Why does Hillary still have a security clearance?

If in wrong forum, mods please move!

I have seen this question brought up a few times in recent months considering the ongoing drama with the email situation.

The answer is simple (kinda sorta): The State Department allows all former Secretary of State’s (SoS) to retain their clearances indefinitely once leaving the position as a matter of personnel policy.

That is the quick and easy answer, but it really doesn’t answer the question in light of recent events and deserves to be looked at a little closer. Many people can’t seem to grasp the severity of what Hillary is involved in, and that is mainly due to a lack of understanding of procedures in handling of classified information.

The rules and regulations concerning classified information are set forth by the National Security Agency( NSA). There is a broad set of basic guidelines that every federal agency and their employees must adhere to. Each Federal Agency has the discretion to add to those basic guidelines, but they can’t take away from those guidelines unless a specific waiver is granted to them by the NSA for any deviation from those guidelines.

You would think that each and every Federal Agency would be the same when it comes to following the guidelines set forth, but my experience found that not to be true.

My qualifications:
25+ years in the Federal Government, 18 with the Department of Defense (DoD) and the last 7.5 with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as a GS-0391 Telecommunications Specialist. I also served on an advisory board to the Director, FBI as a subject matter expert on communications security.

I have also personally been the target of an FBI probe into espionage during my career.


The way that classified information is handled, is vastly different between various agencies. Not to a great degree, but it does vary. I would like to point out the differences between the two that I worked for, DoD and DOJ.

My entire career with DoD involved working inside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). Two Person Integrity was always strictly followed and the SCIF’s were considered “No Lone Zone”, at least two people were required to be inside at all times. Every safe was set with dual combinations, no one person could ever open a safe. Security briefings were always a constant reminder.

a reply to: RickinVa


During my 18 years with the DoD, I saw more than one violation of the rules considering classified information. I can recall at least 5 instances of where employees accidently left work with classified material and took it home with them. In each and every case, the employees immediately returned the material as soon as they realized it and reported themselves to the Security Officer. Nothing happened to any of the people involved.

The reasons were:

1. It was an unintentional mistake.
2. The employee took it upon themselves to immediately report their transgressions to the proper official.
3. The material was never outside the employees control, and a chain of custody could be established from the time the material left the SCIF until it was returned.
4. These were single events…. No employee ever made the same mistake twice.

I saw several people who were escorted out of the facility, had their clearance revoked and lost their jobs. Every single instance was the result of a poor personal decision that they had made in their lives, some got into financial trouble, some had DUI’s, one decided to beat up his wife, etc.

Then I switched to the FBI later in my career.

The difference between the two was astounding to me….The FBI was way more lax about security procedures than the DOD. I had so many collateral duties at the FBI that I wound up spending at least 95% of my work day dealing with collateral duties and not doing the job I was hired to do.

Some of my collateral duties:

Courier for the FBI at the TS/SCI level.
Communications Security (COMSEC) Manager.
Another was being the SCIF manager for several SCIFs in my division.
Handling all Blackberry’s in my division, something along the lines of 650 of them.


SCIF’s in the FBI were ran completely different than the DoD. There was no two person integrity, due to a waiver granted by NSA. You would often find people working in the SCIF alone, sometimes after hours and even on weekends. The FBI also had a lot more Controlled Cryptographic Items (CCI) than I dealt with at DoD. CCI can be many various things, encryption devices, radios, cell phones, satellite phones, aircraft equipment, etc. All of these devices in their natural state were simply considered sensitive items, but once they were loaded with an

a reply to: RickinVa

encryption key, they took on the classification of the keying material. Unkeyed radio…. sensitive. Radio loaded with a Top Secret key, the radio itself became Top Secret.

I remember two specific incidents at the FBI that illustrate the differences between agencies.

1. A FBI agent who was a Unit Chief, managed to lose a secure telephone that he had located in his residence. (later found buried in his closet)

2. I came into possession of something that was brought to my division by an FBI agent when he transferred from another division. Once I tried to get FBI headquarters to add that item of my inventory of CCI, I found out that the division he had came from had reported the item as destroyed to NSA, even though I had it in my hands. I was instructed to turn it in.

In both of those instances, nothing ever happened to the individuals involved, and life went on.

The main difference between the two examples is that if an employee of the DoD had lost an CCI that they had signed a hand receipt for, their clearance would have been immediately suspended until a security investigation was completed by the security officer.

Another big factor, and the most important factor of all, was the employees themselves. When I worked at DoD, during my 18 years, I never ever worked with another person who was not prior military. The military is extremely strict with security procedures and it becomes so ingrained into your psyche that it simply becomes second nature. At the FBI, a lot of people have no military background at all and just simply don’t understand all the fuss about following the correct security procedures.

I suspect that the same is obviously true of the State Department. The way they follow security procedures is way more lax than say, the Defense Intelligence Agency.

All of this has led to where we are today. A high ranking government official who has committed some very serious lapses in the handling of classified material, leaving everyone to second guess what happened.

The most important thing everyone overlooks is how and why this came to be in the first place. These lapses SHOULD have been caught long before they were, and most definitely should have been handled differently once they were originally discovered.

Basically you had the perfect storm, a government official who had little or no concern whatsoever for the proper handling of classified materials in charge of an agency that had a very lax security policy.

a reply to: RickinVa

If Hillary had been at DoD instead of the SD, most likely this would have never happened in the first place and definitely would have been handled differently once discovered. Her clearance would have been suspended or revoked immediately until the outcome was finalized.

Hillary still has a TS clearance and still has the same access’s she did prior. That is the one thing about all of this that just doesn’t make sense.



So the question still remains,,, why does Hillary still possess a clearance? That is a very good question.


Oh yeah… that little FBI probe into espionage? Turns out a disgruntled employee called and filed an official complaint into procedures and policies. I was the only person he named lol. The whole thing took like 3 days, they interviewed everyone at work, except me. I had caught wind of what was going on, but I knew it was completely bogus so I never really worried about it. The only time I was approached was after I had been cleared and the entire case was dismissed. The only question I was asked afterwards by the agents was…Why do you think this employee named you specifically in filing this report… the answer was easy… I was his supervisor, and we didn’t like each other. He constantly made life hard for me. So he made a call to the FBI to try and set me up. The only one who eventually got into trouble was him, for filing a false complaint. He came very very close to being charged with making false statements, but the matter was dropped and he changed jobs shortly afterwards.

Well, we all know the US State Department is up to no good. Their activities round the world scream injustice, subversion, meddling in other nations internal affairs. They have to keep that stuff secret, its against international law.

Thats why Hillary used her private server instead of approved channels. As a (ahem) 'public servant', her activity while in office is supposed to be open to public scrutiny, just in case.

In a state of secrets though, run by career politicians who have learned how to cheat, we aren't going to actually get to see these records because they are carefully hidden, if they exist at all.

Nixon taught them all not to record their behind closed doors conversations, he convicted himself with the very apparatus he employed as protection. The tape recorder. So did Kennedy and Johnson employ them. Those days are long gone.

a reply to: RickinVa

Another big factor, and the most important factor of all, was the employees themselves. When I worked at DoD, during my 18 years, I never ever worked with another person who was not prior military. The military is extremely strict with security procedures and it becomes so ingrained into your psyche that it simply becomes second nature. At the FBI, a lot of people have no military background at all and just simply don’t understand all the fuss about following the correct security procedures. I suspect that the same is obviously true of the State Department. The way they follow security procedures is way more lax than say, the Defense Intelligence Agency.

I think the above observation says it all. The military's strict procedures handling sensitive or classified material is ingrained in it's personnel, and those security procedures follow them into jobs in the various government spectrum. Civilians employed by State or other agencies look for expediency, security taking a back seat at times. Violations don't seem as important to someone like HRC as it would to ex-military.

Perhaps if all agencies were made to function with the guidelines set forth by the military on the handling of classified materials, many incidents of violations would diminish. This position is held by a civilian never charged nor vetted with handling such materials. Maybe it's naive on my part, just my take based on the information(great stuff!) you posted.

Her last name and an administration that doesn't care about security

a reply to: RickinVa

I honestly for the life of me cannot understand why this isn't being made a bigger deal. As POTUS she would have access to nuclear launch codes. She is too inept to handle simple classified emails, and people are really thinking about giving this woman access to nuclear launch codes.

a reply to: RickinVa

As Mrs. Clinton is under investigation directly related to her alleged violatons of her TSC, she should have her clearance frozen until after ALL investigations are resolved. That this doesn't happen is outrageous.

Why does Hillary still have a security clearance?

Maybe because she has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing.

a reply to: RickinVa

It took me a while to read all that, Rick.

I wish I could give you more stars for putting in the time to educate me and others on ATS. I really appreciate the effort.

originally posted by: introvert

Why does Hillary still have a security clearance?

Maybe because she has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing.

I am not going to play with you today,,,, to revoke or suspend someone's security clearance does not require a criminal conviction. All it requires is a suspected security violation. I think that has been well demonstrated in this case already.

Her clearance should have been suspended/revoked until the outcome of an investigation, whether that be the FBI or the SD's own security division.

a reply to: RickinVa

You did note that all former Secretary of States retain their Clearance level. She has not been charged with a crime, as far as I know.

Clinton simply possessing the clearance doesn't meant she has access. It is on a 'need to know' basis and it would look awfully odd of she was being granted any access at this point. I imagine it would be pointed out.

source

I should mention here that merely having a certain level of Security Clearance does not mean one is authorized to view classified information. To have access to classified information, one must possess the necessary two elements: A level of Security Clearance, at least equal to the classification of the information, AND, an appropriate "need to know" the information in order to perform their duties.

a reply to: RickinVa

I have been asking that question for months. How can Hillary even run for president when she is disqualified from ever holding a high security clearance just based on what we know.

The most important thing everyone overlooks is how and why this came to be in the first place. These lapses SHOULD have been caught long before they were, and most definitely should have been handled differently once they were originally discovered.

Basically you had the perfect storm, a government official who had little or no concern whatsoever for the proper handling of classified materials in charge of an agency that had a very lax security policy.

That tells me that Barack Obama should not be in possession of a high security clearance either. He played loose with sensitive government information, too, by knowingly allowing Hillary to use a private server and email as well as neglecting his duty to assign a permanent Inspector General for the State Department during Hillary Clinton's entire tenure.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: RickinVa

I have been asking that question for months. How can Hillary even run for president when she is disqualified from ever holding a high security clearance just based on what we know.

The most important thing everyone overlooks is how and why this came to be in the first place. These lapses SHOULD have been caught long before they were, and most definitely should have been handled differently once they were originally discovered.

Basically you had the perfect storm, a government official who had little or no concern whatsoever for the proper handling of classified materials in charge of an agency that had a very lax security policy.

That tells me that Barack Obama should not be in possession of a high security clearance either.

Now I have seen it all. Someone stating that the President should not have high security clearance.

a reply to: reldra

Again, to suspend a persons security clearance, they do not have to be charged with a crime or convicted of a crime. The suspicion of a security violation by an individual is more than enough for a security officer to suspend/revoke a clearance.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: reldra

Again, to suspend a persons security clearance, they do not have to be charged with a crime or convicted of a crime. The suspicion of a security violation by an individual is more that enough for a security officer to suspend/revoke a clearance.

Or she is simply not being granted access as she is not employed by the government and does not need the informatioin to carry out any duty.

The level has not been revoked, the person who would be in charge of that seems to not share your views on how to handle that.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: RickinVa

I have been asking that question for months. How can Hillary even run for president when she is disqualified from ever holding a high security clearance just based on what we know.

The most important thing everyone overlooks is how and why this came to be in the first place. These lapses SHOULD have been caught long before they were, and most definitely should have been handled differently once they were originally discovered.

Basically you had the perfect storm, a government official who had little or no concern whatsoever for the proper handling of classified materials in charge of an agency that had a very lax security policy.

That tells me that Barack Obama should not be in possession of a high security clearance either.

Now I have seen it all. Someone stating that the President should not have high security clearance.

I believe that the POTUS position should be the same as every other single government employee. Every single job in the government comes with the same exact caveat.... the selected individual must be able to obtain and maintain the appropriate clearance for the position.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: reldra

Again, to suspend a persons security clearance, they do not have to be charged with a crime or convicted of a crime. The suspicion of a security violation by an individual is more that enough for a security officer to suspend/revoke a clearance.

The level has not been revoked, the person who would be in charge of that seems to not share your views on how to handle that.

That's what is an issue.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: RickinVa

I have been asking that question for months. How can Hillary even run for president when she is disqualified from ever holding a high security clearance just based on what we know.

The most important thing everyone overlooks is how and why this came to be in the first place. These lapses SHOULD have been caught long before they were, and most definitely should have been handled differently once they were originally discovered.

Basically you had the perfect storm, a government official who had little or no concern whatsoever for the proper handling of classified materials in charge of an agency that had a very lax security policy.

That tells me that Barack Obama should not be in possession of a high security clearance either.

Now I have seen it all. Someone stating that the President should not have high security clearance.

Well, now you have.

How do explain Obama lying about not knowing Clinton was using her own private system when we now have proof he communicated with her on it. How do you explain his neglect concerning the IG for State when, btw, $6,000,000 went missing or "redirected"?