۞ No, Connies - Hillary is not going to have her security clearance revoked ۞

[paperview]

Too tall go *poof.*

 

[TooTall]

... It helps to actually have prior military or government agency background in order to have a clear understanding of how security clearance is lost or obtained.

Looks like ti didn't help you very much.

The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

So are the GOP going to vote on revoking for three former secretaries of state..

Did all three have private servers so they could delete any emails they didn't want anyone to see? Or did just one of them do that in order to avoid the FOIA?

Where are Colin Powell's emails?

Oh, you can't find them?

Go figger.

"The Post reports that "1,600 Clinton emails" have been "retroactively classified all or in part, according to a senior congressional aide with access to the material, with the vast majority in the lowest-level category of 'confidential.'"

22 of these 1,600 emails contained "top secret" information.

At the end of the piece we learn that the inspector general's (IG) office reviewed emails to and from Clinton's predecessors "dating between February 2003 and June 2008."

The IG found that a grand total of 12 – 2 emails sent to Powell and 10 to members of Condoleezza Rice's staff – contained "classified national security information."

Of course, 1,600 is far greater than 12.

And there is nothing in the Post's account indicating that any of these 12 emails contained "top secret" information."

 

[paperview]

... It helps to actually have prior military or government agency background in order to have a clear understanding of how security clearance is lost or obtained.

Looks like ti didn't help you very much.

The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.

So are the GOP going to vote on revoking for three former secretaries of state..

Did all three have private servers so they could delete any emails they didn't want anyone to see? Or did just one of them do that in order to avoid the FOIA?

Where are Colin Powell's emails?

Oh, you can't find them?

Go figger.

"The Post reports that "1,600 Clinton emails" have been "retroactively classified all or in part, according to a senior congressional aide with access to the material, with the vast majority in the lowest-level category of 'confidential.'"

22 of these 1,600 emails contained "top secret" information.

At the end of the piece we learn that the inspector general's (IG) office reviewed emails to and from Clinton's predecessors "dating between February 2003 and June 2008."

The IG found that a grand total of 12 – 2 emails sent to Powell and 10 to members of Condoleezza Rice's staff – contained "classified national security information."

Of course, 1,600 is far greater than 12.

And there is nothing in the Post's account indicating that any of these 12 emails contained "top secret" information."

They only looked at a few of Powell's and Rice's emails.

Unlike the trove of Clinton's. Powell deleted all of his emails on his private line, commercial AOL account - and never handed them over, as he was supposed to.

Classified information was found.

You were wrong when you said "you can bet your last dollar the retired General didn't send anything classified on a public server."

The only thing that was marked classified in Hillary's account - were three - improperly marked - Confidential items.

Did you know that those three classified confidential items could have been sent via US mail with just a first class postage stamp?

 

[paperview]

REP. STEPHEN LYNCH: Director Comey, Secretary Clinton is certainly not the only Secretary of State to use a personal e-mail account with information later identified as being classified. I want to show you, this is a book that was written by Former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

And in his book, he says, "to complement the official state department computer in my office, I installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal e-mail account on a laptop allowed me to direct access to anyone online. So I started shooting e-mails to my principle assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly, to my foreign minister colleagues who like me were trying to bring their ministries into the 186,000 miles per second world." Were you aware of this, that Secretary Colin Powell actually had a private server as well?

COMEY: Not a private server. I think he used a commercial e- mail account for state department business.

LYNCH: Private line? Unprotected?

COMEY: Correct. Not a State Department e-mail system.

LYNCH: Right.

COMEY: Right.

LYNCH: He went rogue, so to speak. Right?

COMEY: I don't know whether I would say that.

LYNCH: All right. I'm not going to put words in your mouth.

Do you think this was careless for him to do that, to start -- get his own system.? He installed a laptop computer on a private line. " My personal e-mail account was on a laptop and allowed me direct access to anyone. Anyone online." That's his own statement.

I'm just trying to compare Secretaries of State because Secretary Powell has never been here.

As a matter of fact, when we asked him for his e-mails, unlike the 55,000 that we received from Secretary Clinton, he said, "I don't have any to turn over." This is a quote. This was on ABC this week. He explained, "I don't have any to turn over. I didn't keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files." But he was Secretary of State and he operated, you know, on a private system. Were you aware of that?

COMEY: Not at the time 15 years ago, but I am now.

LYNCH: Yes, okay.

So recently, well, back in October 2015, the State Department sent Secretary Powell a letter requesting that he contact his e-mail provider, AOL, to determine whether any of his e-mails are still on the unclassified systems. Are you aware of that ongoing investigation?

COMEY: I don't know of an investigation...

LYNCH: Well, that request for information from Secretary Powell, the former Secretary?

COMEY: Yes. Yes, I am.

LYNCH: You're aware of that. Are you surprised that he has never responded?

COMEY: I don't know enough to comment. I don't know exactly what conversation he had with the State Department.

LYNCH: I try to look at the -- where we have a lot of comparisons of other cases. And it seems like all the cases where prosecutions have gone forward, the subject of the investigation has demonstrated a clear intent to deliver classified information to a person or persons who were unauthorized to receive that.
...
CNN.com - Transcripts

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

BTW, revocation of her clearance does not actually require a law to be passed at all.

The power to grant security clearances resides with the Commander in Chief.

Acquaint yourself with this phrase: Separation of Powers.

I was in the military associated with a special ops group, none of my processing paperwork and background checks went through the commander-in-chief to determine whether or not I would be granted classified, secret, or top secret clearance. It helps to actually have prior military or government agency background in order to have a clear understanding of how security clearance is lost or obtained.

The Commander in Chief is the ultimate authority.
You really should know that.

If some podunk tried to revoke Hillary's security clearance, the president could 'em to pound sand.

The president's job is to appoint advisers to his cabinet, who is to tackle the "position" of Secretary of State . If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone, then any FBI or CIA investigations regarding a certain individual's conduct of handling government classified information would only be a formality, a political ruse if you will as only the president's opinion would be the final resulting factor to make such a determination.

" If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

 

[paperview]

The power to grant security clearances resides with the Commander in Chief.

Acquaint yourself with this phrase: Separation of Powers.

I was in the military associated with a special ops group, none of my processing paperwork and background checks went through the commander-in-chief to determine whether or not I would be granted classified, secret, or top secret clearance. It helps to actually have prior military or government agency background in order to have a clear understanding of how security clearance is lost or obtained.

The Commander in Chief is the ultimate authority.
You really should know that.

If some podunk tried to revoke Hillary's security clearance, the president could 'em to pound sand.

The president's job is to appoint advisers to his cabinet, who is to tackle the "position" of Secretary of State . If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone, then any FBI or CIA investigations regarding a certain individual's conduct of handling government classified information would only be a formality, a political ruse if you will as only the president's opinion would be the final resulting factor to make such a determination.

" If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

I'm not flip-flopping.

Try reading it again:
You said: " If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

And:



"The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

^ Know who said that?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It should be revoked.

Why?

And she shouldn't be President.

Why?

Nuff said.

Why?

Mrs Clinton should be subject to the same rules regarding the handling of government information as every government employee or military operative residing below her. The fact the rules no longer apply because of her position is the problem, and Congress as the legislative branch has the constitutional authority given to them to change it.

 

[SwimExpert]

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

Is this really so difficult for you to understand? Are you so ignorant to basic life experience that you are legitimately confused about this? Or are you just trolling?

I'd like to teach you a new word. It's a great big word, you might even see it on the SATs one day when you get older. The word is "delegation." Delegation is what happens when a primary person assigns a task to a secondary person. The act of delegation incurs with it some degree of both responsibility and authority to the secondary person who would not possess it naturally.

An example of delegation is the commissioning of military officers. Officers in the military require a commission from the President himself, as stated in the constitution of the United States. However, the President typically is not involved in the actual process, and rarely is involved in decision making (except for the very highest ranked posts in the military). Instead, these tasks and decisions are delegated to other people. The ultimate authority resides in the President. However, responsibility and authority to perform the duties is delegated to various underlings.

Delegation is a fundamental human interaction, and is essential for almost every human activity involving some form of hierarchy or authority. Anyone who has ever worked a job more complex then flipping burgers at McDonalds has encountered delegation on a frequent basis and would likely be familiar with the concept. Though apparently not you....

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I was in the military associated with a special ops group, none of my processing paperwork and background checks went through the commander-in-chief to determine whether or not I would be granted classified, secret, or top secret clearance. It helps to actually have prior military or government agency background in order to have a clear understanding of how security clearance is lost or obtained.

The Commander in Chief is the ultimate authority.
You really should know that.

If some podunk tried to revoke Hillary's security clearance, the president could 'em to pound sand.

The president's job is to appoint advisers to his cabinet, who is to tackle the "position" of Secretary of State . If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone, then any FBI or CIA investigations regarding a certain individual's conduct of handling government classified information would only be a formality, a political ruse if you will as only the president's opinion would be the final resulting factor to make such a determination.

" If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

I'm not flip-flopping.

Try reading it again:
You said: " If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

And:



"The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

^ Know who said that?

You most certainly did flip flop. You said the Commander-in-chief is the "ultimate authority" regarding security clearance. In your view the decision resides only with him and Hillary's clearance can't be removed because the president holds that power and decision. So an investigation by the CIA would carry no weight and can't be stripped because the president (according to you) has the overall ultimate authority behind Hillary's security clearance.

Ultimate authority also contradicts your "separation of powers" argument, as you are saying no one can oppose a president's decision. That's more in line with a dictatorship than an example of separation of powers.

That's my argument-
He doesn't hold the "ultimate authority" his position really just grants the president the ability to appoint advisers to his cabinet, such as who is to handle the position of Secretary of State. If he DID have the ultimate authority, then (as I have said before) any FBI and CIA investigation regarding an individual's conduct of handling classified information would only be a mere formality, a political ruse, because they wouldn't have any power behind their investigation as the president has the ultimate power and say.

Then in your next response you said that decision is left with those he appoints to handle the investigation. So which is it?

Does the FBI or CIA have the authority granted to them to remove an individual from a position that handles classified information, or is it a mere formality that carries no authority to remove and charge with an indictment?

I say again, I was placed in a position to handle classified information. I went through the process and the paperwork, and not one time did I have to wait for the Commander-in-Chief to grant me access. At the same time, there has been investigations through the military where clearance has been removed without authority of the president. That being said, clearances of handling classified information CAN most definitely be removed by a position of authority outside of the presidency. Now the president can make the choice to pardon Hillary if she is indicted, but if the investigation shows mishandling of sensitive government information she CAN be removed as a result of their findings apart from the president.

 

[paperview]

The Commander in Chief is the ultimate authority.
You really should know that.

If some podunk tried to revoke Hillary's security clearance, the president could 'em to pound sand.

The president's job is to appoint advisers to his cabinet, who is to tackle the "position" of Secretary of State . If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone, then any FBI or CIA investigations regarding a certain individual's conduct of handling government classified information would only be a formality, a political ruse if you will as only the president's opinion would be the final resulting factor to make such a determination.

" If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

I'm not flip-flopping.

Try reading it again:
You said: " If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

And:



"The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

^ Know who said that?

You most certainly did flip flop. You said the Commander-in-chief is the "ultimate authority" regarding security clearance. In your view the decision resides only with him and Hillary's clearance can't be removed because the president holds that power and decision. So an investigation by the CIA would carry no weight and can't be stripped because the president (according to you) has the overall ultimate authority behind Hillary's security clearance.

Ultimate authority also contradicts your "separation of powers" argument, as you are saying no one can oppose a president's decision. That's more in line with a dictatorship than an example of separation of powers.

That's my argument-
He doesn't hold the "ultimate authority" his position really just grants the president the ability to appoint advisers to his cabinet, such as who is to handle the position of Secretary of State. If he DID have the ultimate authority, then (as I have said before) any FBI and CIA investigation regarding an individual's conduct of handling classified information would only be a mere formality, a political ruse, because they wouldn't have any power behind their investigation as the president has the ultimate power and say.

Then in your next response you said that decision is left with those he appoints to handle the investigation. So which is it?

Does the FBI or CIA have the authority granted to them to remove an individual from a position that handles classified information, or is it a mere formality that carries no authority to remove and charge with an indictment?

I say again, I was placed in a position to handle classified information. I went through the process and the paperwork, and not one time did I have to wait for the Commander-in-Chief to grant me access. At the same time, there has been investigations through the military where clearance has been removed without authority of the president. That being said, clearances of handling classified information CAN most definitely be removed by a position of authority outside of the presidency. Now the president can make the choice to pardon Hillary if she is indicted, but if the investigation shows mishandling of sensitive government information she CAN be removed as a result of their findings apart from the president.

Wow. You are really really slow.

1. See the post about yours.

2. What part of this do you not get?

The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

[

The president's job is to appoint advisers to his cabinet, who is to tackle the "position" of Secretary of State . If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone, then any FBI or CIA investigations regarding a certain individual's conduct of handling government classified information would only be a formality, a political ruse if you will as only the president's opinion would be the final resulting factor to make such a determination.

" If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

I'm not flip-flopping.

Try reading it again:
You said: " If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

And:



"The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

^ Know who said that?

You most certainly did flip flop. You said the Commander-in-chief is the "ultimate authority" regarding security clearance. In your view the decision resides only with him and Hillary's clearance can't be removed because the president holds that power and decision. So an investigation by the CIA would carry no weight and can't be stripped because the president (according to you) has the overall ultimate authority behind Hillary's security clearance.

Ultimate authority also contradicts your "separation of powers" argument, as you are saying no one can oppose a president's decision. That's more in line with a dictatorship than an example of separation of powers.

That's my argument-
He doesn't hold the "ultimate authority" his position really just grants the president the ability to appoint advisers to his cabinet, such as who is to handle the position of Secretary of State. If he DID have the ultimate authority, then (as I have said before) any FBI and CIA investigation regarding an individual's conduct of handling classified information would only be a mere formality, a political ruse, because they wouldn't have any power behind their investigation as the president has the ultimate power and say.

Then in your next response you said that decision is left with those he appoints to handle the investigation. So which is it?

Does the FBI or CIA have the authority granted to them to remove an individual from a position that handles classified information, or is it a mere formality that carries no authority to remove and charge with an indictment?

I say again, I was placed in a position to handle classified information. I went through the process and the paperwork, and not one time did I have to wait for the Commander-in-Chief to grant me access. At the same time, there has been investigations through the military where clearance has been removed without authority of the president. That being said, clearances of handling classified information CAN most definitely be removed by a position of authority outside of the presidency. Now the president can make the choice to pardon Hillary if she is indicted, but if the investigation shows mishandling of sensitive government information she CAN be removed as a result of their findings apart from the president.

Wow. You are really really slow.

1. See the post about yours.

2. What part of this do you not get?

The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

The president's power is to GRANT a position that allows them to handle classified information on the basis they are held trustworthy. If an FBI or CIA investigation shows that she is to have mishandled sensitive government information she can most certainly undergo proceedings to remove her from that position regardless of the president's ability to grant.

It's really not that complicated.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

Is this really so difficult for you to understand? Are you so ignorant to basic life experience that you are legitimately confused about this? Or are you just trolling?

I'd like to teach you a new word. It's a great big word, you might even see it on the SATs one day when you get older. The word is "delegation." Delegation is what happens when a primary person assigns a task to a secondary person. The act of delegation incurs with it some degree of both responsibility and authority to the secondary person who would not possess it naturally.

An example of delegation is the commissioning of military officers. Officers in the military require a commission from the President himself, as stated in the constitution of the United States. However, the President typically is not involved in the actual process, and rarely is involved in decision making (except for the very highest ranked posts in the military). Instead, these tasks and decisions are delegated to other people. The ultimate authority resides in the President. However, responsibility and authority to perform the duties is delegated to various underlings.

Delegation is a fundamental human interaction, and is essential for almost every human activity involving some form of hierarchy or authority. Anyone who has ever worked a job more complex then flipping burgers at McDonalds has encountered delegation on a frequent basis and would likely be familiar with the concept. Though apparently not you....

I know some may be slow but maybe someone is picking up my point. Which has been, the CIA and the FBI are big enough boys to handle removing an individual from a position of handling classified information if their investigation prompts a need for criminal proceedings through a need to indict. They do not NEED the president's permission to hold their hand from a position of "ultimate authority". Hillary can be removed outside of the views of the president, as I was granted clearance outside of the knowledge and opinion of the president. The president can't simply override the decisions of those he has placed in authority under him to do their job.

Is it really that complex and complicated for some liberals to figure out?

 

[paperview]

[

" If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

I'm not flip-flopping.

Try reading it again:
You said: " If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

And:



"The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

^ Know who said that?

You most certainly did flip flop. You said the Commander-in-chief is the "ultimate authority" regarding security clearance. In your view the decision resides only with him and Hillary's clearance can't be removed because the president holds that power and decision. So an investigation by the CIA would carry no weight and can't be stripped because the president (according to you) has the overall ultimate authority behind Hillary's security clearance.

Ultimate authority also contradicts your "separation of powers" argument, as you are saying no one can oppose a president's decision. That's more in line with a dictatorship than an example of separation of powers.

That's my argument-
He doesn't hold the "ultimate authority" his position really just grants the president the ability to appoint advisers to his cabinet, such as who is to handle the position of Secretary of State. If he DID have the ultimate authority, then (as I have said before) any FBI and CIA investigation regarding an individual's conduct of handling classified information would only be a mere formality, a political ruse, because they wouldn't have any power behind their investigation as the president has the ultimate power and say.

Then in your next response you said that decision is left with those he appoints to handle the investigation. So which is it?

Does the FBI or CIA have the authority granted to them to remove an individual from a position that handles classified information, or is it a mere formality that carries no authority to remove and charge with an indictment?

I say again, I was placed in a position to handle classified information. I went through the process and the paperwork, and not one time did I have to wait for the Commander-in-Chief to grant me access. At the same time, there has been investigations through the military where clearance has been removed without authority of the president. That being said, clearances of handling classified information CAN most definitely be removed by a position of authority outside of the presidency. Now the president can make the choice to pardon Hillary if she is indicted, but if the investigation shows mishandling of sensitive government information she CAN be removed as a result of their findings apart from the president.

Wow. You are really really slow.

1. See the post about yours.

2. What part of this do you not get?

The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

The president's power is to GRANT a position that allows them to handle classified information on the basis they are held trustworthy. If an FBI or CIA investigation shows that she is to have mishandled sensitive government information she can most certainly undergo proceedings to remove her from that position regardless of the president's ability to grant.

It's really not that complicated.

No.

No.

No.

You are wrong.

2. What part of this do you not get?

The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

[

You said the power to "grant" security clearances resides with the Commander-in-Chief, so according to you he holds the key to whether someone will be able to obtain security clearance. Now you want to say it's left to those advisors he appoints. Care to flip flop some more on who has the power to grant or strip away someone's ability to receive government sensitive information? Is it the only in the president's power and there is nothing Congress or anyone has a say regarding that or not? It doesn't appear you have thought this through regarding where this power (in the end) really resides.

I'm not flip-flopping.

Try reading it again:
You said: " If revoking security clearance was left solely to the Commander-in-Chief alone..."

That's not what I said, is it?

He generally leaves that decision with people he appoints who have the authority --

but at any time, as CiC, he is the the ultimate authority over all of them and can override any decision they make on revoking or providing .

And:



"The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

^ Know who said that?

You most certainly did flip flop. You said the Commander-in-chief is the "ultimate authority" regarding security clearance. In your view the decision resides only with him and Hillary's clearance can't be removed because the president holds that power and decision. So an investigation by the CIA would carry no weight and can't be stripped because the president (according to you) has the overall ultimate authority behind Hillary's security clearance.

Ultimate authority also contradicts your "separation of powers" argument, as you are saying no one can oppose a president's decision. That's more in line with a dictatorship than an example of separation of powers.

That's my argument-
He doesn't hold the "ultimate authority" his position really just grants the president the ability to appoint advisers to his cabinet, such as who is to handle the position of Secretary of State. If he DID have the ultimate authority, then (as I have said before) any FBI and CIA investigation regarding an individual's conduct of handling classified information would only be a mere formality, a political ruse, because they wouldn't have any power behind their investigation as the president has the ultimate power and say.

Then in your next response you said that decision is left with those he appoints to handle the investigation. So which is it?

Does the FBI or CIA have the authority granted to them to remove an individual from a position that handles classified information, or is it a mere formality that carries no authority to remove and charge with an indictment?

I say again, I was placed in a position to handle classified information. I went through the process and the paperwork, and not one time did I have to wait for the Commander-in-Chief to grant me access. At the same time, there has been investigations through the military where clearance has been removed without authority of the president. That being said, clearances of handling classified information CAN most definitely be removed by a position of authority outside of the presidency. Now the president can make the choice to pardon Hillary if she is indicted, but if the investigation shows mishandling of sensitive government information she CAN be removed as a result of their findings apart from the president.

Wow. You are really really slow.

1. See the post about yours.

2. What part of this do you not get?

The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

The president's power is to GRANT a position that allows them to handle classified information on the basis they are held trustworthy. If an FBI or CIA investigation shows that she is to have mishandled sensitive government information she can most certainly undergo proceedings to remove her from that position regardless of the president's ability to grant.

It's really not that complicated.

No.

No.

No.

You are wrong.

2. What part of this do you not get?

The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Sorry but if Hillary is found to have mishandled classified information through an FBI investigation, then she is not found to be trustworthy and competent in the handling of government sensitive information. Investigations can be ongoing, a criminal indictment made, and she CAN be made to step down from her position. It's called a criminal indictment.

Now President Obama does have the choice to pardon her. Outside of that, there are criminal proceedings that can have her removed, if the investigation warrants it to go further

 

[paperview]

Yes, Virginia, some people really are that dense. ^

 

[paperview]

"Investigations can be ongoing, a criminal indictment made"

There will be no criminal indictment. Deal with it.

"and she CAN be made to step down from her position."

What position? Presidential candidate?

:

 

[buckeye45_73]

But the ever over-reaching GOPpers are going to try.

They introduced a bill, called the TRUST Act:

"Today U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) joined Senator Core Gardner (R-CO) and Senator Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) to introduce legislation aimed at revoking the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security clearance."
Sen. Tim Scott joins group aimed at revoking Clinton's security clearance | WCIV

A bill to prohibit any officer or employee of the Federal Government who has exercised extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information from being granted or retaining a security clearance.

“If the FBI won’t recommend action based on its findings, Congress will. At the very least, Secretary Clinton should not have access to classified information and our bill makes sure of it,” Gardner said in a statement.

Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance | TheHill'

Now, five points to the first person who can tell us why this bill

1) will never pass
2) wouldn't affect Hillary
3) is unconstitutional

Anything for the cause.......eh comrade?

Anything else to say about the idiots who wrote that bill?

It's the right thing to do, and you support a traitor that does not care about the national security of the united states, but we knew that when she let an ambassador die, I guess he didn't contribute enough to the central committee.

And she murdered Vince Foster with her bare hands.

Which video caused orlando?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

As those who are actually served in the military and are familiar with the process and seriousness surrounding classified information can testify, you are not made to sit and wait for the Commander-in-Chief to get his approval and make the determination if you are really indeed fit to receive classified information. As SwimExoert was able to figure out, there are individuals who are given that authority ... who are fully capable of handling that duty over the need to get the president involved. In short they are fully competent to handle that determination and governing responsibility.

Now enter the FBI, who we are told are fully capable to handle an independent investigation, that would mean without the interference from the president or influence from his administration so as to remain unbiased.

As Paperview points out the Commander-in-Chief can grant someone the ability to obtain security clearance WHEN that individual has been deemed trustworthy under that position to be given the responsibility to handle government sensitive information [there lies the determining factor, the ability to maintain that trustworthiness]. Now that trustworthiness, as well as their responsibility to handle sensitive government information, would include that individual's ability of using "good judgement". Now with the findings of IG stating she deliberately violated federal procedure, that would place the trustworthiness or good judgment into question. So when the FBI conducts their own investigation, meant to be independent of political influence and with their own likewise delegated authority, for the president to make his own determination (as paperview believes he can do) would undermine the delegated authority given to the FBI investigation. Likewise you could never say any executive final determination would NOT be biased or politically motivated, when you so adamantly believe the Commander-in-Chief holds the ultimate authority. There most certainly would be political bias based on that belief.


Yet it's interesting to note how liberals in the past have come to the criticism of President George W Bush, to include then senator Obama, in saying Bush had overreached or even abused his executive authority. Yet now we are seeing liberals making every little excuse they can to try and justify the right of Obama's use of his executive influence. Only to find Obama has used more executive power to influence political decisions than was initially criticized of President Bush. Can there be any more hypocrisy for the use and excuse of executive power, than we have found during these nearly 8 years of Obama?

 

[paperview]

As those who are actually served in the military and are familiar with the process and seriousness surrounding classified information can testify, you are not made to sit and wait for the Commander-in-Chief to get his approval and make the determination if you are really indeed fit to receive classified information. As SwimExoert was able to figure out, there are individuals who are given that authority ... who are fully capable of handling that duty over the need to get the president involved. In short they are fully competent to handle that determination and governing responsibility.

Now enter the FBI, who we are told are fully capable to handle an independent investigation, that would mean without the interference from the president or influence from his administration so as to remain unbiased.

As Paperview points out the Commander-in-Chief can grant someone the ability to obtain security clearance WHEN that individual has been deemed trustworthy under that position to be given the responsibility to handle government sensitive information [there lies the determining factor, the ability to maintain that trustworthiness]. Now that trustworthiness, as well as their responsibility to handle sensitive government information, would include that individual's ability of using "good judgement". Now with the findings of IG stating she deliberately violated federal procedure, that would place the trustworthiness or good judgment into question. So when the FBI conducts their own investigation, meant to be independent of political influence and with their own likewise delegated authority, for the president to make his own determination (as paperview believes he can do) would undermine the delegated authority given to the FBI investigation. Likewise you could never say any executive final determination would NOT be biased or politically motivated, when you so adamantly believe the Commander-in-Chief holds the ultimate authority. There most certainly would be political bias based on that belief.


Yet it's interesting to note how liberals in the past have come to the criticism of President George W Bush, to include then senator Obama, in saying Bush had overreached or even abused his executive authority. Yet now we are seeing liberals making every little excuse they can to try and justify the right of Obama's use of his executive influence. Only to find Obama has used more executive power to influence political decisions than was initially criticized of President Bush. Can there be any more hypocrisy for the use and excuse of executive power, than we have found during these nearly 8 years of Obama?

Whole lot of words there not amounting to diddlysquat or refute what I said.

Why is it, Shak, after me placing this information for you here at least five times, you completely ignore it? Can you explain yourself?


The President....is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2.

His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

 

[buckeye45_73]

"Investigations can be ongoing, a criminal indictment made"

There will be no criminal indictment. Deal with it.

"and she CAN be made to step down from her position."

What position? Presidential candidate?

:

The problem is she is guilty, we know she's guilty and so do the American People.

Majority Disapprove of Not Charging Clinton

Just because her friends in High Places didn't charge her, doesn't mean she is worth a fuck.