WH rejects call to block Clinton from receiving classified briefings

Can you blame them? Well thanks to friends in high places, that a person gets to go campaigning with before, and during FBI press conferences. Treating Hillary Clinton like an adult after they willfully neglected their responsibility. That fella in the oval says Yes We can. Give a person that's been PROVEN to be irresponsible handing classified material more classified materials.

The White House on Wednesday brushed aside House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) call to block Hillary Clinton from receiving classified intelligence briefings as punishment for the FBI’s probe into her use of a private email server while secretary of State.

Hooray for National Insecurity!

And Josh Earnest the ever consummate spin doctor, spun,spun,spun.



I don't always lead with meme's, but who cares.

America.....putting our worst foot forward.

All hail the queen bee.

It was stupid of Paul Ryan to call for that. He knew it would never happen he was grandstanding.

Perhaps this is by design to bring down the "Republic" and make way for a one world government.

She will take office and go to war with Russia (Atheism) and the Middle East (Islam) which will bring forth the destruction of all faith and belief's leaving only the State.

Should be interesting to watch.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I don't think so.

If a person has been irresponsible for handling a weapon they lose their rights correct ?

Same reasoning applies to Clinton.

She should not be given a loaded weapon.

In the wrong hands.

Classified material gets people killed.

But wait, I was just scolded in another thread because they can block her from receiving daily briefings as a candidate! This can't be true!

Bwhahahaaaaaa!!!!

13. For what reasons would I be denied a security clearance? Various reasons exist for why someone may be denied a security clearance. The most important factors in an investigation are the individual's honesty, candor, and thoroughness in the completion of their security clearance forms. Every case is individually assessed, using the National Security Board's 13 Adjudicative Guidelines, to determine whether the granting or continuing of eligibility for a security clearance is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.

The adjudicative guidelines include: allegiance to the United States; foreign influence; foreign preference; sexual behavior; personal conduct; financial considerations; alcohol consumption; drug involvement; emotional, mental, and personality disorders; criminal conduct; security violations; outside activities; and misuse of information technology systems.

www.state.gov...

Another 150,000 votes for Hillary!

It's really difficult to get a grip on this subject as an outsider. There are so many posters who clearly demonstrate their expertise that it hinders one somewhat from pronouncing an opinion.

Having said all that I wanna have a go!

Hillary Clinton set up a personal email service, correct?

She was also using that unprotected service to deal with secret information, even when she was in non-friendly territory. Is that correct?

She held, at the time, a very important and sensitive position in the government while this was happening. Is this right?

If we strip away the politics, just as a matter of common sense, shouldn't she face some kind of official reprimand?

How is it then that the issues seem to be being glossed over in favour of partisan political spite?

Am I completely missing the point of this?

I am just a little lost.

a reply to: Jonjonj

If we strip away the politics, just as a matter of common sense, shouldn't she face some kind of official reprimand?

Cases like this are usually handled internally. She's no longer SoS. It's hard to reprimand her and she did not do anything worth facing criminal charges.

How is it then that the issues seem to be being glossed over in favour of partisan political spite?

It's not. Those on the other side of the political spectrum do not understand how things like this are usually handled. So they are crying about it.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Jonjonj

If we strip away the politics, just as a matter of common sense, shouldn't she face some kind of official reprimand?

Cases like this are usually handled internally. She's no longer SoS. It's hard to reprimand her and she did not do anything worth facing criminal charges.

How is it then that the issues seem to be being glossed over in favour of partisan political spite?

It's not. Those on the other side of the political spectrum do not understand how things like this are usually handled. So they are crying about it.

Perhaps then how things are usually handled is worthy of revision, don't you think?

To be precise: How do you believe an ex SoS should be treated regarding post employmrnt revelations. Should it just be that no previous employee of government is reprimanded once they no longer hold the position?

a reply to: introvert

Let's be honest here: "the other side" doesn't have any better grasp of the situation than the one you're referring to. All they heard is "no charges."

And they will pay zero attention to the use of the phrase "gross negligence" and "did not intentionally" in lieu of "did not."

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Jonjonj

If we strip away the politics, just as a matter of common sense, shouldn't she face some kind of official reprimand?

Cases like this are usually handled internally. She's no longer SoS. It's hard to reprimand her and she did not do anything worth facing criminal charges.

How is it then that the issues seem to be being glossed over in favour of partisan political spite?

It's not. Those on the other side of the political spectrum do not understand how things like this are usually handled. So they are crying about it.

Perhaps then how things are usually handled is worthy of revision, don't you think?

How things are usually handled is just fine. Hilary is in the position of being between the lines, though. If a normal workerbee had done this, their clearance would be yanked, they'd be reprimanded, and their career in any intelligence or sensitive position would be over. Or all of the above, plus charged criminally.

Hilary has no clearance to yank.

The job she wants doesn't have a clearance.

She's butt buddies with the guy who decides whether she has a need to know.

It was a political masterpiece, plain and simple.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Perhaps then how things are usually handled is worthy of revision, don't you think?

No. The rules in place are just fine.

The problem we have now is that with advancements in technology, there is a lot of info being spread through email and a lot of people use personal devices. Therefore, mistakes happen and some things are not handled exactly as it should be.

If we began to tighten rules and pressed charges on people that did those sorts of things, we wouldn't have anyone qualified to handle sensitive information. Everyone makes mistakes and that is why the FBI and DoJ only focus on those that hard clear intent of leaking info or subverting US security.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Jonjonj

If we strip away the politics, just as a matter of common sense, shouldn't she face some kind of official reprimand?

Cases like this are usually handled internally. She's no longer SoS. It's hard to reprimand her and she did not do anything worth facing criminal charges.

How is it then that the issues seem to be being glossed over in favour of partisan political spite?

It's not. Those on the other side of the political spectrum do not understand how things like this are usually handled. So they are crying about it.

Perhaps then how things are usually handled is worthy of revision, don't you think?

How things are usually handled is just fine. Hilary is in the position of being between the lines, though. If a normal workerbee had done this, their clearance would be yanked, they'd be reprimanded, and their career in any intelligence or sensitive position would be over. Or all of the above, plus charged criminally.

Hilary has no clearance to yank.

The job she wants doesn't have a clearance.

She's butt buddies with the guy who decides whether she has a need to know.

It was a political masterpiece, plain and simple.

But clearly dishonest and manipulatve, according to this statement, correct?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: introvert

Let's be honest here: "the other side" doesn't have any better grasp of the situation than the one you're referring to. All they heard is "no charges."

And they will pay zero attention to the use of the phrase "gross negligence" and "did not intentionally" in lieu of "did not."

Sure. I'm not above admitting that some on the other side did not look in to this as they should have.

Also, the gross negligence aspect is a non-starter. the SCOTUS addressed that issue in regards to the espionage act in 1941. Intent was key to their opinion.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Jonjonj

Perhaps then how things are usually handled is worthy of revision, don't you think?

No. The rules in place are just fine.

The problem we have now is that with advancements in technology, there is a lot of info being spread through email and a lot of people use personal devices. Therefore, mistakes happen and some things are not handled exactly as it should be.

If we began to tighten rules and pressed charges on people that did those sorts of things, we wouldn't have anyone qualified to handle sensitive information. Everyone makes mistakes and that is why the FBI and DoJ only focus on those that hard clear intent of leaking info or subverting US security.

I don't know really. I think that the higher the person, the higher the responsibility and the higher the demand for competence. It doesn't appear that people are applying that level here.

a reply to: Jonjonj

I'd say as an outsider you nailed it.

Wish I could provide an answer though.

a reply to: Jonjonj

To me? Yea.

To Director Comey? Yea.

To the guy who decides whether she gets access or not? No.

Which one matters?

It's not. Those on the other side of the political spectrum do not understand how things like this are usually handled. So they are crying about it.

Hmmmm.

Dem presidential candidate and top aides signed NDAs warning against ‘negligent handling’ of classified information

Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info

That's all Clinton defenders have is POLITICS.

Because the FACTS are not on their side.

That's why they go around saying 'political witch hunt', and other nonsense.