FBI papers reveal that Hillary Clinton did not mislead Congress, but was 'extremely careless'

a reply to: introvert

What this actually translates to is. If we actually enforced the law the entire system would crumble because everyone's doing it.

And you're ok with that?

The reason she's being allowed to break the laws of the United States is because everyone in government is ignoring our laws.

So your solution is to shrug over the fact that our entire government body is ignoring the laws of the United States due to mutually protected self interest, is to shrug it off.

Any reasonable person would be rightly horrified by what this statement is implying.

We're not going to enforce the law, because we all break it the law and would have to lock ourselves up if we did is their reasoning.

You know what I say, good, lock all yourselves up then, we can put some people in that will actually respect the laws of our country.

I don't want to enforce the law because I broke it too and so did my bosses, but if you do your going to prison, is not a good reason to not enforce the law. It's the very reason people are getting pissed.

Our governmental officials ignore and break the law almost at whimsy, and because they're the same people that enforce the laws, they get off scott free unless one of them pisses off the wrong people, then suddenly the law applies. Or if your not part of their cabal, then the law applies.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: introvert

That's not true. I have had multiple friends with security clearances in the army and Air Force. If you even mess up your credit score or your wife moves out you lose your clearance, not only that, but if it's your doing you get demoted. This isn't some patty cake slap on the wrist in real life. Only in clintons case.

Off Topic to correct misconception: Your friends have not told you everything in regards to their reasoning for losing their clearances and being demoted. A bad credit score or a spouse leaving you will not cause one to lose their clearance in and of themselves. In all likelihood, there is a very high debt to income ratio combined with a bad credit score and ignoring any and all attempts at collection that resulted in a decision to take your friends clearance in this instance. Also, I am willing to bet when time came around for a periodic review investigation, they lied to the investigator and the truth was uncovered. Similarly, the friend who lost their clearance for his wife leaving him is likely because there is a deeper issue behind the scenes you do not know about that puts your friends trust and integrity into question, again, especially if they hid or lied during their initial, or periodic review investigations.

a reply to: avgguy


I'm having a hard time believing this..

my ex husband, who is a colonel in the marine corp, has had HIGH security clearance, even back when he was a lieutenant. he wouldn't have lost his clearance if I had moved out or had a low credit score - that's crap!

a reply to: Puppylove

What this actually translates to is. If we actually enforced the law the entire system would crumble because everyone's doing it.

And you're ok with that?

No, I am not ok with your interpretation.

The reason she's being allowed to break the laws of the United States is because everyone in government is ignoring our laws.

She's not being "allowed". She would be held responsible in an appropriate fashion if she was still with the SD.

So your solution is to shrug over the fact that our entire government body is ignoring the laws of the United States due to mutually protected government is to shrug it off.

How are the laws being ignored? People that violate security restrictions are held accountable. Unless they are no longer employed by the Govt.

Any reasonable would be rightly horrified by what this statement is telling us.

That's a logical fallacy. Also, you just made up that "statement". I fear you do not understand what is going on in this case.

originally posted by: LifeMode
The US sailor who took pictures inside his sub also had no intent to do harm. He will be going to jail this week.

That US Sailor?...He took 6 Pictures of the Top Secret Stealth Propulsion System of the US's latest Nuclear Submarine...admitting knowing he was violating his clearance when he did so.....and had no good excuse for why he had the pictures on his phone...well he actually claimed he wanted them to show the pictures to his future children some day so he could explain what he worked on...

My thinking is that he intended to get paid..and very well ...

No comparison there...not even close.

a reply to: introvert


Soooo why does Hillary Clinton still possess an active security clearance after being found "extremely careless" with Top Secret classified information?

Will the State Department pull it? Here is a hint... anyone else...I mean anyone else would have lost their clearance months ago to see it never ever return.

One set of Rules for them, another set of rules for everyone else.

a reply to: RickinVa

Soooo why does Hillary Clinton still possess an active security clearance after being found "extremely careless" with Top Secret classified information?

Does she still have a security clearance? As far as I know, she only receives daily security updates.

Will the State Department pull it? Here is a hint... anyone else...I mean anyone else would have lot their clearances months ago to see it never ever return.

Wouldn't anyone lose that clearance once they left the job?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for enduring the vitriol around here to interject facts.

I honestly believe the right-wing would be much healthier if they would reconcile facts in small bites, rather than get lost in an echo chamber of BS and then get jolted by reality once every 4 years.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Aren't secretaries of state given training in how to handle classified information? It seems that "extreme carelessness" when it comes to national security is a sign of irresponsibility, while forgetting the training in handling classified information is a sign of incompetence.

I agree. It certainly is a sign of incompetence, but I don't support Hillary because of her abilities as a politician though. I support her MOSTLY because she isn't a lunatic like Trump, but also because of the SCOTUS nominations as well as the DNC's policy platform.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for enduring the vitriol around here to interject facts.

I honestly believe the right-wing would be much healthier if they would reconcile facts in small bites, rather than get lost in an echo chamber of BS and then get jolted by reality once every 4 years.

It would certainly bring some much needed sanity and clarity to political discussions, but I don't think this is likely to happen. Maybe there will be a reckoning when Trump loses, but I highly doubt it. It's too easy to point fingers and blame everyone else than to accept that there may be flaws in the way you do things.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert


Soooo why does Hillary Clinton still possess an active security clearance after being found "extremely careless" with Top Secret classified information?

As far as I am aware...the claim that she still has security clearance is speculation.
Please direct to any official statements confirming she still has an active security clearance.

Will the State Department pull it? Here is a hint...

I have a hint for you...who issues security clearances to Donald Trump? Or any Party Nominee? Or any President?

...No one...They receive clearance by default as their party nominee.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: LifeMode
The US sailor who took pictures inside his sub also had no intent to do harm. He will be going to jail this week.

That US Sailor?...He took 6 Pictures of the Top Secret Stealth Propulsion System of the US's latest Nuclear Submarine...admitting knowing he was violating his clearance when he did so.....and had no good excuse for why he had the pictures on his phone...well he actually claimed he wanted them to show the pictures to his future children some day so he could explain what he worked on...

My thinking is that he intended to get paid..and very well ...

No comparison there...not even close.

PLUS this...after he was busted with the pics of the Stealth Propulsion System on his phone?...

FBI and NCIS agents questioned him in July 2012 after the photos were discovered on his phone at a waste transfer station in Hampton, the feds said.

When he returned home from the interview, he destroyed a laptop computer, his personal camera and the camera’s memory card, according to investigators.

www.nydailynews.com...

This kid was looking to make a sale, if he didn't already sell the pics as well as others he destroyed.

DP

originally posted by: Indigo5

As far as I am aware...the claim that she still has security clearance is speculation.
Please direct to any official statements confirming she still has an active security clearance.
.

Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance

That should be clear enough.

a reply to: introvert

BECAUSE when she would be operational ,such information lost at the presidential level is NOW an unacceptable risk,since we know she drops the ball so badly.
I don't know WHY the HELL I should need to EXPLAIN that to you much less a F##KING civilian.
Our buddies BODIES dumbass...

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: Indigo5

As far as I am aware...the claim that she still has security clearance is speculation.
Please direct to any official statements confirming she still has an active security clearance.
.

Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance

That should be clear enough.

No...not at all...

That is political pandering...Still no public statement indicating she maintains a security clearance by anyone and anyone can introduce a bill and they often do..Note thtat the bill hasn't been taken up.

Not saying she doesn't have security clearance, just saying that reporters have repeatedly asked several people from state, to Senators to congressmen and no one has officially said she maintains a security clearance.

As it stands..she carries one now by default as the Dem Nominee for President and that isn't subject to revoke...otherwise no one in their right mind would give Donald one...but alas he has one as the GOP nominee.

a reply to: loam
just more empty threats from a gutless GOP. That bill was introduced way back on July 7th and died just like a lot of other bills that they introduced.

the GOP are too busy fighting Donald Trump which is the same thing as electing Hillary Clinton as president. They should all be tried for treason.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for enduring the vitriol around here to interject facts.

I honestly believe the right-wing would be much healthier if they would reconcile facts in small bites, rather than get lost in an echo chamber of BS and then get jolted by reality once every 4 years.

It would certainly bring some much needed sanity and clarity to political discussions, but I don't think this is likely to happen. Maybe there will be a reckoning when Trump loses, but I highly doubt it. It's too easy to point fingers and blame everyone else than to accept that there may be flaws in the way you do things.

Tell me, do you think "normal" people can still get classified/top secret clearance with this type of "carelessness" on their record? NO!

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for enduring the vitriol around here to interject facts.

I honestly believe the right-wing would be much healthier if they would reconcile facts in small bites, rather than get lost in an echo chamber of BS and then get jolted by reality once every 4 years.

It would certainly bring some much needed sanity and clarity to political discussions, but I don't think this is likely to happen. Maybe there will be a reckoning when Trump loses, but I highly doubt it. It's too easy to point fingers and blame everyone else than to accept that there may be flaws in the way you do things.

Tell me, do you think "normal" people can still get classified/top secret clearance with this type of "carelessness" on their record? NO!

Who knows? As a veteran of the military I'm aware that they have waivers for everything. I'm sure exceptions can and have been made. So instead of voicing a blanket opinion on what I "think" will happen for cases I have no idea's circumstances, I'm going to defer to this being a case-by-case thing.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for enduring the vitriol around here to interject facts.

I honestly believe the right-wing would be much healthier if they would reconcile facts in small bites, rather than get lost in an echo chamber of BS and then get jolted by reality once every 4 years.

It would certainly bring some much needed sanity and clarity to political discussions, but I don't think this is likely to happen. Maybe there will be a reckoning when Trump loses, but I highly doubt it. It's too easy to point fingers and blame everyone else than to accept that there may be flaws in the way you do things.

Tell me, do you think "normal" people can still get classified/top secret clearance with this type of "carelessness" on their record? NO!

Absolutely..even crazy people. Trump received his first classified briefing on Tuesday.