Why does Hillary still have a security clearance?

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.

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The level has not been revoked, the person who would be in charge of that seems to not share your views on how to handle that.

Thank you regurgitating what I have already said. The State Department has a very lax security policy compared to other government agencies. That doesn't make it right.

a reply to: RickinVa

All it requires is a suspected security violation. I think that has been well demonstrated in this case already.

You have no information whatsoever, other than what the media has released.

I'm sure you don't want to play this game with me today because you have proven yourself to be severely lacking on this issue and completely biased.

You don't bring any real information to this issue other than anecdotal fallacies and wishful thinking. Just like every single thread you and I have conversed in, this will all boil down to us waiting to see what the FBI says because neither you or I know jack squat about what's going on here.

Again, maybe they have not revoked her clearance because she is not suspected of security violations. We don't know.

originally posted by: queenofswords

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"?

Private email and private system are two separate things.

Also, is was $6 billion that was alleged to have gone missing, but the money was never missing. It was an error in paper reporting.

See. This is what I was talking about being ill informed in the other thread.

originally posted by: RickinVa

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.

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.

Thank you regurgitating what I have already said. The State Department has a very lax security policy compared to other government agencies. That doesn't make it right.

Your OP was in the form of a question. That appears to be the answer.

You did provide personal anecdotes from your career, but none of which occurred in the State Department. You personally believe that the clearance should have been revoked, but it was not and you question why, It goes back to the person who would make that decision has not yet found cause.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

All it requires is a suspected security violation. I think that has been well demonstrated in this case already.

You have no information whatsoever, other than what the media has released.

I'm sure you don't want to play this game with me today because you have proven yourself to be severely lacking on this issue and completely biased.

You don't bring any real information to this issue other than anecdotal fallacies and wishful thinking. Just like every single thread you and I have conversed in, this will all boil down to us waiting to see what the FBI says because neither you or I know jack squat about what's going on here.

Again, maybe they have not revoked her clearance because she is not suspected of security violations. We don't know.

That is such total BS and you know it.

"You have no information whatsoever, other than what the media has released."

Really?

You ever tried going to the State Department webpage and visiting the reading room? Maybe read the Hillary emails released by the State Department? Try it.... but that would not fit your agenda would it?

I, or anyone else, with a single drop of common sense can go to the State Department reading room and view all the emails myself and arrive at my own conclusion without any help from outside sources.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: queenofswords

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"?

Private email and private system are two separate things.

Also, is was $6 billion that was alleged to have gone missing, but the money was never missing. It was an error in paper reporting.

See. This is what I was talking about being ill informed in the other thread.

Introvert....you are grasping at straws. I have researched the 6B missing/redirected/misaccounted/etc. Have you? I know what email is and when I said a private system, I was referring to her various email accounts she was using and her private server in her bathroom closet. She was not using a .gov email, nor was she using a government-secure "system" to communicate on. Just hang it up already.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: queenofswords

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"?

Private email and private system are two separate things.

Also, is was $6 billion that was alleged to have gone missing, but the money was never missing. It was an error in paper reporting.

See. This is what I was talking about being ill informed in the other thread.

Introvert....you are grasping at straws. I have researched the 6B missing/redirected/misaccounted/etc. Have you? I know what email is and when I said a private system, I was referring to her various email accounts she was using and her private server in her bathroom closet. She was not using a .gov email, nor was she using a government-secure "system" to communicate on. Just hang it up already.

None of that was illegal and $6 billion dollars is not missing.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

All it requires is a suspected security violation. I think that has been well demonstrated in this case already.

You have no information whatsoever, other than what the media has released.

I'm sure you don't want to play this game with me today because you have proven yourself to be severely lacking on this issue and completely biased.

You don't bring any real information to this issue other than anecdotal fallacies and wishful thinking. Just like every single thread you and I have conversed in, this will all boil down to us waiting to see what the FBI says because neither you or I know jack squat about what's going on here.

Again, maybe they have not revoked her clearance because she is not suspected of security violations. We don't know.

That is such total BS and you know it.

"You have no information whatsoever, other than what the media has released."

Really?

You ever tried going to the State Department webpage and visiting the reading room? Maybe read the Hillary emails released by the State Department? Try it.... but that would not fit your agenda would it?

I, or anyone else, with a single drop of common sense can go to the State Department reading room and view all the emails myself and arrive at my own conclusion without any help from outside sources.

But you still know nothing. You don't have any facts. If you do, post them. The FBI would love to see what you have, I'm sure.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

All it requires is a suspected security violation. I think that has been well demonstrated in this case already.

You have no information whatsoever, other than what the media has released.

I'm sure you don't want to play this game with me today because you have proven yourself to be severely lacking on this issue and completely biased.

You don't bring any real information to this issue other than anecdotal fallacies and wishful thinking. Just like every single thread you and I have conversed in, this will all boil down to us waiting to see what the FBI says because neither you or I know jack squat about what's going on here.

Again, maybe they have not revoked her clearance because she is not suspected of security violations. We don't know.

That is such total BS and you know it.

"You have no information whatsoever, other than what the media has released."

Really?

You ever tried going to the State Department webpage and visiting the reading room? Maybe read the Hillary emails released by the State Department? Try it.... but that would not fit your agenda would it?

I, or anyone else, with a single drop of common sense can go to the State Department reading room and view all the emails myself and arrive at my own conclusion without any help from outside sources.

But you still know nothing. You don't have any facts. If you do, post them. The FBI would love to see what you have, I'm sure.

What facts do you think you need? All I need to see is the heavily redacted emails from Hillary's server that are posted on the State Department website.

Why are you deflecting the topic as always..... suspending/revoking a security clearance has nothing to do with the FBI. Forget the FBI.

The security officer at the State Department has the power to recommend that a clearance be suspended or revoked. That has not happened.

Which is the topic of this thread..... why has her clearance not been suspended/revoked by the State Department?

Remember my friend, a person does not have to be charged with a crime or convicted of a crime to have their clearance suspended. The mere suspicion that security violations have occurred is more than enough. That won't change no matter how much you slice and dice it.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

All it requires is a suspected security violation. I think that has been well demonstrated in this case already.

You have no information whatsoever, other than what the media has released.

I'm sure you don't want to play this game with me today because you have proven yourself to be severely lacking on this issue and completely biased.

You don't bring any real information to this issue other than anecdotal fallacies and wishful thinking. Just like every single thread you and I have conversed in, this will all boil down to us waiting to see what the FBI says because neither you or I know jack squat about what's going on here.

Again, maybe they have not revoked her clearance because she is not suspected of security violations. We don't know.

That is such total BS and you know it.

"You have no information whatsoever, other than what the media has released."

Really?

You ever tried going to the State Department webpage and visiting the reading room? Maybe read the Hillary emails released by the State Department? Try it.... but that would not fit your agenda would it?

I, or anyone else, with a single drop of common sense can go to the State Department reading room and view all the emails myself and arrive at my own conclusion without any help from outside sources.

But you still know nothing. You don't have any facts. If you do, post them. The FBI would love to see what you have, I'm sure.

The security officer at the State Department has the power to recommend that a clearance be suspended or revoked. That has not happened.

You keep answering your own question, yet you do not see it.

Having a security clearance by itself means little. You still must have a "need to know" and be "read in" to particular issues. For example, let's say you have a Top Secret by virtue of working on NSA-directed listening assignments at their base in Fort Gordon. Suddenly you are transferred to Darmstadt, Germany, doing the same thing you did at Gordon. Do you just walk in, sit down, and fire up? Nope. You must wait, sometimes interminably, for your clearance to catch up to you and be certified for that new site, even though your Top Secret was never revoked.

A security clearance by itself is a "clearance to be cleared." It has no direct object.

a reply to: RickinVa

What facts do you think you need? All I need to see is the heavily redacted emails from Hillary's server that are posted on the State Department website.

A redaction does not mean it was a violation. This is where many of us come to question your claim of having a security clearance. It is common knowledge that the US gov classifies and redacts information that may not be classified, or may have been retroactively classified. They classify damn near everything. There is a fight going on within the intelligence community because of that.

With your vast experience, why do you deny that?

The security officer at the State Department has the power to recommend that a clearance be suspended or revoked. That has not happened. Which is the topic of this thread..... why has her clearance not been suspended/revoked by the State Department?

And I refer to my original post. Perhaps she is not in violation.

originally posted by: introvert

Why does Hillary still have a security clearance?

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

As the OP specified, it doesn't work that way, and isn't supposed to. There is no "found guilty" involved until AFTER an investigation is carried out. The clearance is revoked DURING the investigation just like police are suspended until after an investigation, and then if found guilty, will be punished further.

Being suspected because of what Hillary did, and everyone knew she did, is enough to suspend her clearance when any wrongdoing or mishandling of material is obvious.

And then LATER, when the investigation is complete, and only then, should the clearance be either reinstated, or revoked.

Perhaps as a Clinton apologist, you could change the laws first, before insinuating that procedures should be overlooked, or take a back seat to current law, just because you feel the need to defend her and anyone else you support, which seems to encourage you to place her above the law.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

All it requires is a suspected security violation. I think that has been well demonstrated in this case already.

You have no information whatsoever, other than what the media has released.

I'm sure you don't want to play this game with me today because you have proven yourself to be severely lacking on this issue and completely biased.

You don't bring any real information to this issue other than anecdotal fallacies and wishful thinking. Just like every single thread you and I have conversed in, this will all boil down to us waiting to see what the FBI says because neither you or I know jack squat about what's going on here.

Again, maybe they have not revoked her clearance because she is not suspected of security violations. We don't know.

That is such total BS and you know it.

"You have no information whatsoever, other than what the media has released."

Really?

You ever tried going to the State Department webpage and visiting the reading room? Maybe read the Hillary emails released by the State Department? Try it.... but that would not fit your agenda would it?

I, or anyone else, with a single drop of common sense can go to the State Department reading room and view all the emails myself and arrive at my own conclusion without any help from outside sources.

But you still know nothing. You don't have any facts. If you do, post them. The FBI would love to see what you have, I'm sure.

The security officer at the State Department has the power to recommend that a clearance be suspended or revoked. That has not happened.

You keep answering your own question, yet you do not see it.

I do see it.... it is right there in front of you.... the State Department has not suspended/revoked her clearance as of this date.... It makes no sense in light of what has transpired.

It is not about my judgement call, it is about the way different federal agencies handle security violations which is the point of this thread. Most agencies suspend/revoke your clearance the day you leave.

I understand your point that who ever in charge at the State Department for revoking/suspending clearances has not done so, which you seem to indicate is proof that there is no need for a clearance suspension. The SD doesn't suspend any SOS's clearances upon departure from the SD... it is time to change that.

a reply to: RickinVa

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

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

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

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

a reply to: RickinVa

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

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

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

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

Perhaps as a Clinton apologist, you could change the laws first, before insinuating that procedures should be overlooked, or take a back seat to current law, just because you feel the need to defend her and anyone else you support, which seems to encourage you to place her above the law.

I didn't say anything should be overlooked. Nice try though.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

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

Every sane intelligent human being on the planet suspect Hillary of all kinds of violations, lying, deceit, theft, murder. Even the MSM "suspects" her, and they have voiced those suspicions in the news for many years.

Ignoring those suspicions for political expediency is what you and others are doing however. This is the reason she isn't sitting on an iron bench in leg irons, which is where she definitely should be.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

What facts do you think you need? All I need to see is the heavily redacted emails from Hillary's server that are posted on the State Department website.

A redaction does not mean it was a violation. This is where many of us come to question your claim of having a security clearance. It is common knowledge that the US gov classifies and redacts information that may not be classified, or may have been retroactively classified. They classify damn near everything. There is a fight going on within the intelligence community because of that.

With you vast experience, why do you deny that?

The security officer at the State Department has the power to recommend that a clearance be suspended or revoked. That has not happened. Which is the topic of this thread..... why has her clearance not been suspended/revoked by the State Department?

And I refer to my original post. Perhaps she is not in violation.

"This is where many of us come to question your claim of having a security clearance."

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

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