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?
