No Security Clearance For Hillary?

[Lumpy 1]

Well, she proved that she can't be trusted with classified information of any sort, she represents multiple threats to the United States, the American people and the world community.

basically, she's unqualified to be President of the United States..

.... some banana republic maybe but America... sheesh

 

[tyroneweaver]

What else does she have to work for. She certainly doesn't have a marriage.

 

[Sunni Man]

Hillary is just misunderstood. .......

 

[Lumpy 1]

Gads, talk about your wealthy white privilege and special rights way way above us all for the rich and powerful.

I guess Democrats have flip flopped on those perspectives....

poor dupes, they're that desperate is my guess..

 

[waltky]

The real question is...

... why isn't she being prosecuted...

... for lying to the FBI...

... that is a federal offense.

 

[Lumpy 1]

What else does she have to work for. She certainly doesn't have a marriage.

First BJ Bill now this....

I hear toga sales may be waaaaay up next year in Washington D.C....

 

[Auld Phart]

 

[Lumpy 1]

The real question is...

... why isn't she being prosecuted...

... for lying to the FBI...

... that is a federal offense.

rigged and above the law, seems to fit well.

 

[Jackson]

The real question is...

... why isn't she being prosecuted...

... for lying to the FBI...

... that is a federal offense.

I hope that question is asked. I am anxious to hear the answer!

 

[Sunni Man]

 

[Confounding]

The real question is...

... why isn't she being prosecuted...

... for lying to the FBI...

... that is a federal offense.

Her last name is Clinton.

 

[Rozman]

I think it will be interesting to have Hilly sitting behind the desk in the oval office
and the heads of the departments for intelligence come in to give the daily
briefing and the Hidebeast is asked to leave because she doesn't have the
security clearance .....

Oooooops... I can't be trusted.....

 

[Rozman]

 

[Jackson]

Something that went through my brain...

Comey went far in explaining the possible criminal actions of Clinton before he announced he would not be prosecuting her for...what? Treason? Negligence in handling Top Secret information? Intent?

In explaining all that went on he did outline 1) Her lying; 2) Reasons for taking away her TS clearance and 3) allowing persons without security clearance to read Top Secret information, namely her attorney, Kendall.

In determining "intent", Comey does not address the email that said Clinton DID NOT want anyone reading her emails. The public and Congress has that information and would, in all speculation, would want to know why that didn't prove "intent."

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

It has been discussed that those who have TS clearanced, sign a document stating how to properly handle TS information and their intention to protect that information on gov't. controlled servers allowing archiving of all emails of the State Dept.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

Clinton's emails were handled so improperly that is assumed they were likely hacked by hostile entities.

We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,

What is "willful intent..." Generally, that would indicate the act was not "an unforeseeable act." Or, the Top Secret information was put on a private, unsecured server by mistake. Clinton had every intention of putting that information on the unsecured server in the closet in her home. She even wrote in an email she didn't want anyone to have access to her emails!

What is not question is Sidney Bloomenthal's access to top secret emails and how Hillary used Bloomenthal for intelligence even after the president said he could not be hired by that State Dept. as Hillary had desired. She used him anyway, paying him $10,000 a month from the Clinton Foundation Fund. No questions from the president or the FBI? He did not have TS clearance. But Hillary wanted him in Libya gathering intelligence and the hell with the president! Is that what the Clinton Foundation is used for? No questions from the FBI?

Many questions remain. I hope they ask them and we hear the answers.

 

[Claudette]

Something that went through my brain...

Comey went far in explaining the possible criminal actions of Clinton before he announced he would not be prosecuting her for...what? Treason? Negligence in handling Top Secret information? Intent?

In explaining all that went on he did outline 1) Her lying; 2) Reasons for taking away her TS clearance and 3) allowing persons without security clearance to read Top Secret information, namely her attorney, Kendall.

In determining "intent", Comey does not address the email that said Clinton DID NOT want anyone reading her emails. The public and Congress has that information and would, in all speculation, would want to know why that didn't prove "intent."

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

It has been discussed that those who have TS clearanced, sign a document stating how to properly handle TS information and their intention to protect that information on gov't. controlled servers allowing archiving of all emails of the State Dept.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

Clinton's emails were handled so improperly that is assumed they were likely hacked by hostile entities.

We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,

What is "willful intent..." Generally, that would indicate the act was not "an unforeseeable act." Or, the Top Secret information was put on a private, unsecured server by mistake. Clinton had every intention of putting that information on the unsecured server in the closet in her home. She even wrote in an email she didn't want anyone to have access to her emails!

What is not question is Sidney Bloomenthal's access to top secret emails and how Hillary used Bloomenthal for intelligence even after the president said he could not be hired by that State Dept. as Hillary had desired. She used him anyway, paying him $10,000 a month from the Clinton Foundation Fund. No questions from the president or the FBI? He did not have TS clearance. But Hillary wanted him in Libya gathering intelligence and the hell with the president! Is that what the Clinton Foundation is used for? No questions from the FBI?

Many questions remain. I hope they ask them and we hear the answers.

Oh I think his hands were tied. But he lost no time telling one and all that Hitlery, her staff and her State department were careless, stupid and incompetent.

She will never be held accountable for her actions. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks she will.

 

[Jackson]

Something that went through my brain...

Comey went far in explaining the possible criminal actions of Clinton before he announced he would not be prosecuting her for...what? Treason? Negligence in handling Top Secret information? Intent?

In explaining all that went on he did outline 1) Her lying; 2) Reasons for taking away her TS clearance and 3) allowing persons without security clearance to read Top Secret information, namely her attorney, Kendall.

In determining "intent", Comey does not address the email that said Clinton DID NOT want anyone reading her emails. The public and Congress has that information and would, in all speculation, would want to know why that didn't prove "intent."

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

It has been discussed that those who have TS clearanced, sign a document stating how to properly handle TS information and their intention to protect that information on gov't. controlled servers allowing archiving of all emails of the State Dept.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

Clinton's emails were handled so improperly that is assumed they were likely hacked by hostile entities.

We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,

What is "willful intent..." Generally, that would indicate the act was not "an unforeseeable act." Or, the Top Secret information was put on a private, unsecured server by mistake. Clinton had every intention of putting that information on the unsecured server in the closet in her home. She even wrote in an email she didn't want anyone to have access to her emails!

What is not question is Sidney Bloomenthal's access to top secret emails and how Hillary used Bloomenthal for intelligence even after the president said he could not be hired by that State Dept. as Hillary had desired. She used him anyway, paying him $10,000 a month from the Clinton Foundation Fund. No questions from the president or the FBI? He did not have TS clearance. But Hillary wanted him in Libya gathering intelligence and the hell with the president! Is that what the Clinton Foundation is used for? No questions from the FBI?

Many questions remain. I hope they ask them and we hear the answers.

Oh I think his hands were tied. But he lost no time telling one and all that Hitlery, her staff and her State department were careless, stupid and incompetent.

She will never be held accountable for her actions. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks she will.

I understand, but I understand "intent" is not part of the equation for extreme carelessness.

Was he being so detailed in her pathetic actions so Congress would act? Was he hoping Congress would take action?

Since intent is not needed for the violation of negligent handling of TS documents, why did he say that was the reason for not prosecuting?

 

[Rozman]

I can't believe it....
Kicked out of the Oval office because I don't have security clearance....
Well I guess I will go take a dump....

 

[Jackson]

A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.
Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf

See section 6,7, 8 for penalties for mishandling Top Secret materials. Her two aides, Abeni and Mills signed the same document.

 

[NOLA Gator]

But again the biggest concern is the Supreme Court and the "Constitution".

 

[waltky]

That should disqualify her from running for President...

Speaker Ryan formally asks that Clinton be denied classified data
Thu Jul 7, 2016 | WASHINGTON - The top elected U.S. Republican formally asked the country's intelligence chief not to give Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton any classified information during the election campaign, according to a letter released on Thursday.

House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan said in the letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that denying Clinton classified briefings during her run for the presidency would be an appropriate sanction for her improper handling of classified emails while secretary of state. Presidential candidates normally get access to classified information once they are formally nominated.

The issue of Clinton's use of private email servers during her tenure as secretary of state has cast a cloud over her presidential campaign for the Nov. 8 election, raised questions among voters about her trustworthiness and given presidential rival Donald Trump an avenue of attack. Ryan's letter comes as congressional Republicans will get their first chance to grill FBI Director James Comey when he goes to Capitol Hill on Thursday to explain his decision not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton after a year-long investigation of her handling of classified emails while at state.

Comey's testimony before the House Oversight Committee at 10 a.m. (1400 GMT) will be the first time he has taken questions publicly since his announcement this week that the FBI was not recommending charges against Clinton. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch has accepted the FBI recommendation and will appear at a separate hearing next Tuesday. Comey said on Tuesday that 110 classified emails passed through Clinton's servers, which were not kept on a secure government server. He rebuked the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for "extremely careless" handling of classified information but said no reasonable prosecutor would charge her or her staff criminally.

The Clinton campaign said it was pleased at the FBI's announcement and called the Republican-led call for Comey's hearing a "taxpayer-funded sham of an inquiry" intended to hurt Clinton politically. The Oversight Committee is chaired by Republican U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz, known for his persistent questioning of Obama administration officials.

REPUTATION FOR INDEPENDENCE