Why does Hillary still have a security clearance?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

As the OP specified, it doesn't work that way, and isn't supposed to.

And as another member pointed out, the clearance is more "ceremonial" in nature. Just because they have the clearance does not mean they have access to information.

That is an issue. All it does is create "loopholes" for future violations. It's a flaw and it's known now. It REALLY should be changed.

a reply to: queenofswords

Sweety her using that server was never illegal.
www.nationallawjournal.com...=1202719885284/Clinton-Legal-Liability-Small-In-Email-Mess?mcode=1202615549854&curindex=1&slretu rn=20160219154238

a reply to: RickinVa

The defense to weak argument is to attack the other party. If you really want to call me a liar, please do.. I won't lose a second of sleep over it.

I have many times. I don't believe you in the slightest. You've shown to lack basic understanding of certain elements that even the general public has access to.

This isn't about me... it is about why Hillary's clearance hasn't been revoked/suspended.

Already been answered. Whether you like to hear it or not is not my problem.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

As the OP specified, it doesn't work that way, and isn't supposed to.

And as another member pointed out, the clearance is more "ceremonial" in nature. Just because they have the clearance does not mean they have access to information.

That is an issue. All it does is create "loopholes" for future violations. It's a flaw and it's known now. It REALLY should be changed.

I can agree with that. Perhaps it should be changed.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: RickinVa

Rick, why do you think the State Dept. has such lax policies? Has it always been this way? Or, has it developed to this extent under Barack Obama? And, if so, why do you think that is?

I think it has to do with the employees themselves... those agencies who employee primarily prior military have stricter standards that agencies that do not, it is the nature of the beast.

It has also become clear that at this point, the SD needs to be cleaned from the top to the bottom....they have some serious issues to deal with.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: queenofswords

Sweety her using that server was never illegal.
www.nationallawjournal.com...=1202719885284/Clinton-Legal-Liability-Small-In-Email-Mess?mcode=1202615549854&curindex=1&slretu rn=20160219154238

That page no longer exists. Do you have another you can link?

Actually, whether it is technically illegal or not isn't as worrisome as what the reason for doing it might actually be. The whole Clinton Foundation and foreign governments pay-for-favors connection to the server is just as bothersome. And what is really concerning is how easy it is to hack into such arrangements. She knew very well how effective hackers have become and a personal server would just make it that much easier. Why would THE Secy. of State risk that? Why would she make it easier for a hacker to snoop in her communications and steal government communiques? Why?

The topic of this thread is:

Why hasn't Hillary's clearance been suspended/revoked.

Not about:

1. Whether or not her server was legal.
2. Whether or not Hillary has committed or been convicted of a crime.
3. Calling me a liar and claiming I have no idea what I am talking about.

____________________________________________________________________________

Again, a person does not have to be accused of a crime or convicted of a crime to have their security clearance suspended/revoked.

The only thing required to suspend a clearance is the suspicion that a security violation has occurred.... suspicion

a reply to: RickinVa

Sorry, Rick, I got sidetracked from your OP topic in asking WHY Hillary would risk that in the first place?

Question: Does Obama have the power to prevent her clearance from being revoked?

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

Guess that tells us they don't suspect her of any violations.

Not at all.... all it tells us is that the State Department has a very lax security policy, compared to other federal agencies. That is all it tells us.

You noted the FBI has a more lax security policy than the other agency you worked in. I will take that at true. You have not worked at the State Department, so you do not know if they are lax or not. You feel they might be as you disagree with this policy, but that does not make it true.

a reply to: RickinVa

Again Rick? Because I looked (you gave me the link) and there's nothing because we have no idea what was redacted. It's already been noted that most that received any classification were deemed confidential. The lowest clearance rating and once again so that these docs could be released to the general public. After the fact and I know how that sticks in your craw Rick but thems the only facts at this point. Anything from f o x and their "sources close to the investigation " who constantly remain unnamed but who we know aren't really close to the investigation is only opinion and perhaps a few wishes thrown in.
The actual investigators have not said anything.
If you know otherwise then provide that instead of a page of credentials and your personal opinion of how the laws should be interpreted. Because we're still talking about the same two bucks and the same uptown bus.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: queenofswords

Sweety her using that server was never illegal.
www.nationallawjournal.com...=1202719885284/Clinton-Legal-Liability-Small-In-Email-Mess?mcode=1202615549854&curindex=1&slretu rn=20160219154238

That page no longer exists. Do you have another you can link?

Actually, whether it is technically illegal or not isn't as worrisome as what the reason for doing it might actually be. The whole Clinton Foundation and foreign governments pay-for-favors connection to the server is just as bothersome. And what is really concerning is how easy it is to hack into such arrangements. She knew very well how effective hackers have become and a personal server would just make it that much easier. Why would THE Secy. of State risk that? Why would she make it easier for a hacker to snoop in her communications and steal government communiques? Why?

The only reason she did this that makes any sense is that she wanted that server there for making it easy to "Trade" classified information in exchange for cash deposited to offshore accounts to be laundered into the Clinton foundation in an eventual manner.
Having a server like that with top secret SCI info in such an insecure and obviously totally ignoring every single law and procedure can only be showing the clear and intentional criminal element and motive for financial gain which still had the possibility of some kind of "deniability" that only a Hillary Clinton could entertain.

And this theory of mine totally fits her MO in the past.

This is my opinion, and I see her doing all of it for the extreme opportunity of making a lot of money selling state secrets to select individuals using that server.

Every other reason to do something as stupid and as blatant as she did with this server has no value for her in any way.

The idea that she would do this as a matter of job convenience is totally preposterous and absolutely ludicrous in the extreme.
She should be waterboarded and horsewhipped on national television for doing this. I would love to see that.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: RickinVa

Sorry, Rick, I got sidetracked from your OP topic in asking WHY Hillary would risk that in the first place?

Question: Does Obama have the power to prevent her clearance from being revoked?

That I do not know for sure, but I would highly doubt it.

Obama could pardon someone for all crimes committed, but a security manager could still make the determination that the person poses a security risk and suspend/revoke someones clearance.

Suspension/Revoking/Denial of security clearances is a purely administrative action. There does not have to be any sort or criminal activity.

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

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
No one is suggesting proceedures be overlooked at all. It is merely being pointed out that the very fact her clearance has not been revoked seems to indicate that they do not suspect her of any crime.
Following procedures they would have to do it if they suspected her right?

a reply to: RickinVa

My uncle worked at Pine Gap he still has a security clearance and cant under the secrecy act reveal anything for 50 years,I imagine America has similar arranements.

a reply to: RickinVa

No. If the law mandates it and they really suspected her they would have no choice. The masses who want her out would demand that public shaming without doubt. They couldn't not do it.
That they don't says they don't suspect her.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
No one is suggesting proceedures be overlooked at all. It is merely being pointed out that the very fact her clearance has not been revoked seems to indicate that they do not suspect her of any crime.
Following procedures they would have to do it if they suspected her right?

Perhaps you are right they don't suspect her, they know for certain she is guilty of wrongdoing. EVERYONE DOES.

And furthermore, since when has the Obama administration cared one iota for following procedures? He makes his own damn procedures for everything he does, and we all see that and know that.

a reply to: RickinVa

And what would revoking it do?

If they're after her, just sick the NSA on her tail to snoop into her current activities. If she's being shady with her access, that's even more fodder for prosecutors.

If you suspect someone of being a thief, sometimes it's better to stand back and see if they'll commit a crime while you're watching.

I swear our intelligence agencies are inept as hell. Let her have some rope, see if she hangs herself.

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.

a reply to: queenofswords

Yeah this one but it's longer. I was trying to isolate an article within this content. Sorry. It's about two thirds down the page.

mediamatters.org...

a reply to: RickinVa

Anyone can get a security clearance... having even top level clearance doesn't mean you get to know anything though..

A friend of mine had "top" clearance because it was brilliant with electronics, he was permitted on base ... but he was ONLY permitted to work on and know about what he specifically needed to know about.. the term "need to know basis" is quite literal when it comes to having top secret clearance...

This is actually why even the president doesn't know very much, that gives them deniability .. you only get to know what you NEED to know to do your job... and that really is why things are so shady..

My friend, who's passed away now unfortunately ... he was escorted on the base and had someone with him at all times, if someone would try to speak to him .. that person was there to make sure they didn't say anything.. he was only permitted to speak to who he needed to speak to.. his job was repairing some of their older equipment that they didn't have regular staff to maintain... but some of that equipment was classified so he had to get top secret clearance to be in the areas he was in..