It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does Hillary still have a security clearance?

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You should write for Hollywood. Outa sight man.




posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Uh huh. Except those who are really involved in the whole thing. The lawyers and investigators and the FBI and the Justice Dept.
Oh and the "every sane person on the planet" is your opinion and doesn't impact your argument in any way. I can say the same thing about anyone who thinks she's being charged with a crime. It means nothing as far as actual debate on the facts.


Everyone except her defenders and the denialists. I forgot to include that earlier. As far as the debate goes, the fact that she even had the illegal server in her home pretty much DESTROYS your defense of her. (And it does in fact mean everything.)



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: miniatus

A great example of what I'm talking about from my post above... is when Clinton and even Carter asked about UFO's ... even if aliens existed... they wouldn't know about it .. they have no NEED to know about it unless there were some imminent danger.. and even if they asked they would be denied.. as Carter said in the past..

The big reason for this is because presidents serve a limited term and then become private citizens... they won't be told the most secret of things that they don't need to know.. the government is mostly controlled by senior level people that are in it for the long haul .. no term limits.. and no I'm not trying to make that sound like a conspiracy, I'm just saying that's why presidents tend to not know the whole story
and it's funny because often people blame everything on the guy running the whitehouse for at most, 8 years..



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Everyone does goes right up there with every sane person. It's an appeal that holds no weight in an argument . I'm part of everybody and I don't agree. See how that works. And all caps shouting doesn't boost any claims either.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

What do you have? What did the FBI say they found?



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Starting from the point that she had an illegal server puts you on the wrong road from the beginning of your journey. That's not a fact. Fact is it wasn't illegal. Please investigate it yourself if you won't read the link I provided.
edit on 3192016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Everyone does goes right up there with every sane person. It's an appeal that holds no weight in an argument . I'm part of everybody and I don't agree. See how that works. And all caps shouting doesn't boost any claims either.


I see you more as a part of the Clinton apologists and denialists because she panders to your political views, and you believe her, which is why you take your current stance in defense of her, even while knowing she is as crooked as they come.
It's okay, a lot of people do that these days. Everyone knows it, so there isn't really a need to hide your feelings.

Me saying Everyone does/knows isn't an appeal, it is plain common fact about her. People in her support ignore this only because they believe her when she panders and appeals to some leftist liberal pet policy they want to see happen or be supported, so they ignore the criminal element of her job description, (which she implemented into it herself).



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I'm asking for what you have. Let's not get into labeling ok? Stick to the facts. What has the FBI and DOJ said on the investigation?
What is holding up a simple action like revoking her clearance if they think she's done something. Their simple suspicion is enough for this action. So why aren't they doing it?
Occams razor...they don't suspect her of criminal behavior.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

I have never heard of a President stepping in to prevent someone from having a clearance yanked.


There are Masters of the Universe that have clearances approximately equal to those of God Almighty, and they are not what I'd call a classic 'good fit'. Not that they were, in the end, untrustworthy. But not at all what you'd usually see get even an S much less a compartment-spanning mega TS.

That to say, even in DOD you see people They® want to have really amazingly great clearances get them, past or current transgressions not withstanding.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You saying "everybody" is totally irrelevant to the argument. Saying "well it should be this way" doesn't work either. You calling me an apologist also doesn't add any weight. Nor does your opinion about how you believe I think. None of that matters so stop padding your argument with it and provide some meat instead.

en.m.wikipedia.org...
edit on 3192016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



All it requires is a suspected security violation. I think that has been well demonstrated in this case already.


You have no information whatsoever, other than what the media has released.

I'm sure you don't want to play this game with me today because you have proven yourself to be severely lacking on this issue and completely biased.

You don't bring any real information to this issue other than anecdotal fallacies and wishful thinking. Just like every single thread you and I have conversed in, this will all boil down to us waiting to see what the FBI says because neither you or I know jack squat about what's going on here.

Again, maybe they have not revoked her clearance because she is not suspected of security violations. We don't know.


I thought a long time before I decided to post this, I hate to go off topic, and risk a ban but here you go:

"I'm sure you don't want to play this game with me today because you have proven yourself to be severely lacking on this issue and completely biased."

You calling someone biased is the most perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black I have seen in forever.

Let us just call it like it is....you joined ATS on 04-17-2015... that was 11 months ago. You have 5,828 posts in 11 months, almost entirely in political threads .... that averages out to approximately 529.81 posts each month....around 17-18 a day average.

I have been a member of ATS for 11 years...I have 1,399 posts in 11 years.. that averages out to 10 posts a month... one every three days.

Anybody that averages 529 posts a month in 11 months is nothing but a troll. Plain and simple my friend, you are nothing but a pro Hillary political troll, either paid or unpaid, but a political troll none the less and everybody but the ATS Moderators knows this.

I may get a ban for posting my opinion, but I am sick and tired of your constant personal attacks on myself and others and trying to derail any Hillary email scandal thread that anyone posts... it is getting really really old.

This thread is a good example for anyone, including moderators, to look at how you respond to people and the tactics you constantly employ to drive Hillary email threads to the direction you want them to go.

Said all I got to say, this will probably be deleted because evidently pointing out the obvious no longer appears to be allowed on ATS.

Sorry for going off topic, but that really needed to be said.

Time is on my side.

The ticking of the clock... tick tock tick tock.......doesn't bother me in the least.... but it bothers some people a lot.
edit on R092016-03-20T01:09:44-05:00k093Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

So basically if you start a Hillary scandal thread you only want members who agree with you participating. Ok gotcha.
That's one way of doing it.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

So basically if you start a Hillary scandal thread you only want members who agree with you participating. Ok gotcha.
That's one way of doing it.


"and trying to derail any Hillary email scandal thread that anyone posts"

Perfect example of how two people can read the same thing and arrive at totally different conclusions.... just like how I can go to the State Department reading room web page and see various emails from Hillarys server redacted by the SD at the Secret level and conclude that there is sufficient evidence to suspend Hillarys Clearance. You read the same emails and say...well...they are redacted and no one knows what they say so nanny nanny boo boo, while conveniently ignoring the fact that they were redacted because they contained classified information at the secret level.

And please do not forget the 22 Top Secret classified emails that were on her server...you know,,,those 22 emails that were upgraded to Top Secret by the SD, although they were already classified Top Secret when they were originally on that server?? . 22 more reasons to suspend her clearance.
edit on R382016-03-20T11:38:47-05:00k383Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

It's opposition to your opinion Rick not trying to derail a thread.
I'm out.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

It's opposition to your opinion Rick not trying to derail a thread.
I'm out.


Opposition to an opinion is perfectly fine. Constantly attempting to drive the discussion of the thread away from the topic by deflecting to a different topic is something else altogether. Have a good day!!



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I, as well, thought about this for a few before I responded. My conclusion is the best response would be what my argument has been this entire time, after many threads and many posts on this topic.

We don't know what is going to happen, Rick.

There may be little bits of information that is leaked here and there, but everything else is just propaganda. With such a large absence of information, it is illogical to come to any conclusion. That is true no matter what political bias' one may have.

What I have a problem with has very little to do with Hillary. My problem on this issue is when people will use that void of information to make dubious claims as to her guilt, using anecdotal logical fallacies and subjective interpretations of law. I find it intellectually dishonest.

So, again, we do not know what is going to happen, we lack the information to come to any conclusion and it is illogical to do so. That holds true no matter what bias you believe I have or if you believe I am a paid troll.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

I, as well, thought about this for a few before I responded. My conclusion is the best response would be what my argument has been this entire time, after many threads and many posts on this topic.

We don't know what is going to happen, Rick.

There may be little bits of information that is leaked here and there, but everything else is just propaganda. With such a large absence of information, it is illogical to come to any conclusion. That is true no matter what political bias' one may have.

What I have a problem with has very little to do with Hillary. My problem on this issue is when people will use that void of information to make dubious claims as to her guilt, using anecdotal logical fallacies and subjective interpretations of law. I find it intellectually dishonest.

So, again, we do not know what is going to happen, we lack the information to come to any conclusion and it is illogical to do so. That holds true no matter what bias you believe I have or if you believe I am a paid troll.


Everyone sees things in a different way.

Lets use this example.

I can go to the State Department website, go to the news briefings, and find exactly where the State Department admitted that the 22 emails found on Hillarys server were classified Top Secret before they ever landed on her server:

www.state.gov...


QUESTION: Right. So are you challenging sworn declarations from the CIA that they were top secret at the time of transmission?

MR KIRBY: As I said last week, it was at the request of the intelligence community that we specifically upgraded that traffic to top secret.

QUESTION: Okay, so you don’t dispute that.

MR KIRBY: If we had disputed it, we wouldn’t have upgraded it --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- to TS at the request of the intel community.

QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: And I would say we’ve had a strong partnership with the intel community throughout this process, and we look forward to that continuing.



I can see right there, sufficient cause to suspend someones clearance until the determination can be made as to how and why these emails were on her server. Doesn't have to be a criminal investigation, but there is no doubt that an investigation should be conducted by the State Department to determine whether Hillary should still be able to maintain her clearance. The reason for this thread was to highlight the differences between the SD and other Federal Agencies security policies and practices.


You on the other hand, say no one knows any facts and we just have to wait and see. I do not see it that way, specifically in cases where everything is on a government website, not Faux News or any left, right,middle, up, down or whatever leaning website.

What exactly do you take away from the above press briefing conversation? I see the State Department spokesman admitting that the State Department concurred with the CIA's assessment that the emails were in fact classified Top Secret prior to winding up on Hillarys server..... I just do not see how anyone could arrive at a different conclusion.

PS: I meant to address this earlier but it slipped my mind. There is no such thing as a ceremonial clearance.... a clearance is a clearance and all former SoS's are allowed to retain theirs for life, in case they need to be consulted on classified matters that occurred during their term of duty. Obviously they would have no need to know for anything past their specific time as SoS.

edit on R392016-03-20T12:39:25-05:00k393Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R412016-03-20T12:41:55-05:00k413Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R432016-03-20T12:43:17-05:00k433Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"There may be little bits of information that is leaked here and there, but everything else is just propaganda. With such a large absence of information, it is illogical to come to any conclusion. That is true no matter what political bias' one may have."

So you are claiming that having 22 Top Secret emails on an unclassified server, is a large absence of information and it is illogical to come to the conclusion that is indeed illegal? Please clarify that... it makes no sense to anyone but you.

"My problem on this issue is when people will use that void of information to make dubious claims as to her guilt, using anecdotal logical fallacies and subjective interpretations of law. I find it intellectually dishonest."

My problem with your rabid defense of Hillary Clinton is exactly as you stated it yourself... you have a very bad habit of being intellectually dishonest.

How many times have you made the following statement?

"Hillarys email server was legal."

5? 10? more? Do I need to refresh your memory and go back and count them?

How many times have you actually clarified that quote with the truth? Not once have you ever clarified that by saying that is was only legal for unclassified information... and you continue to refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that having classified emails on an unclassified email server in fact made it very illegal.

Even the State Department can acknowledge that 22 emails were Top Secret before they ever got on Hillarys unclassified email server... but you still stick to the old... Hillarys email server was legal.

Putting lipstick on a pig only makes it a pig wearing lipstick. Got to stick with troll.

I will be so glad when this thing is done with.

Soon™
edit on R192016-03-21T00:19:59-05:00k193Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I agree on some repercussions to Clinton's security clearance but she was operating on a legal server just using a wrong type of email.

However taking someoneso clearance level isnt an overnight thing there will be investigations, time wasted, money wasted, exc... the fact of the matter is that a decision will be made if they do indeed convict her which is not looking like that'll happen at all.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Amir0624
I agree on some repercussions to Clinton's security clearance but she was operating on a legal server just using a wrong type of email.

However taking someoneso clearance level isnt an overnight thing there will be investigations, time wasted, money wasted, exc... the fact of the matter is that a decision will be made if they do indeed convict her which is not looking like that'll happen at all.


False... I have seen people security clearances literally revoked on the spot... all it takes is the recommendation of the CSO.

Personally, I have never seen a single person who was able to maintain a clearance while under investigation by a CSO for classified information. They always suspend the clearance, that's the first step.

That being said, a lot of times clearances are revoked when detrimental information appears in a persons 5 years update.

EDIT: I believe it has been previously mentioned that the FBI specifically requested that some clearances not be suspended while the investigation was underway. I expect those clearances to be suspended immediately once the FBI wraps up their part.

Also, I have known three people who were co-workers (2 with DoD, 1 with FBI) who had their clearances suspended and were fired... All three appealed the decision to revoke their clearances and all three suspensions were upheld after further review.
edit on R582016-06-01T14:58:00-05:00k586Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R582016-06-01T14:58:48-05:00k586Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join