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.

 

State Department revokes Hillary Clinton's security clearance at her request

page: 3
37
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: BlueAjah

This is what administratively withdrawn means...


Cleared individuals who no longer require access to classified information, but who remain continuously employed by the same cleared contractor and do not anticipate future access can have their clearances administratively downgraded or withdrawn until such time that they require access again, provided their security investigation has not expired. Under such circumstances the clearance can be administratively restored.


www.nicoe.capmed.mil...

You did know that was all about contractors with the US military , yes ?
Dang , I hope so
Sorry , try again...




posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
I had a security clearance when I worked for a contractor to the US Navy at a Trident submarine base. The clearance was "good" for five years. I quit after a year and I no longer had a clearance. I suppose had I gone back to that employer or another one in the same business they could have "invoked" my previous clearance, but at the moment I quit I no longer had access to classified material. As far as I know when I quit they did not "revoke" my security clearance. At least they didn't tell me they did. It just kind of faded away. That is how it is supposed to work. Hillary doubtless had some sort of clearance when she ran for POTUS, but that ended a couple of years ago. In other words, why did she have a security clearance to revoke in the first place? The story makes little sense.





I suppose had I gone back to that employer or another one in the same business they could have "invoked" my previous clearance

No. You would start all over again




but at the moment I quit I no longer had access to classified material. As far as I know when I quit they did not "revoke" my security clearance. At least they didn't tell me they did.

You had 0 access at that moment.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I'd venture a guess that "withdrawn at her request" is akin to resigning so they don't have to fire you.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: queenofswords

Wonder what grounds they used to revoke her clearance? Everyone knows she’s really good at keeping secrets. Just think about it she hasn’t mentioned all the people she’s had murdered ever .


It was the private server system with classified stuff going all over the internet.

💥😁💥

🤷



That thing she belongs in prison over?



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
If I had to guess....

Her 5 year update was probably due and she was told it wouldn't be renewed because of the email issue.

So she declined her update.


Kinda like quitting right before your ass gets fired.


That wouldn't really require them to do anything special. Once the 5 years is up, if you don't have a re-investigation, they pull your clearance as a matter of course. It wouldn't take you requesting anything.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: queenofswords

Wonder what grounds they used to revoke her clearance? Everyone knows she’s really good at keeping secrets. Just think about it she hasn’t mentioned all the people she’s had murdered ever .


It was the private server system with classified stuff going all over the internet.







That thing she belongs in prison over?


Yeah, but the FBI fixed it for her.

✏️



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Maybe this is the news that Sean Hannity was hinting at.
He said he was going to have big news in the next few days.



I don't think this what he was talking about.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

My God, just how many people floating around the nation have security clearance? Seems like it isn't very secure if you retain it after you've been voted out of office (or, conversely, failed to be voted in).



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: schuyler
I had a security clearance when I worked for a contractor to the US Navy at a Trident submarine base. The clearance was "good" for five years. I quit after a year and I no longer had a clearance. I suppose had I gone back to that employer or another one in the same business they could have "invoked" my previous clearance, but at the moment I quit I no longer had access to classified material. As far as I know when I quit they did not "revoke" my security clearance. At least they didn't tell me they did. It just kind of faded away. That is how it is supposed to work. Hillary doubtless had some sort of clearance when she ran for POTUS, but that ended a couple of years ago. In other words, why did she have a security clearance to revoke in the first place? The story makes little sense.





I suppose had I gone back to that employer or another one in the same business they could have "invoked" my previous clearance


You had 0 access at that moment.


That's EXACTLY what I said. Duh.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

So the definition of administratively withdrawn changes between government employees and contractors does it?

Interdasting!


edit on 12/10/18 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Gothmog

So the definition of administratively withdrawn changes between government employees and contractors does it?

Interdasting!


There is a difference between security clearance between contractors for the military and Federal Government
I hope this clears the matter up.
I do not know how much simpler I could state this...
Maybe , I will not have to try.





posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: schuyler
I had a security clearance when I worked for a contractor to the US Navy at a Trident submarine base. The clearance was "good" for five years. I quit after a year and I no longer had a clearance. I suppose had I gone back to that employer or another one in the same business they could have "invoked" my previous clearance, but at the moment I quit I no longer had access to classified material. As far as I know when I quit they did not "revoke" my security clearance. At least they didn't tell me they did. It just kind of faded away. That is how it is supposed to work. Hillary doubtless had some sort of clearance when she ran for POTUS, but that ended a couple of years ago. In other words, why did she have a security clearance to revoke in the first place? The story makes little sense.





I suppose had I gone back to that employer or another one in the same business they could have "invoked" my previous clearance


You had 0 access at that moment.


That's EXACTLY what I said. Duh.

Uh , no.
Maybe and might and possibly have any clearance as a contractor for the military after resigning ?
Not one snowball's chance in Hades 2 seconds after you left.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: xuenchen

My God, just how many people floating around the nation have security clearance? Seems like it isn't very secure if you retain it after you've been voted out of office (or, conversely, failed to be voted in).


The majority of us, when we stopped working for the government, our clearances went inactive and we lost all access to anything. A few years after we're out, our clearance completely expires.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   
This is the more interesting topic of the letter:


The State Department then elaborated in the letter on their review, saying that “tens of thousands of documents” had been obtained and were being “reviewed for classified content.” Any documents determined to include classified material were then sent and examined by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security “and all valid security incidents have been added to the security file for some individuals,” the letter and news release said.


It sounds like they have been finding classified information that was mishandled. The question is - are they going to do something about it other than revoking security clearances?

another link



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

She is soo Drunk/Drugged/Sick she probably thought she was cancelling her Netflix subscription



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   
One thing that differentiates Hillary from the others who lose their Clearance, is that Hillary doesn't NEED it, in order to increase her net worth.

The Clinton Foundation is still raking in big bucks. And Hillary/Bill are beginning a nationwide speaking tour. Each ticket is $750. I wonder if most attendees will be there to hear Bill, or to hear Hillary?



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
This is the more interesting topic of the letter:


The State Department then elaborated in the letter on their review, saying that “tens of thousands of documents” had been obtained and were being “reviewed for classified content.” Any documents determined to include classified material were then sent and examined by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security “and all valid security incidents have been added to the security file for some individuals,” the letter and news release said.


It sounds like they have been finding classified information that was mishandled. The question is - are they going to do something about it other than revoking security clearances?

another link



They've been finding more classified material from Hillary's emails up until recently and there might be more.

Newer emails have been released to Judicial Watch per court orders.

Some emails were part of batches that were deleted (and recovered), and some were part of clumps that were never turned over !!!!!

The State Department has been going crazy trying to de-classify and redact stuff that is damaging.

There's millions of words to sort through.

She had the public believing nothing was wrong and still insists.

💥😃😎💥



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
This is the more interesting topic of the letter:


The State Department then elaborated in the letter on their review, saying that “tens of thousands of documents” had been obtained and were being “reviewed for classified content.” Any documents determined to include classified material were then sent and examined by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security “and all valid security incidents have been added to the security file for some individuals,” the letter and news release said.


It sounds like they have been finding classified information that was mishandled. The question is - are they going to do something about it other than revoking security clearances?

another link



They have been finding a lot of her deleted emails. You know, the ones she said were not work related and just had stuff about her yoga schedule and Chelsea's wedding and stuff like that. And a lot of them have work material and a lot of it is classified. She needs to be charged.

ETA: xuenchen beat me to it.
edit on 12 10 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah




It sounds like they have been finding classified information that was mishandled. The question is - are they going to do something about it other than revoking security clearances?



Excuses she will use to weasel:

I don't know how that got there.
I don't remember.
I'm not that tech savvy.
You'll have to ask the IT manager.
It was probably the Russians.
That's been a long time ago.
I followed procedures.
It could have been Huma.
I plead the fifth.
I had a cold.
I had had too much Chardonnay.
What difference does it make now anyway!



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   
You know, maybe this is a gambit. If she and friends are pulled before committee or court they can probably claim they can't talk about servers, e-mails and stuff because they no longer have security clearance. If they talk, it would put them in jeopardy.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join