appropriately trained adjudicative personnel. Eligibility will be granted only where facts and circumstances indicate access to classified information is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States. Access to classified information will be terminated when an individual no longer has need for access.

The Bureau of Human Resources determines if a Department of State position requires a security clearance based on the duties and responsibilities of the position. If the position requires access to classified information, the position will be given an appropriate security classification. Individuals applying to these positions must undergo a personnel security background investigation.

Security clearances are subject to periodic reinvestigation every 5 years. The Office of Personnel Security and Suitability notifies the individual when it is time for their reinvestigation. The individual will submit an updated security package and another background investigation will be conducted. The investigation will again cover key aspects of the individual’s life, but will start from one’s previous background investigation.

All About Security Clearances

And?

 

[paperview]

... 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.

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.

 

[TooTall]

... 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.

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.

They are on the government server where they belong. A few of them were on a public server, but you can bet your last dollar the retired General didn't send anything classified on a public server. Anyone that has served knows better.

 

[paperview]

... 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.

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.

They are on the government server where they belong. A few of them were on a public server, but you can bet your last dollar the retired General didn't send anything classified on a public server. Anyone that has served knows better.

Bzzzt.

You fail.

All of his official business (outside of SCIF) was on his grampa AOL.COM account.

Classified information was found in his emails.

Catchup.


He also made all his emails go *poof* -- and never handed them over, as per the Records law.