sweetpeasmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,592
Jun 27, 2014 14:04:01 GMT
|
Post by sweetpeasmom on Jul 6, 2016 21:50:52 GMT
So as far as I can tell, there is no requirement to any level of security clearance to run for or be President. So even if they took her clearance away (which how do you sanction someone who doesn't even work there anymore?), she technically doesn't need to have it to be able to run for office. Am I wrong on this? I can't find any website that requires it. Even if it is taken away, if she is elected it would come back. I can see it hurting votes to prevent her from being elected, but it isn't a requirement to run. If I am wrong, please let me know. Google isn't coming up with much this afternoon. Unfortunately, this is what I heard today too. Which really sucks. You'd think the top most position would need the most clearance. If that person can't be trusted with top secret info.... Save
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 6, 2016 21:57:27 GMT
So as far as I can tell, there is no requirement to any level of security clearance to run for or be President. So even if they took her clearance away (which how do you sanction someone who doesn't even work there anymore?), she technically doesn't need to have it to be able to run for office. Am I wrong on this? I can't find any website that requires it. Even if it is taken away, if she is elected it would come back. I can see it hurting votes to prevent her from being elected, but it isn't a requirement to run. If I am wrong, please let me know. Google isn't coming up with much this afternoon. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was the official Republican VP nominee for the 2012 election after the Republican convention. He was then included on high level security information. Ryan has called for blocking Hillary's access to classified information in light of actions the FBI director called 'extremely careless.'That doesn't fully answer your question, but it is an important partial answer.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 10:31:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 22:41:48 GMT
I am about to commit a MAJOR pea faux pas, but I will admit to not having read anything past page 1 of this thread.
I'm not at all surprised. I knew that some how, some way, HRC would never be held accountable for her negligence and lies. She's not only a Democrat, but a Clinton.
For months, all I heard was that "intent" was not needed. Showing her carelessness and negligence was enough of a crime to warrant charges. What a shock to learn that they've now re-written the statute and thrown intent in there.
As much as HRC supporters may see this as a "win", while she may not face charges, I find it difficult to believe that having the FBI Director stand there for 15 minutes and call you careless, incompetent and a liar can be seen as a win or even remotely a positive thing...but I guess it is what it is. Comey said "any reasonable person" would've known that the information she was sharing via her private server was not safe to be sharing. Yet this is the woman that the Democrats will vote for? She doesn't qualify as a "reasonable person", but somehow, she's qualified to become the President?
And of course on the other side, we've got Trump.
Either way, this nation does not stand a chance.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 6, 2016 22:53:37 GMT
I am about to commit a MAJOR pea faux pas, but I will admit to not having read anything past page 1 of this thread. Say it isn't so!
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 6, 2016 22:55:44 GMT
So as far as I can tell, there is no requirement to any level of security clearance to run for or be President. So even if they took her clearance away (which how do you sanction someone who doesn't even work there anymore?), she technically doesn't need to have it to be able to run for office. Am I wrong on this? I can't find any website that requires it. Even if it is taken away, if she is elected it would come back. I can see it hurting votes to prevent her from being elected, but it isn't a requirement to run. If I am wrong, please let me know. Google isn't coming up with much this afternoon. Unfortunately, this is what I heard today too. Which really sucks. You'd think the top most position would need the most clearance. If that person can't be trusted with top secret info.... SavePart of getting a security clearance involves a pretty thorough investigation into whether or not you would be a good candidate to be blackmailed. Not only can't the woman safeguard the basic information in her care, but I fear the questionable things that have come to light when she was Secretary of State and timely donations to the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative by foreign entities would make her vulnerable in that regard as well.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 6, 2016 22:56:14 GMT
Thank you. I am relieved to know you don't buy into that filthy nonsense. And for the record, I latched onto your post because it was the last one I saw on the topic. I was already fired up from carly 's post and the likes on it. Oh please, I highly doubt anyone believes this "filthy nonsense." Carly's post is a reaction to the travesty of justice. It seems that it's "not remotely funny" because it's anti-Hillary. If something similar but anti-Trump was shown on any late-night TV show, it would be considered hilarious. I would not find it hilarious, no matter who it was about.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 6, 2016 23:00:41 GMT
I said it was not remotely funny because accusing someone of murder, having body counts, etc is just not funny, baseless, and I would have said the same thing if it would have been Trump too. The level that those few go to smear, lie, hate on someone that they don't like is intensifying. NO ONE should be saying that HC (or anyone else for that matter) is a murderer/add to her body count trail--it's just shameful. As of late, the most horrid attacking of any of the candidates so far have been from just a few on this board and are all Republican's. Those who are doing just that have been so disrespectful to the others asking, seeking, wanting information or are tired of being called names--spitting out "liberal" or "democrat" as if those words meant the same as terminal illnesses, the plague or child rapist. I guess it depends on which side you relate more to. I have mostly lurked on the political threads and I notice liberals and democrats can do their fair share of being disrespectful, condescending and nasty as well. I truly wish it didn't have to be like this, it doesn't make sense to me how everyone can be so black and white, us vs. them. Can't it be "well, I think the Republican (or Democratic) point of view makes the most sense overall, but I agree with the Democrats (or Republicans) on X, Y, and Z issues." I know that is ridiculous and naive. You can tell I am not the most politically savvy person. It's hard even for those of us who have never paid much attention to it not to get riled up during this election. You, me & Cookies should start our own little third party - at least on here.
I agree with you 10000000%
|
|
|
Post by secondlife on Jul 6, 2016 23:21:01 GMT
So as far as I can tell, there is no requirement to any level of security clearance to run for or be President. So even if they took her clearance away (which how do you sanction someone who doesn't even work there anymore?), she technically doesn't need to have it to be able to run for office. Am I wrong on this? I can't find any website that requires it. Even if it is taken away, if she is elected it would come back. I can see it hurting votes to prevent her from being elected, but it isn't a requirement to run. If I am wrong, please let me know. Google isn't coming up with much this afternoon. I was just having this conversation with a friend who works in the intel community and manages clearances for employees. He says that the President holds a security clearance that is basically the clearance granted to the President and direct advisers alone. You don't hear about it because it's not a normal government clearance. Hillary has already held that clearance and it would simply be reinstated (your clearance is active as long as you are doing cleared work - she would have lapsed her clearance when she left her post as Secretary of State and it would be reactivated upon her official candidacy). The election and the clearance process for normal cleared workers are completely separate. But the President gets a clearance that is granted by virtue of being President, the President is not chosen by virtue of his or her clearability. Basically the only reason an elected President wouldn't keep a clearance is if he or she were impeached (ETA and convicted) or convicted of a felony or something like that. In which case there are bigger problems. That information could be incorrect in places but that's what I'm hearing from someone who does clearance investigation for a living.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 6, 2016 23:48:25 GMT
Basically the only reason an elected President wouldn't keep a clearance is if he or she were impeached or convicted of a felony or something like that. So the fact that Bill Clinton was impeached would make him ineligible for a security clearance to work in his wife's proposed administration. And of course, based on her actions, she is not eligible for a security clearance either. I think I'll just curl up into a fetal position now and save myself the effort later.
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Jul 6, 2016 23:53:42 GMT
Basically the only reason an elected President wouldn't keep a clearance is if he or she were impeached or convicted of a felony or something like that. So the fact that Bill Clinton was impeached would make him ineligible for a security clearance to work in his wife's proposed administration. And of course, based on her actions, she is not eligible for a security clearance either. I think I'll just curl up into a fetal position now and save myself the effort later. I really and truly do not know how we got to this place. I just finished reading the Trump/Bill?Epstein thread and just about puked.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 10:31:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2016 0:16:53 GMT
Basically the only reason an elected President wouldn't keep a clearance is if he or she were impeached or convicted of a felony or something like that. So the fact that Bill Clinton was impeached would make him ineligible for a security clearance to work in his wife's proposed administration. And of course, based on her actions, she is not eligible for a security clearance either. I think I'll just curl up into a fetal position now and save myself the effort later. Hmmmmmm So, does that explain why, despite the evidence of intent, Comey "could find no evidence of intent" and despite the similar cases of mishandling of classified information that brought criminal charges, Comey said, “we cannot find a similar case that would support bringing criminal charges”?
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 7, 2016 0:20:37 GMT
Oh, crud. The board just ate my post.
In a nutshell, I was pointing out that "impeach" = to be accused or charged, not convicted. President Clinton was impeached and then acquitted by the Senate.
If they didn't subsequently revoke his security clearance for the rest of his second presidential term, they ain't gonna' do it just because his wife becomes president.
-----------------
(Full disclosure: I only read the last half a page of posts.)
|
|
|
Post by secondlife on Jul 7, 2016 0:29:51 GMT
<snip> Basically the only reason an elected President wouldn't keep a clearance is if he or she were impeached or convicted of a felony or something like that. I'm worse than @gajenny : I've only read the last seven posts of this thread, which is a pretty compelling reason not to jump in, but here goes... Why would a president lose his security clearance if he were impeached? To impeach means to accuse...to charge. You can be impeached and convicted or be impeached and acquitted. (And as we know, the Senate did the latter with President Clinton.) It doesn't make sense that Mr. Clinton would be ineligible to serve in any position in his wife's administration that would require a security clearance because he was charged. (That's not your conclusion, but the conclusion of other posters after you.) You are correct - my wording was imprecise. Impeached and convicted. Bill Clinton might or might not be eligible for a clearance, that I can't speculate on. I would assume anyone without an actual felony conviction who was appointed by the President would receive the proper clearance as a matter of course. Right or wrong I would assume that is a privilege of the role of President.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 7, 2016 1:31:54 GMT
...I'm speaking philosophically, here, in this post-- or maybe 'academically' is the more correct term. But in light of the thread regarding watching / not watching news, the information in this thread, and the thread about Donald Trump's sexual misconduct with minors sexual assault charge thread:
My question is this: In regards to the presidential race, why do we all spend sooooo much time on this board trying to convince each other that one side is 'right' and the other side is 'wrong' when it is pretty clear that they BOTH suck, they've BOTH had questionable business dealings, and they BOTH have somewhat questionable ethics??
(perhaps it's more of a rhetorical question than anything... and I swear, I'm not trying to be hand-slappy, although re-reading what I've written in the rest of my post, it might sound like it... but I really am not trying to be, I promise-- just thinking out loud through my keyboard.)
It's pretty clear that *this* is what high-level politics has come to in this country in this day and age, at the presidential level and most probably the federal Congressional level, as well-- can anything be done to STOP this freight train of government back-scratching and pork-padding legislating and corporate lobbying?? Congressional term limits would be nice, but how do you get congresspeople to pass a bill to put themselves 'out of business' so to speak?? Maybe a major overhaul of the election system a la Australia or Britain (where it's relatively short and the richest people aren't the only ones who can play the politics game)?? How do we get off this track?? I mean, right at the moment, these two people ARE the presumptive candidates-- are threads like this actually meant to change people's opinions to vote for 'the other guy' instead of the person they were planning on voting for, or are they more as a 'vent' type of thread??
--I guess I'm just wondering, isn't trying to figure THAT out more constructive than the endless 'he said, she said' or 'he did this, she did that' sort of thing that we've been debating here for months?? It's pretty obvious that no one's opinion is really going to be swayed... or CAN anything be done to change the Twilight Zone political climate in which we've found ourselves??
(I don't necessarily expect anyone to answer any of these questions; like I said, I'm just thinking out loud via my keyboard.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 10:31:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2016 1:36:50 GMT
This is such a great question. Why are we all so mean to each other, in the name of these two awful people? We should unite in outrage that this is what we have to choose from.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Jul 7, 2016 13:39:01 GMT
...I'm speaking philosophically, here, in this post-- or maybe 'academically' is the more correct term. But in light of the thread regarding watching / not watching news, the information in this thread, and the thread about Donald Trump's sexual misconduct with minors sexual assault charge thread: My question is this: In regards to the presidential race, why do we all spend sooooo much time on this board trying to convince each other that one side is 'right' and the other side is 'wrong' when it is pretty clear that they BOTH suck, they've BOTH had questionable business dealings, and they BOTH have somewhat questionable ethics?? (perhaps it's more of a rhetorical question than anything... and I swear, I'm not trying to be hand-slappy, although re-reading what I've written in the rest of my post, it might sound like it... but I really am not trying to be, I promise-- just thinking out loud through my keyboard.) It's pretty clear that *this* is what high-level politics has come to in this country in this day and age, at the presidential level and most probably the federal Congressional level, as well-- can anything be done to STOP this freight train of government back-scratching and pork-padding legislating and corporate lobbying?? Congressional term limits would be nice, but how do you get congresspeople to pass a bill to put themselves 'out of business' so to speak?? Maybe a major overhaul of the election system a la Australia or Britain (where it's relatively short and the richest people aren't the only ones who can play the politics game)?? How do we get off this track?? I mean, right at the moment, these two people ARE the presumptive candidates-- are threads like this actually meant to change people's opinions to vote for 'the other guy' instead of the person they were planning on voting for, or are they more as a 'vent' type of thread?? --I guess I'm just wondering, isn't trying to figure THAT out more constructive than the endless 'he said, she said' or 'he did this, she did that' sort of thing that we've been debating here for months?? It's pretty obvious that no one's opinion is really going to be swayed... or CAN anything be done to change the Twilight Zone political climate in which we've found ourselves?? (I don't necessarily expect anyone to answer any of these questions; like I said, I'm just thinking out loud via my keyboard.) I agree with your post.
I will say for me I have multiple thought streams
1. I agree they both suck. I'm not sure what to for voting. I'm investigating Gary Johnson but I'm really feeling stuck. I know I won't vote for Trump, but I'm not sure that I want to vote for Hilary. Lots to think about.
2. For the whole "the Bush guys did it too", for me it is more because of the personal attacks I received on this board (well the old 2peas) and some of those folks are still here and posting. It is frustrating to see folks be ok one time and not ok when it is the other guys. But I agree it in some ways it doesn't matter because it isn't ok either way, but still frustrating.
3. I wish we could find a way to start over. I don't think it is realistic for this election cycle, but I think everyone forgets about it after the fact. I also don't know how you get the parties to change - I think they like this mess they create. Both the DNC and the RNC have a lot of power. I'm not sure how we can change the process but I like the prospect of finding a way.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 7, 2016 13:46:59 GMT
...I'm speaking philosophically, here, in this post-- or maybe 'academically' is the more correct term. But in light of the thread regarding watching / not watching news, the information in this thread, and the thread about Donald Trump's sexual misconduct with minors sexual assault charge thread: My question is this: In regards to the presidential race, why do we all spend sooooo much time on this board trying to convince each other that one side is 'right' and the other side is 'wrong' when it is pretty clear that they BOTH suck, they've BOTH had questionable business dealings, and they BOTH have somewhat questionable ethics?? (perhaps it's more of a rhetorical question than anything... and I swear, I'm not trying to be hand-slappy, although re-reading what I've written in the rest of my post, it might sound like it... but I really am not trying to be, I promise-- just thinking out loud through my keyboard.) It's pretty clear that *this* is what high-level politics has come to in this country in this day and age, at the presidential level and most probably the federal Congressional level, as well-- can anything be done to STOP this freight train of government back-scratching and pork-padding legislating and corporate lobbying?? Congressional term limits would be nice, but how do you get congresspeople to pass a bill to put themselves 'out of business' so to speak?? Maybe a major overhaul of the election system a la Australia or Britain (where it's relatively short and the richest people aren't the only ones who can play the politics game)?? How do we get off this track?? I mean, right at the moment, these two people ARE the presumptive candidates-- are threads like this actually meant to change people's opinions to vote for 'the other guy' instead of the person they were planning on voting for, or are they more as a 'vent' type of thread?? --I guess I'm just wondering, isn't trying to figure THAT out more constructive than the endless 'he said, she said' or 'he did this, she did that' sort of thing that we've been debating here for months?? It's pretty obvious that no one's opinion is really going to be swayed... or CAN anything be done to change the Twilight Zone political climate in which we've found ourselves?? (I don't necessarily expect anyone to answer any of these questions; like I said, I'm just thinking out loud via my keyboard.) My question is, why aren't there more people out there thinking like this?
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 7, 2016 13:48:53 GMT
This is such a great question. Why are we all so mean to each other, in the name of these two awful people? We should unite in outrage that this is what we have to choose from. This is really where I am right now. I don't know if Gary Johnson is a perfect candidate, but he at least seems not to be a racist misogynist or a serial liar. We may not be able to control the candidates for the major parties, but we as a country can come together and show the major parties that they don't hold all the power. I'm advocating for that.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jul 7, 2016 13:49:35 GMT
...I'm speaking philosophically, here, in this post-- or maybe 'academically' is the more correct term. But in light of the thread regarding watching / not watching news, the information in this thread, and the thread about Donald Trump's sexual misconduct with minors sexual assault charge thread: My question is this: In regards to the presidential race, why do we all spend sooooo much time on this board trying to convince each other that one side is 'right' and the other side is 'wrong' when it is pretty clear that they BOTH suck, they've BOTH had questionable business dealings, and they BOTH have somewhat questionable ethics?? (perhaps it's more of a rhetorical question than anything... and I swear, I'm not trying to be hand-slappy, although re-reading what I've written in the rest of my post, it might sound like it... but I really am not trying to be, I promise-- just thinking out loud through my keyboard.) It's pretty clear that *this* is what high-level politics has come to in this country in this day and age, at the presidential level and most probably the federal Congressional level, as well-- can anything be done to STOP this freight train of government back-scratching and pork-padding legislating and corporate lobbying?? Congressional term limits would be nice, but how do you get congresspeople to pass a bill to put themselves 'out of business' so to speak?? Maybe a major overhaul of the election system a la Australia or Britain (where it's relatively short and the richest people aren't the only ones who can play the politics game)?? How do we get off this track?? I mean, right at the moment, these two people ARE the presumptive candidates-- are threads like this actually meant to change people's opinions to vote for 'the other guy' instead of the person they were planning on voting for, or are they more as a 'vent' type of thread?? --I guess I'm just wondering, isn't trying to figure THAT out more constructive than the endless 'he said, she said' or 'he did this, she did that' sort of thing that we've been debating here for months?? It's pretty obvious that no one's opinion is really going to be swayed... or CAN anything be done to change the Twilight Zone political climate in which we've found ourselves?? (I don't necessarily expect anyone to answer any of these questions; like I said, I'm just thinking out loud via my keyboard.) My question is, why aren't there more people out there thinking like this? There are. They just aren't as much fun to cover in the media.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 7, 2016 18:44:40 GMT
So, does that explain why, despite the evidence of intent, Comey "could find no evidence of intent" and despite the similar cases of mishandling of classified information that brought criminal charges, Comey said, “we cannot find a similar case that would support bringing criminal charges”? I listened to quite a bit of the hearing this morning and it was helpful. It seems that Comey is saying that there has been only one prosecution in the past 50 or more years under the statutes that apply to this case. I am still struggling with the "intent" part of it. I mean how do you set up a private server without intent? How do you not intend to store the classified information you know you will receive on that private server? He also differentiated between someone still active in government office vs. someone who has left government office. He indicated that there really isn't a darned thing that would apply since she is no longer in office. He refused to answer the question as to "would you give her a security clearance?" as hypothetical, although he did say that what she had done would come under "heavy consideration" if he was considering such a person for a security clearance. He also said that had someone done what she had done who worked for him they would be subject to anything from termination to severe sanctions. Although I believe Comey is an honorable man, you would have to be a robot not to have weighed the ramifications of charging a candidate for president, so I believe his threshold was incrementally higher than it would have been for an ordinary person who had done all those things. All in all, it certainly has been instructive and interesting.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 7, 2016 18:49:46 GMT
My question is this: In regards to the presidential race, why do we all spend sooooo much time on this board trying to convince each other that one side is 'right' and the other side is 'wrong' when it is pretty clear that they BOTH suck, they've BOTH had questionable business dealings, and they BOTH have somewhat questionable ethics?? Because politics is something that interests me and I think it's interesting and instructive to discuss. Sometimes things get heated, but that's to be expected. I try to keep the temperature turned down but don't always succeed. I don't think that there is anything wrong in discussing things. Merge started this thread with a "what do you think?" Evidently I need to go back and read the other thread you mentioned. Oh, and I have and continue to try to cut back my time on this sort of thing. But sometimes it's hard not to get sucked in. :-)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 10:31:24 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2016 19:50:37 GMT
So, does that explain why, despite the evidence of intent, Comey "could find no evidence of intent" and despite the similar cases of mishandling of classified information that brought criminal charges, Comey said, “we cannot find a similar case that would support bringing criminal charges”? I listened to quite a bit of the hearing this morning and it was helpful. It seems that Comey is saying that there has been only one prosecution in the past 50 or more years under the statutes that apply to this case. I am still struggling with the "intent" part of it. I mean how do you set up a private server without intent? How do you not intend to store the classified information you know you will receive on that private server? He also differentiated between someone still active in government office vs. someone who has left government office. He indicated that there really isn't a darned thing that would apply since she is no longer in office.
He refused to answer the question as to "would you give her a security clearance?" as hypothetical, although he did say that what she had done would come under "heavy consideration" if he was considering such a person for a security clearance. He also said that had someone done what she had done who worked for him they would be subject to anything from termination to severe sanctions. Although I believe Comey is an honorable man, you would have to be a robot not to have weighed the ramifications of charging a candidate for president, so I believe his threshold was incrementally higher than it would have been for an ordinary person who had done all those things. All in all, it certainly has been instructive and interesting. It makes absolutely no sense how David Petraeus was prosecuted for handing over classified information, but when she did it with her lawyers, he recommends no charges for Hillary. Someone said, it begs the question why we even need to have security clearances if it doesn't matter who sees the secure info. It was interesting to note that among other items that were NOT investigated, was whether or not she committed perjury. I also have to wonder about the claim that he can't do anything because she's no longer in office. Does that mean if she's elected President, she becomes fair game for prosecution?
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jul 7, 2016 19:56:57 GMT
So, does that explain why, despite the evidence of intent, Comey "could find no evidence of intent" and despite the similar cases of mishandling of classified information that brought criminal charges, Comey said, “we cannot find a similar case that would support bringing criminal charges”? I listened to quite a bit of the hearing this morning and it was helpful. It seems that Comey is saying that there has been only one prosecution in the past 50 or more years under the statutes that apply to this case. I am still struggling with the "intent" part of it. I mean how do you set up a private server without intent? How do you not intend to store the classified information you know you will receive on that private server? He also differentiated between someone still active in government office vs. someone who has left government office. He indicated that there really isn't a darned thing that would apply since she is no longer in office. He refused to answer the question as to "would you give her a security clearance?" as hypothetical, although he did say that what she had done would come under "heavy consideration" if he was considering such a person for a security clearance. He also said that had someone done what she had done who worked for him they would be subject to anything from termination to severe sanctions. Although I believe Comey is an honorable man, you would have to be a robot not to have weighed the ramifications of charging a candidate for president, so I believe his threshold was incrementally higher than it would have been for an ordinary person who had done all those things. All in all, it certainly has been instructive and interesting. I was home and watch almost all of it as well. It was interesting, and I thought that he was so much more patient than I would have been. I appreciated hearing all the comments from both sides of the aisle on how he was well thought of as someone who is not partisan and would follow the letter of the law. What I got out of the whole thing was that he followed the letter of law even though the spirit of the law may have been sketchy. I think he did his job well, and that the conclusion was appropriate considering the information they had. I also think that it is interesting that he was asked so many times about what he would do with an employee who did similar things. He answered repeatedly about consequences, but continued to maintain that it would not lead to prosecution. I felt, at one point, that the questioners were about hearing their own voices than what he had to say. And I agree with you completely, it was incredibly interesting and instructive and I do believe that the results were correct.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 7, 2016 20:47:35 GMT
Someone said, it begs the question why we even need to have security clearances if it doesn't matter who sees the secure info.
I find the cavalier manner shown in handling this information by Clinton and her staff not only boggles my mind but disturbs me a great deal. I had a security clearance for over 5 years and I can assure you, the culture of the company I worked for was to take that trust very seriously.
But, they made the decision they did, and I'm not going to drive myself crazy with what I think. Right now, I'll just thank Director Comey for handing the RNC the gift that he did in dispelling all the Clinton-versions of her actions over the past year.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 7, 2016 23:49:06 GMT
are threads like this actually meant to change people's opinions to vote for 'the other guy' instead of the person they were planning on voting for, or are they more as a 'vent' type of thread?? Vent. FWIW, my positions have definitely been influenced by these types of threads. Y'all sell yourselves short here.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 7, 2016 23:58:36 GMT
It was interesting to note that among other items that were NOT investigated, was whether or not she committed perjury. I also have to wonder about the claim that he can't do anything because she's no longer in office. Does that mean if she's elected President, she becomes fair game for prosecution? That sounds like another Clinton impeachment. How likely do you think that would be immediately following such a contentious election? Zip Zero?
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 8, 2016 0:05:33 GMT
Right now, I'll just thank Director Comey for handing the RNC the gift that he did in dispelling all the Clinton-versions of her actions over the past year. I can't speak for anyone else, but that kind of public .... reprimand, for lack of a better word.... would make me feel great shame in my actions. It is this utter lack of shame by the Clintons that has had me yelling at my tv/radio for 20+ years.
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 8, 2016 1:34:44 GMT
My question is this: In regards to the presidential race, why do we all spend sooooo much time on this board trying to convince each other that one side is 'right' and the other side is 'wrong' when it is pretty clear that they BOTH suck, they've BOTH had questionable business dealings, and they BOTH have somewhat questionable ethics?? Because politics is something that interests me and I think it's interesting and instructive to discuss. Sometimes things get heated, but that's to be expected. I try to keep the temperature turned down but don't always succeed. I don't think that there is anything wrong in discussing things. Merge started this thread with a "what do you think?" Evidently I need to go back and read the other thread you mentioned. Oh, and I have and continue to try to cut back my time on this sort of thing. But sometimes it's hard not to get sucked in. :-) I believe (although I don't want to put words into her mouth) Crimson was likely referring to the more personal attacks and not the discussions themselves. I'm also finding many of the discussions interesting, and I'm learning quite a bit about a subject I've not been interested in (and not all bad).
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 8, 2016 1:36:34 GMT
I listened to quite a bit of the hearing this morning and it was helpful. It seems that Comey is saying that there has been only one prosecution in the past 50 or more years under the statutes that apply to this case. I am still struggling with the "intent" part of it. I mean how do you set up a private server without intent? How do you not intend to store the classified information you know you will receive on that private server? He also differentiated between someone still active in government office vs. someone who has left government office. He indicated that there really isn't a darned thing that would apply since she is no longer in office.
He refused to answer the question as to "would you give her a security clearance?" as hypothetical, although he did say that what she had done would come under "heavy consideration" if he was considering such a person for a security clearance. He also said that had someone done what she had done who worked for him they would be subject to anything from termination to severe sanctions. Although I believe Comey is an honorable man, you would have to be a robot not to have weighed the ramifications of charging a candidate for president, so I believe his threshold was incrementally higher than it would have been for an ordinary person who had done all those things. All in all, it certainly has been instructive and interesting. It makes absolutely no sense how David Petraeus was prosecuted for handing over classified information, but when she did it with her lawyers, he recommends no charges for Hillary. Someone said, it begs the question why we even need to have security clearances if it doesn't matter who sees the secure info. It was interesting to note that among other items that were NOT investigated, was whether or not she committed perjury. I also have to wonder about the claim that he can't do anything because she's no longer in office. Does that mean if she's elected President, she becomes fair game for prosecution?I think these are good questions, and I would like to hear his responses to them.
|
|
sweetpeasmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,592
Jun 27, 2014 14:04:01 GMT
|
Post by sweetpeasmom on Jul 8, 2016 2:46:41 GMT
Read these sections of the statute - 18 US Code Sec 793 Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
and tell me she didn't violate these -
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
She violated BOTH of these!! The first by giving her attorneys, who did not have clearance to have access to these emails. Second she violated them by removing them from their proper place of custody. The proper place was NOT ON HER PERSONAL server!!
|
|