Of course I disagree with your sketchy journalistic excuses for her actions.. It was HER JOB to recognize classified material and to protect it. There is no doubt about KNOWING it was classified. And the bullshit about a requirement to "deliver it to a person" is NOT at all accurate. You only have to "remove it from government custody" or place in it in an unsecured setting..
Your agreement or disagreement isn't a factor. And as you demonstrated with your claims about her having to be 're-cleared' for security clearance if she becomes president, you really don't know what you're talking about:
flacaltenn said:
Nope.. She needs to be RE-CLEARED into the appropriate programs.,. The ones that she violated the trust of.
That should never happen.. No need to get legal on her ass. Just make certain the rules and procedures are respected and mean something.
Which is explicitly contradicted by the Congressional Research Service's specialist in Intelligence and national security
"By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community."
Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005
https://web.archive.org/web/20110114013512/http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.pdf
There's no mention of being 'cleared'. To say nothing of being 'recleared'. Remember, the Intelligence Community is part of the Executive Branch. The President can just order them to give her any information that she wants.
"The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be “the owner” of national intelligence."
Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005
Thus, as president, she has clearance as she is the 'owner' of national intelligence. Your 'cased closed' hypothetical doesn't take this enormous detail into account. Rendering your hypothetical functionally meaningless. And likewise demonstrates that you simply don't know what you're talking about on this issue.
Which her commercial server ROUTINELY and REPEATEDLY DID. Over and over and over again.. LATimes doesn't seem to know SHIT about how this stuff works.
Neither the LA Times nor AP are citing themselves. But lawyers that specialize in national security issues. With overwhelming consensus of those attorneys agreeing that no crime was committed. That you personally disagree is legally irrelevant.
She should NEVER AGAIN have access to security clearances. All the assertions you wanna make won't stop a showdown between a PREZ who is a KNOWN abuser of the process and the rest of the government charged with generating, acting on, and protecting those secrets. She needs to sign into every program she WANTS access to.. There is PROCESS for that. Because you are not just granted BLANKET access to ALL secure information.., AND --- because you need to be COUNCILED as to the scope of each "program", the details considered secure, etc..
That's certainly a personal opinion. But since you don't know what you're talking about regarding these issues, why would I ignore the Congressional Research Service's specialist in Intelligence and national security....
and instead believe you?
Why would I ignore the lawyers specializing in national security issues cited by the LA times....
and instead believe you? Why would I ignore the lawyers cited by AP
and instead believe you?
I can't think of a single reason.
She is not de facto "owner" of shit if she is not eligible for security vetting.. And there will be wars over sharing that program access with anybody who's already violated that trust.. As there should be for this unique situation...
Says you citing yourself. You're certainly welcome to a personal opinion. But you have yet to explain to me why I would care what you thought on the issue.
You have no idea what you're citing. It's a CRS report requested by Congress critters to clarify what rights THEY HAVE to classified info that the PREZ decides NOT to share with them. The quote you found is not a definitive statement on the vetting of a PRESIDENT for access to security clearances. It was ASSUMED that the prez was VETTABLE in the first place. .
Says you. The Congressional Research Service says this:
"By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community."
Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005
https://web.archive.org/web/20110114013512/http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.pdf
There's no mention of being 'cleared'. To say nothing of being 'recleared'. Remember, the Intelligence Community is part of the Executive Branch. The President can just order them to give her any information that she wants.
"The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be “the owner” of national intelligence."
Congressional Research Service
December 14th, 2005
You say that she has to be 're-cleared' and isn't the owner of national intelligence if president. The Congressional Research Services expert on National Security and Intelligence says she owns the national intelligence as president and by virtue of being president has access to everything collected by the Intelligence Community.
You can deny this if you'd like and insist that the CRS never said this. I'll just quote them again.
Why would I or any other rational person ignore the CRS on this issue....and instead believe you? Remember, you're nobody.
Why would I ignore lawyers specializing in national security cited by the LA times.....and instead believe you? Again, you're nobody.
Why would I ignore the lawyers cited by AP......and instead believe you? Same thing as before. Plus, you don't know what you're talking about.
CERTAINLY --- there would be a war with the agencies producing, using, and protecting those secrets. And maybe --- she'd have to fire 1/2 of them to be included in the special access programs that required highly restricted clearances.
Says who? Remember, by virtue of being president she has access to all produced by the Intel community.
'Certainly', you realize that you citing yourself is essentially worthless.
OR --- prior to the election --- the FBI merely has to issue a conclusion that Mrs. Clinton is NO LONGER capable of obtaining or applying for National Security clearances..
So -- Skylar -- If that declaration were made a month after the Dem Convention -- would you STILL support her?
I need an answer there..
Would she need to apply or obtain national security clearances in order to be review intel material as president?
Nope. So why would it effect my support of her for president?
Remember......you don't actually know what you're talking about.
