FBI Director Comey will address reporters at 11 a.m. ET at FBI HQ DC . . . Developing . . .
- Thread starter Dakota
- Start date
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Basically doing what he was told, but he's not happy about it??
Dakota
~~~~~~~
I gathered that - and I think others will pick up on that. I think she lost a great deal of votes today.
glhs837
Power with Control
Blatantly saying that anyone else doing what she did would be punished. Which anyone who has ever handled classified already knew. Let me send just one TS email over a non-secure network and damns traight skippy would I get punished. Being a contractor, most likely lose my clearance and therefore my job.
Tilted
..
She no longer has the job and if she's elected President, she gets treated as though she has clearance regardless, right?
She should be so easy to beat. She is a terrible candidate. It's a shame.
glhs837
Power with Control
Hmmm, I think if your clearance is stripped, you don't get it back.
Clem72
Well-Known Member
Certain positions have a clearance mandate, there is no adjudication process. If you get elected president, you get a clearance regardless of your "risk to national security", as the people have already chosen to accept that risk.
edited to add citation:
"An August 2011 CRS report proposed mandating security clearances for all members of congress. Despite several proposals and wrangling on both the legislative and executive sides (due to accusations of leaked information coming from both branches), requirements for members of congress or elected officials to obtain security clearances have never been passed."
CRS Report:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS20748.pdf
I assume if that is the case for congress, it's probably the case for the pres.
Last edited:
yeah that would be Epic ... a president you cannot trust with State Secrets
I expect a President Hillary to fire up another email server - if she doesn't have a foundation controlled setup already
do not expect any accountability from a Clinton White House
Tilted
..
But doesn't a President in effect have clearance? I assume they don't get an official clearance designation as others do - e.g., they don't have to pass a background check. But they get access to whatever information they might need, correct?
For that matter, isn't the whole process for deciding what is or isn't protected for national security purposes controlled by the executive branch? It's based on executive actions which a President can change if they see fit. There are laws about the consequences of mishandling such information, and there are privacy laws which dictate that certain things can't be disclosed under various circumstances. But when it comes to what is or isn't classified (for national security purposes), I think that is largely, one way or another, under the control of the President.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
How the hell do you think they will strip the President of clearance.
Just as when Clinton was President they cleared all of the dopers working for him.
She will get anything she wants.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Comey just pissed away his integrity.
BlueSunday
New Member
To me that is anyone who voted to let Donald Trump be the nominee.There were other and better candidates on the GOP side .
Wander completely off in to the weeds, subject wise, much? Focus, kid...focus...
BlueSunday
New Member
Yes she should be easy to beat and would have been had the people not voted Donald Trump as their nominee.So blame anyone that wanted Donald Trump.
warneckutz
Well-Known Member
Good Lord, Pyle... repeating yourself? Choke yourself...