Rudy Guliani just pointed out, based upon Comey's statements that Clinton was grossly careless with classified emails, that Hillary must have her security clearance revoked by law. Without security clearance, she is no longer able to hold an office in which she must handle secure material, including the presidency.
Did the incompetent asshats in this administration just f*ck up "the fix is in"?
#1 reason I pointed out Comey's comment about security clearances and administrative punishment as a certainty....but that is not what the FBI does.
This is going to get even more fun.
(07-05-2016 01:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]Rudy Guliani just pointed out, based upon Comey's statements that Clinton was grossly careless with classified emails, that Hillary must have her security clearance revoked by law. Without security clearance, she is no longer able to hold an office in which she must handle secure material, including the presidency.
Did the incompetent asshats in this administration just f*ck up "the fix is in"?
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-...ail-system
comey used the words: extremely careless ...
PRECISION OF LANGUAGE
The President gets a security clearance even if he/she doesn't deserve it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
(07-05-2016 01:59 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]#1 reason I pointed out Comey's comment about security clearances and administrative punishment as a certainty....but that is not what the FBI does.
This is going to get even more fun.
So far nothing that Giuliani has said has been touched upon in the news.
…and it won't.
(07-05-2016 02:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]The President gets a security clearance even if he/she doesn't deserve it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
I believe if you're barred from receiving clearance you don't meet the requirements/qualifications to become President.
Quote:To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
I think you may hear the Senate chiming in.
If this starts, it will apply to Huma and Cheryl Mills, too.
His own lame justification for not pursing the case may bite them in the rump.
(07-05-2016 02:12 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 01:59 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]#1 reason I pointed out Comey's comment about security clearances and administrative punishment as a certainty....but that is not what the FBI does.
This is going to get even more fun.
So far nothing that Giuliani has said has been touched upon in the news.
…and it won't.
...because it's stupid.
(07-05-2016 02:13 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]The President gets a security clearance even if he/she doesn't deserve it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
I believe if you're barred from receiving clearance you don't meet the requirements/qualifications to become President.
The only requirements for President are in the Constitution, no? What other requirement / qualifications are there?
Genuinely curious as to this answer.
Nice thread title. Or not.
(07-05-2016 02:13 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]The President gets a security clearance even if he/she doesn't deserve it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
I believe if you're barred from receiving clearance you don't meet the requirements/qualifications to become President.
Do you have internet access Paul?
(07-05-2016 02:23 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:13 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]The President gets a security clearance even if he/she doesn't deserve it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
I believe if you're barred from receiving clearance you don't meet the requirements/qualifications to become President.
The only requirements for President are in the Constitution, no? What other requirement / qualifications are there?
Genuinely curious as to this answer.
I'm not sure on this. I believe I saw in one of these multiple threads lately that someone posted some statute or law addressing this saying something about a ban from clearance is a dis qualifier from office. Could be remembering wrong though.
(07-05-2016 02:28 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:23 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:13 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]The President gets a security clearance even if he/she doesn't deserve it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
I believe if you're barred from receiving clearance you don't meet the requirements/qualifications to become President.
The only requirements for President are in the Constitution, no? What other requirement / qualifications are there?
Genuinely curious as to this answer.
I'm not sure on this. I believe I saw in one of these multiple threads lately that someone posted some statute or law addressing this saying something about a ban from clearance is a dis qualifier from office. Could be remembering wrong though.
The only restrictions on the Presidency are in the Constitution.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
(07-05-2016 02:28 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:23 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:13 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]The President gets a security clearance even if he/she doesn't deserve it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
I believe if you're barred from receiving clearance you don't meet the requirements/qualifications to become President.
The only requirements for President are in the Constitution, no? What other requirement / qualifications are there?
Genuinely curious as to this answer.
I'm not sure on this. I believe I saw in one of these multiple threads lately that someone posted some statute or law addressing this saying something about a ban from clearance is a dis qualifier from office. Could be remembering wrong though.
I did ...
HOLD ONE MOMENT
Nothing will come of this.
(07-05-2016 02:28 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:23 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:13 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]The President gets a security clearance even if he/she doesn't deserve it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
I believe if you're barred from receiving clearance you don't meet the requirements/qualifications to become President.
The only requirements for President are in the Constitution, no? What other requirement / qualifications are there?
Genuinely curious as to this answer.
I'm not sure on this. I believe I saw in one of these multiple threads lately that someone posted some statute or law addressing this saying something about a ban from clearance is a dis qualifier from office. Could be remembering wrong though.
That is accurate. But what the FBI director says here is that what she did did not rise to the level of indictment due to the fact that she had no intent to violate the statutes (even though not required) and due to the fact that he did not think a prosecutor would purse the case (not his responsibility to determine).
What he also says is that if anyone did what she did, they would likely have to pay the price from an administrative and security perspective. That is a clearance issue.
(07-05-2016 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:13 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2016 02:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote: [ -> ]The President gets a security clearance even if he/she doesn't deserve it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
I believe if you're barred from receiving clearance you don't meet the requirements/qualifications to become President.
Do you have internet access Paul?
Sure. But it was posted here. Course I'm here through the internet.
Quote:18 U.S. Code § 2071 — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
(07-05-2016 02:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Nothing will come of this.
Because this is nothing. Don't act like it's a legitimate issue that will be ignored. It's not.
Eh, not like it would make a difference anyway. Her supporters would vote for her if she was in jail. They already don't care she's too incompetent to handle classified info.