Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

WH security clearances
Quote | Reply
Today Sarah Sanders blamed the FBI and intelligence agencies for delays to WH security clearances. But the FBI doesn't determine security clearances. They do the background checks and then pass that information to the WH or other agencies to make the determination on whether to grant the security clearances or not. If the WH had any questions for the FBI pertaining to their high level staff, these would likely be answered very quickly by the FBI. This means it was unlikely the FBI was responsible for holding up the process, which means Sarah Sanders is likely not telling the truth. She would not answer questions about who knew what when about Porter, saying only "we only learned of the full allegations recently." The collective "we."

McGhan reportedly knew of the allegations against Porter in November and, according to The NY Times, citing at least one source, he told the FBI "let's see what happens."

And why were those with partial security clearances given access to highly sensitive information?

One theory is that knowing they should not create a paper trail of granting a full security clearance where the FBI background check has information that should preclude one, instead the WH has intentionally left these security clearances in limbo, meanwhile granting access to highly sensitive and/or classified information to these individuals.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That’s not how clearances work. There’s no such thing as a partial clearance. People are granted an interim clearance when they first enter a job that requires clearance, or sometimes when they need a higher clearance than they already have. That interim clearance is a full clearance. It gives the same access to information that a final clearance gives. The interim clearance is effective while the investigation is carried out, and then the clearance is finalized. It’s not unusual for this process to take months, during which the person has access to information just as they will when their clearance is finalized.

Interim clearance also does not result in any missing paper trail. Interim clearances are documented the same way a final clearance is documented. If someone wants to minimize paper trail, they have to cheat the documentation, not keep people in interim clearance statuses.

It is unusual for interim clearances to last for as long as some of these people in the White House have reportedly had them. As I’ve said before in other threads, that part bothers me, and calls into question how seriously the White House treats sensitive national security information.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm curious, have you ever been through the process of a clearance? And an advanced clearance?
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JD21 wrote:
I'm curious, have you ever been through the process of a clearance? And an advanced clearance?

Are you asking that question because Kay keeps posting incorrect statements in spite of Slowguy's patient corrections?
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [rick_pcfl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It’s always best to understand where someone is coming from before explaining. I’ve held up through TS in the past and have been through the whole process. My nephew worked for a firm that did background work in recent years for clearances (he’s now a federal agent).

If can be cumbersome to explain to someone who doesn’t have direct experience/knowledge, particularly if they’re relying on MSM snippets to learn the facts.

That’s why I’m asking.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you have knowledge that can contribute to the discussion then please share it. I do not have direct knowledge of the WH security clearance process. I have consulted for the CIA and I'm sure they did some background checks on me, but I was not required to provide any special information to them ahead of time.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
That’s not how clearances work. There’s no such thing as a partial clearance. People are granted an interim clearance when they first enter a job that requires clearance, or sometimes when they need a higher clearance than they already have. That interim clearance is a full clearance. It gives the same access to information that a final clearance gives.


Umm, no. You cannot get an interim clearance to TS/SCI information (yes I know that is like saying PIN number). So no, the interim clearance does not give the same access as a full clearance.

Rob Porter as staff secretary is responsible for all the information that flows to the president. This is normally one of handful of whitehouse jobs that requires access to TS/SCI.

There is also a limit to how long you can have an interim clearance, 180 days with one 180 day extension. Looks like his interim clearance had expired before he was fired/resigned.
Last edited by: chaparral: Feb 12, 18 21:22
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [rick_pcfl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rick_pcfl wrote:
JD21 wrote:
I'm curious, have you ever been through the process of a clearance? And an advanced clearance?


Are you asking that question because Kay keeps posting incorrect statements in spite of Slowguy's patient corrections?

Slowguy was not correct.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
That’s not how clearances work. There’s no such thing as a partial clearance. People are granted an interim clearance when they first enter a job that requires clearance, or sometimes when they need a higher clearance than they already have. That interim clearance is a full clearance. It gives the same access to information that a final clearance gives.


Umm, no. You cannot get an interim clearance to TS/SCI information (yes I know that is like saying PIN number). So no, the interim clearance does not give the same access as a full clearance.

Rob Porter as staff secretary is responsible for all the information that flows to the president. This is normally one of handful of whitehouse jobs that requires access to TS/SCI.

There is also a limit to how long you can have an interim clearance, 180 days with one 180 day extension. Looks like his interim clearance had expired before he was fired/resigned.

I said this before: I could get nowhere near my new project at Boeing until my TS clearance was given. In fact, they couldn't even tell me what the project was. I would *hope* the same applies to people working at the WH whose positions require a TS.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ya, an interim clearance only applies to collateral classified information, not information you need a special caveat for. Pretty much anything at Boeing is going to be program specific making the interim worthless. I have had several clearances with multiple agencies and each time I was granted an interim, and each time it meant nothing, still couldn't work until the full clearance was granted and then the program approved me.

As for time, OPM is a fickle little bitch. I think they stop work more often then European railway workers. I my last TS review took about 2 years, while the initial investigation took only a few months, but my initial secret took over a year. really just depends on what OPM feels like and what budget/political battle is going on. After the navy yard shooting everything came to a grinding halt for a while.

Part of me wants to think that WH staff get moved to the front of the line because of their positions, but the other part of me wants them to wait in line with everybody else, no special treatment so they get to see how the system really works.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
That’s not how clearances work. There’s no such thing as a partial clearance. People are granted an interim clearance when they first enter a job that requires clearance, or sometimes when they need a higher clearance than they already have. That interim clearance is a full clearance. It gives the same access to information that a final clearance gives.


Umm, no. You cannot get an interim clearance to TS/SCI information (yes I know that is like saying PIN number). So no, the interim clearance does not give the same access as a full clearance.

Rob Porter as staff secretary is responsible for all the information that flows to the president. This is normally one of handful of whitehouse jobs that requires access to TS/SCI.

There is also a limit to how long you can have an interim clearance, 180 days with one 180 day extension. Looks like his interim clearance had expired before he was fired/resigned.

Umm, no.

First, SCI eligibility isn't a clearance. An interim TS clearance grants to you the same access to TS level information as a final TS clearance. You would need to take additional steps to have access to SCI information. SCI information can exist at Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret levels. The clearance level is a separate thing from access to SCI.

Second, there are, in point of fact, processes and provisions in place for granting of interim access to SCI information. In general, it's only granted during war time, emergencies, or "exceptional circumstances," with that last category leaving much to the interpretation of the President in a case like this.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
That’s not how clearances work. There’s no such thing as a partial clearance. People are granted an interim clearance when they first enter a job that requires clearance, or sometimes when they need a higher clearance than they already have. That interim clearance is a full clearance. It gives the same access to information that a final clearance gives.


Umm, no. You cannot get an interim clearance to TS/SCI information (yes I know that is like saying PIN number). So no, the interim clearance does not give the same access as a full clearance.

Rob Porter as staff secretary is responsible for all the information that flows to the president. This is normally one of handful of whitehouse jobs that requires access to TS/SCI.

There is also a limit to how long you can have an interim clearance, 180 days with one 180 day extension. Looks like his interim clearance had expired before he was fired/resigned.


Umm, no.

First, SCI eligibility isn't a clearance. An interim TS clearance grants to you the same access to TS level information as a final TS clearance. You would need to take additional steps to have access to SCI information. SCI information can exist at Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret levels. The clearance level is a separate thing from access to SCI.

Second, there are, in point of fact, processes and provisions in place for granting of interim access to SCI information. In general, it's only granted during war time, emergencies, or "exceptional circumstances," with that last category leaving much to the interpretation of the President in a case like this.

Exactly, you need to take extra steps to get access to SCI, which means that the interim clearance does not give you access to the same information as the final clearance. That is what I was disagreeing with your original statement.

With regards to your second point, I think you are correct. Since the President is the ultimate authority for classification, he may be able to just say that person should get access. But, that means that we can judge whether the president made a good decision in doing so. You don't want to give someone access to this information if they can be blackmailed and since this information once public led to him losing his job, that was good blackmail material. So the president being aware of this blackmail material, or at least should have been aware, it is very questionable why he was given access to the information. It is not like he is the only person in the world that can do this job.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [JD21] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I for one am gratified to see the shock! outrage! and demand for accountability from our left leaning Press on this potential breach of National Security information.

Our resident DU bot (Kay) will be along shortly with today's talking points.

Steve
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
With regards to your second point, I think you are correct. Since the President is the ultimate authority for classification, he may be able to just say that person should get access. But, that means that we can judge whether the president made a good decision in doing so. You don't want to give someone access to this information if they can be blackmailed and since this information once public led to him losing his job, that was good blackmail material. So the president being aware of this blackmail material, or at least should have been aware, it is very questionable why he was given access to the information. It is not like he is the only person in the world that can do this job.

This was my point about the WH not necessarily wanting to create a 'paper trail.' If the WH has been told about Porter's risks, and nevertheless grants him a full security clearance, then there could be repercussions in the future. But if they leave the issue in limbo then they have 'plausible deniability' (like Sanders saying the FBI is holding up the process).
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
chaparral wrote:
With regards to your second point, I think you are correct. Since the President is the ultimate authority for classification, he may be able to just say that person should get access. But, that means that we can judge whether the president made a good decision in doing so. You don't want to give someone access to this information if they can be blackmailed and since this information once public led to him losing his job, that was good blackmail material. So the president being aware of this blackmail material, or at least should have been aware, it is very questionable why he was given access to the information. It is not like he is the only person in the world that can do this job.

This was my point about the WH not necessarily wanting to create a 'paper trail.' If the WH has been told about Porter's risks, and nevertheless grants him a full security clearance, then there could be repercussions in the future. But if they leave the issue in limbo then they have 'plausible deniability' (like Sanders saying the FBI is holding up the process).

Director Wray just basically said the
WH lied about Porter in Senate testimony. Said the FBI had closed his security clearance file. Submitted a partial report in march completed it in July. Provided more information in November in response to a request then closed it in January. So once again this White House just lies.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Exactly, you need to take extra steps to get access to SCI, which means that the interim clearance does not give you access to the same information as the final clearance. That is what I was disagreeing with your original statement.

You're mixing up to separate issues. The first issue is clearance. There are Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret clearances. The second issue is SCI eligibility. When you say you have TS/SCI access, that means you have a TS clearance, and separately, you have SCI eligibility. You don't have to have any kind of TS clearance to have SCI eligibility. You could have S/SCI or C/SCI.

Having an interim clearance grants you access to the same information that having a final clearance would. You separately have to be deemed eligible for access to SCI.

Quote:
But, that means that we can judge whether the president made a good decision in doing so. You don't want to give someone access to this information if they can be blackmailed and since this information once public led to him losing his job, that was good blackmail material. So the president being aware of this blackmail material, or at least should have been aware, it is very questionable why he was given access to the information. It is not like he is the only person in the world that can do this job.

I don't disagree with any of this, and stated my similar concerns earlier.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
chaparral wrote:

With regards to your second point, I think you are correct. Since the President is the ultimate authority for classification, he may be able to just say that person should get access. But, that means that we can judge whether the president made a good decision in doing so. You don't want to give someone access to this information if they can be blackmailed and since this information once public led to him losing his job, that was good blackmail material. So the president being aware of this blackmail material, or at least should have been aware, it is very questionable why he was given access to the information. It is not like he is the only person in the world that can do this job.


This was my point about the WH not necessarily wanting to create a 'paper trail.' If the WH has been told about Porter's risks, and nevertheless grants him a full security clearance, then there could be repercussions in the future. But if they leave the issue in limbo then they have 'plausible deniability' (like Sanders saying the FBI is holding up the process).

Again, no. Leaving his clearance in an interim status does not give plausible deniability. Interim clearances are tracked and entered into the same systems that final clearances are. There is a person (or team of people) assigned to track all clearances for any particular organization, including interim and final, and then usually a separate person who tracks SCI eligibility. They are responsible for letting you know when your clearance is getting close to expiration so you can renew it, for processing the paperwork for new or renewed, or cancelled clearances, etc.

Giving people an interim clearance doesn't really result in less of a paper trail.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
chaparral wrote:

With regards to your second point, I think you are correct. Since the President is the ultimate authority for classification, he may be able to just say that person should get access. But, that means that we can judge whether the president made a good decision in doing so. You don't want to give someone access to this information if they can be blackmailed and since this information once public led to him losing his job, that was good blackmail material. So the president being aware of this blackmail material, or at least should have been aware, it is very questionable why he was given access to the information. It is not like he is the only person in the world that can do this job.


This was my point about the WH not necessarily wanting to create a 'paper trail.' If the WH has been told about Porter's risks, and nevertheless grants him a full security clearance, then there could be repercussions in the future. But if they leave the issue in limbo then they have 'plausible deniability' (like Sanders saying the FBI is holding up the process).


Again, no. Leaving his clearance in an interim status does not give plausible deniability. Interim clearances are tracked and entered into the same systems that final clearances are. There is a person (or team of people) assigned to track all clearances for any particular organization, including interim and final, and then usually a separate person who tracks SCI eligibility. They are responsible for letting you know when your clearance is getting close to expiration so you can renew it, for processing the paperwork for new or renewed, or cancelled clearances, etc.

Giving people an interim clearance doesn't really result in less of a paper trail.

So if the information reported today here is correct, what should the WH have done with Porter and when?
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
chaparral wrote:

With regards to your second point, I think you are correct. Since the President is the ultimate authority for classification, he may be able to just say that person should get access. But, that means that we can judge whether the president made a good decision in doing so. You don't want to give someone access to this information if they can be blackmailed and since this information once public led to him losing his job, that was good blackmail material. So the president being aware of this blackmail material, or at least should have been aware, it is very questionable why he was given access to the information. It is not like he is the only person in the world that can do this job.


This was my point about the WH not necessarily wanting to create a 'paper trail.' If the WH has been told about Porter's risks, and nevertheless grants him a full security clearance, then there could be repercussions in the future. But if they leave the issue in limbo then they have 'plausible deniability' (like Sanders saying the FBI is holding up the process).


Again, no. Leaving his clearance in an interim status does not give plausible deniability. Interim clearances are tracked and entered into the same systems that final clearances are. There is a person (or team of people) assigned to track all clearances for any particular organization, including interim and final, and then usually a separate person who tracks SCI eligibility. They are responsible for letting you know when your clearance is getting close to expiration so you can renew it, for processing the paperwork for new or renewed, or cancelled clearances, etc.

Giving people an interim clearance doesn't really result in less of a paper trail.


So if the information reported today here is correct, what should the WH have done with Porter and when?


My take is this. The White House / Transition team should have vetted Mr. Porter more effectively before hiring him to begin with. I wouldn't want to have people in my administration with the stink of domestic abuse on them. That said, let's move forward assuming the timeline in the linked article is accurate.

Let's assume that the WH did their due diligence, and for whatever reason, the issue of domestic abuse was not revealed during the hiring process, i.e. they hired him in good faith. Upon hiring him, they would have granted him an interim clearance which would include signing non-disclosure agreements and paperwork acknowledging what his clearance meant and the penalties for violating the law regarding disclosure of classified information. He should have also received basic training (documented in a personnel file) about classified information, control of that information, how clearances work, etc. All of his paperwork and training would be documented in the systems that are established for that purpose. To get even this far, Mr. Porter would have had to fill in a pretty extensive set of forms giving all his background information, where he's lived, who he's known, and issues with the law, foreign contacts, etc. Domestic violence is, if I remember correctly, specifically spelled out on the form, but he might not have disclosed it because he was never actually charged or convicted on domestic violence. During his background investigation, he would be interviewed about his responses on the form, and the investigator would likely ask him if there were any other issues he wanted to make known, and he should have disclosed the domestic issues at the point, if he didn't do so on the forms previously. If he was granted access to SCI programs, he would have been read in, separately signing paperwork acknowledging his responsibilities to safeguard that info.

In March, when the initial results of the partial investigation were made available to the WH, it might be reasonable to ask for more detail, call Mr. Porter in to try to figure out what the real story was, and then either give more time for the full investigation to be completed, or err on the side of caution and find someone else to do the job, either firing Mr. Porter or finding a job where he wouldn't have access to national security information. His initial interim clearance would be valid until June timeframe, so there wouldn't be any issues with expiration at that point. However, I might be inclined to get rid of him, especially if it turned out that he hadn't disclosed the domestic issues of his own free will.

When the completed investigation was provided to the WH in June, Mr. Porter would be coming up on expiration of his initial interim clearance. Based on the results of that completed investigation, I think the WH should have let Mr. Porter go, removed his interim clearance, and taken away any access he had to classified information. He would have again had to review and probably sign or re-initial paperwork acknowledging his responsibility to continue to safeguard any classified information he was exposed to during his time in the WH, and all of this would again be documented. If he had been read into any SCI programs, he would have to separately be read back out, again signing paperwork acknowledging his responsibilities to safeguard that information.

In this case, the WH apparently asked for additional background information to make a decision. Assuming they had a legitimate and logical reason to ask for that additional investigation, they should have granted an extension to his interim clearance at the 180 day mark (this would be documented). Then in November, when they received the update, they should have again taken the steps outlined above to remove Mr. Porter's access and move him to a job where he didn't have to deal with classified information, or fire him outright.

Off the top of my head, that's probably about what could/should have happened.

The amount of paperwork involved in getting a clearance is significant, and you do all of it even if you only have an interim clearance, because that paperwork follows with you when your final clearance is granted. Leaving his, and other people's, clearances in an interim status doesn't really result in a lack of paper trail. The only way the paper trail goes away is if someone (institutionally, like the clearance manager) just decides not to do any of it, which would be a bigger issue, and not directly related to interim or final status.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Last edited by: slowguy: Feb 13, 18 10:03
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks. Today's WH press briefing will be interesting...
Quote Reply
Post deleted by spudone [ In reply to ]
Re: WH security clearances [xtremrun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Director Wray just basically said the WH lied about Porter in Senate testimony.

I wonder if there is anyone who believes anything coming out of the Whitehouse.

I mean, it's possible I guess but it doesn't seem likely.

Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Sanuk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sanuk wrote:
Director Wray just basically said the WH lied about Porter in Senate testimony.

I wonder if there is anyone who believes anything coming out of the Whitehouse.

I mean, it's possible I guess but it doesn't seem likely.

I know quite a few of the Fox News brainwashed minions who believe everything that comes out of the White House. #sad
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i am baffled as to what is going on?

https://www.cnn.com/...ite-house/index.html

current circumstances (as depicted by CNN) defy the rules as i understand them; just as they defied the rules as pertains to HRC and 'wiping' drives and air gaping SAP info---such arrogance.

Just had to go thru a metric shit ton of shit to get re-certified and re-verified.

JEEZ!?

Steve
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Steve Hawley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Steve Hawley wrote:
i am baffled as to what is going on?

https://www.cnn.com/...ite-house/index.html

current circumstances (as depicted by CNN) defy the rules as i understand them; just as they defied the rules as pertains to HRC and 'wiping' drives and air gaping SAP info---such arrogance.

Just had to go thru a metric shit ton of shit to get re-certified and re-verified.

JEEZ!?

It's obviously a uuuuggggeeeee conspiracy to keep the man down. Has nothing to do with having dirty friends and associates.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Steve Hawley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Steve Hawley wrote:
i am baffled as to what is going on?

https://www.cnn.com/...ite-house/index.html

current circumstances (as depicted by CNN) defy the rules as i understand them; just as they defied the rules as pertains to HRC and 'wiping' drives and air gaping SAP info---such arrogance.

Just had to go thru a metric shit ton of shit to get re-certified and re-verified.

JEEZ!?

It's hard to tell what's going on. Based on the report, it's hard to tell if any hard rules have been violated. It says two dozen or so staffers who joined the staff on day one still had interim clearances as of November, which could be legal, so long as they were formally granted extensions on their initial interim timeline. If they still have interim clearances now, however, they would have busted the maximum time allowed.

Even if you grant a backlog due to massive influx of new staffers, many of whom have never had any clearance previously, it's troubling that we can't get final clearances for some of these key positions. How does the NSCs director for cybersecurity not have a clearance by now?

It seems to display a general lack of concern for following the rules in place to protect classified information, and a feeling that the WH staff doesn't have to play by the rules everyone else has to follow.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Sort of a moot point if the president is already vulnerable to being blackmailed or coerced, which seems likely."

Concur with argument of moot point and the president. The killer in all of this is that the President is not subject to background security checks for clearance certification. An informed citizen/voter would have known in July 16 that both major candidates for the office, Hillary and Donnie, would not have passed the background investigation requirement. Hillary would have failed a recertification because of the private server use and Donnie well let's just say his reason for non issuance would be factual inaccuracies in his SF-86. There ought to be a law..... oops but then that would require congressional action.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Gen Kelly has issued some new guidance with regard to the process for clearances in the White House. Some of this seems like stuff that should have already been in place. Of note, as of next week, he’s directed that access to TS and SCI information be revoked for anyone who’s had an interim clearance since June or earlier. That would hit, among others, Jared Kushner.

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/...arance-process/2777/

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I infer two things. First, that document was leaked on purpose to try to end the whole Porter discussion and shore up Kelly's authority within the WH. Kelly writes about things he was already doing or had already done, so sort of a CYA by Kelly. This is also probably a PR exercise with the midterms in mind, which probably means Kelly will be around for a few more months at least.

Second, I suspect Kelly wants Kuchner out. What will be interesting is Trump's response if that's the way it goes.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
I infer two things. First, that document was leaked on purpose to try to end the whole Porter discussion and shore up Kelly's authority within the WH. Kelly writes about things he was already doing or had already done, so sort of a CYA by Kelly. This is also probably a PR exercise with the midterms in mind, which probably means Kelly will be around for a few more months at least.

Second, I suspect Kelly wants Kuchner out. What will be interesting is Trump's response if that's the way it goes.

Quick update, it is of course worse than we thought.


https://www.nbcnews.com/...re-overruled-n962221

Remember when Republicans were all concerned about handling of classified information, I am beginning to think they are acting in bad faith.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
More of the best people.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chriskal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chriskal wrote:
More of the best people.

Seriously, who are the 30 people granted clearances after being denied? Obviously Kushner and Gorka, I mean those people should obviously be kept far away from anything sensitive.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
chriskal wrote:
More of the best people.

Seriously, who are the 30 people granted clearances after being denied? Obviously Kushner and Gorka, I mean those people should obviously be kept far away from anything sensitive.

I’m just surprised that number isn’t higher. Top of my head though I’d be shocked if Bannon or the mooch would legitimate qualify.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
chriskal wrote:
More of the best people.

Seriously, who are the 30 people granted clearances after being denied? Obviously Kushner and Gorka, I mean those people should obviously be kept far away from anything sensitive.

“...sources said....â€

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
chriskal wrote:
More of the best people.


Seriously, who are the 30 people granted clearances after being denied? Obviously Kushner and Gorka, I mean those people should obviously be kept far away from anything sensitive.


“...sources said....â€

Shouldn't you be peddling unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about the caravan that someone believed enough to kill a bunch of innocent people? I am sure the sourcing on that was more solid than this.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
Duffy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
chriskal wrote:
More of the best people.


Seriously, who are the 30 people granted clearances after being denied? Obviously Kushner and Gorka, I mean those people should obviously be kept far away from anything sensitive.


“...sources said....â€

Shouldn't you be peddling unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about the caravan that someone believed enough to kill a bunch of innocent people? I am sure the sourcing on that was more solid than this.



Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
Duffy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
chriskal wrote:
More of the best people.


Seriously, who are the 30 people granted clearances after being denied? Obviously Kushner and Gorka, I mean those people should obviously be kept far away from anything sensitive.


“...sources said....â€


Shouldn't you be peddling unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about the caravan that someone believed enough to kill a bunch of innocent people? I am sure the sourcing on that was more solid than this.



Suddenly you are concerned by sourcing, but you were willing to claim that Soros paid for the Caravan last fall.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Suddenly you are concerned by sourcing, but you were willing to claim that Soros paid for the Caravan last fall.


I asked who was paying for them.

I never said anything about Soros.

Much of their funding came from Pueblo Sin Fronteras. Some other people have claimed that PSF gets money from Soros.

I don’t know if they do or not.

How is this related to WH security clearances?

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Last edited by: Duffy: Jan 24, 19 20:33
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
Suddenly you are concerned by sourcing, but you were willing to claim that Soros paid for the Caravan last fall.


I asked who was paying for them.

I never said anything about Soros.

Much of their funding came from Pueblo Sin Fronteras. Some other people have claimed that PSF gets money from Soros.

I don’t know if they do or not.

How is this related to WH security clearances?

But why ask who is paying for it? That is odd, do you think that someone has been paying for the millions of immigrants that come to America? Just seems like a weird question to ask.

Did you have any evidence for that? Yet you criticize this article.

If you want, can you post any evidence for what you posted?
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Did you have any evidence for that? Yet you criticize this article.


If you want, can you post any evidence for what you posted?


You only challenge the sources when you don't agree with what they are saying.


You must be new around here.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
Suddenly you are concerned by sourcing, but you were willing to claim that Soros paid for the Caravan last fall.


I asked who was paying for them.

I never said anything about Soros.

Much of their funding came from Pueblo Sin Fronteras. Some other people have claimed that PSF gets money from Soros.

I don’t know if they do or not.

How is this related to WH security clearances?


But why ask who is paying for it? That is odd, do you think that someone has been paying for the millions of immigrants that come to America? Just seems like a weird question to ask.

Did you have any evidence for that? Yet you criticize this article.

If you want, can you post any evidence for what you posted?


A group of thousands (?) traveling the length of mexico on foot, in buses, flat beds, being fed and clothed and showered. They showed up at the border with clean cloathes on after “walking†the length of mexico. I’m filthy dirty by noon in mexico.

Someone was paying for that.

And that someone was in large part Pueblo Sin Fronteras....

https://www.nbcnews.com/...-trump-s-ire-n862566

And this information has been sourced by named sources and the PSF readily confirms that they helped the caravan with money and stuff.

All of which has nothing to do with security clearances which is the subject of this thread, sources say...

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Last edited by: Duffy: Jan 25, 19 4:38
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Sanuk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sanuk wrote:
Did you have any evidence for that? Yet you criticize this article.


If you want, can you post any evidence for what you posted?


You only challenge the sources when you don't agree with what they are saying.


You must be new around here.

https://www.nbcnews.com/...-trump-s-ire-n862566

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Sanuk wrote:
Did you have any evidence for that? Yet you criticize this article.


If you want, can you post any evidence for what you posted?


You only challenge the sources when you don't agree with what they are saying.


You must be new around here.


https://www.nbcnews.com/...-trump-s-ire-n862566

That sounds evil. Helping desperate refugees.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Sanuk wrote:
Did you have any evidence for that? Yet you criticize this article.


If you want, can you post any evidence for what you posted?


You only challenge the sources when you don't agree with what they are saying.


You must be new around here.


https://www.nbcnews.com/...-trump-s-ire-n862566

That sounds evil. Helping desperate refugees.

When did I ever characterize it as evil?

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Sanuk wrote:
Did you have any evidence for that? Yet you criticize this article.


If you want, can you post any evidence for what you posted?


You only challenge the sources when you don't agree with what they are saying.


You must be new around here.


https://www.nbcnews.com/...-trump-s-ire-n862566


That sounds evil. Helping desperate refugees.


When did I ever characterize it as evil?

Fair enough.

So back to the topic of the thread, you think these "sources" are likely bogus and the story made up? You think it unlikely that Kushner's and others' security clearances were turned down initially and then overruled by a Trump appointee? You think it unlikely that security personnel who see this going on might not feel it in the country's best interests to whistle-blow what's going on, but stay anonymous to protect themselves?
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
So back to the topic of the thread, you think these "sources" are likely bogus and the story made up?

I don’t know. There’s a solid history of news stories using “sources†that end up being false so I see stories like this one and think, hmmm, I wonder if it’s true....

And you should too.

Quote:
You think it unlikely that Kushner's and others' security clearances were turned down initially and then overruled by a Trump appointee?

I have no idea. I also have no idea whether such a thing would be unusual or something that has happened a lot with other administrations. We’ve never really had “sources†telling the press about such machinations before.

So who knows?

Quote:
You think it unlikely that security personnel who see this going on might not feel it in the country's best interests to whistle-blow what's going on, but stay anonymous to protect themselves?

It’s possible but given the history of bullshit stories I take a wait and approach.

You should too.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
So back to the topic of the thread, you think these "sources" are likely bogus and the story made up?


I don’t know. There’s a solid history of news stories using “sources†that end up being false so I see stories like this one and think, hmmm, I wonder if it’s true....

And you should too.

Quote:
You think it unlikely that Kushner's and others' security clearances were turned down initially and then overruled by a Trump appointee?


I have no idea. I also have no idea whether such a thing would be unusual or something that has happened a lot with other administrations. We’ve never really had “sources†telling the press about such machinations before.

So who knows?

Quote:
You think it unlikely that security personnel who see this going on might not feel it in the country's best interests to whistle-blow what's going on, but stay anonymous to protect themselves?


It’s possible but given the history of bullshit stories I take a wait and approach.

You should too.

Yes, agreed that we'll have to see how this develops. I assume there is a paper trail, and presumably the House Oversight Committee can request the documents.

As to how often it's happened before, compared to the reported 30 cases under this administration (Kline), it has been reported that it has only happened once in the prior three years.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
As to how often it's happened before, compared to the reported 30 cases under this administration

Reported.

Quote:
only happened once in the prior three years.

What about the previous 30 years?

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
More developments, looks like it is more than the career officials that said Jared shouldn't have a clearance, even trump's chief of staff and the white house council didn't think he should. And they all wrote memos to document it.

https://www.nytimes.com/...urity-clearance.html

and washpo also confirms it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...-national&wpmk=1

Remember when handling of classified information was so important to Republicans.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Umm, no. You cannot get an interim clearance to TS/SCI information (yes I know that is like saying PIN number). So no, the interim clearance does not give the same access as a full clearance. "

This info has probably already been covered.


I got my interim TS clearance within a week. I believe it took almost a year (maybe 8 months?) to get approved for the TS via SSBI, but it was not an SCI (to my knowledge). The interim TS allowed me to access TS material, but there was a special program that I worked on that would not allow me in until my TS clearance was finalized, and even then I had to be approved for the program. A coworker was originally supposed to work the program but they rejected her because her husband was an immigrant.

So back to what slowguy said, to my knowledge there is no thing as a "partial clearance," but there are different levels of clearance, different requirements for those levels, and even then most information is on a need to know basis and a lot of information is restricted to whatever the program is.

As an example, if I'm designing a laser that can assassinate diplomats, they might only require TS without an SCI, but they may refuse you access to any of that information until your investigation is complete. You can still go to a meeting on another project and they say, "This is Bob. He'll be putting together the presentations for the IED analysis," and they'll say, "this program requires a TS." "He has his interim." "Okay, good enough." "What about Jill? She has the highest clearance that exists?" "No. Jill doesn't need to be here."

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
"I got my interim TS clearance within a week. I believe it took almost a year (maybe 8 months?) to get approved for the TS via SSBI, but it was not an SCI (to my knowledge). The interim TS allowed me to access TS material, but there was a special program that I worked on that would not allow me in until my TS clearance was finalized, and even then I had to be approved for the program. A coworker was originally supposed to work the program but they rejected her because her husband was an immigrant.

From you description it was SCI. And a great example of what I was saying, an interim clearance does not get you access to everything.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, no clearance gets you into everything. I had access to a fuck ton of top secret information with my interim clearance. But the program I got hired to work on wouldn't accept me until I got my final clearance, and there were others in my office who already had their final clearance who were never accepted.

So while your idea of "partial clearance" may be in the right spirit, technically it is incorrect.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
So back to the topic of the thread, you think these "sources" are likely bogus and the story made up?


I don’t know. There’s a solid history of news stories using “sources†that end up being false so I see stories like this one and think, hmmm, I wonder if it’s true....

And you should too.

Quote:
You think it unlikely that Kushner's and others' security clearances were turned down initially and then overruled by a Trump appointee?


I have no idea. I also have no idea whether such a thing would be unusual or something that has happened a lot with other administrations. We’ve never really had “sources†telling the press about such machinations before.

So who knows?

Quote:
You think it unlikely that security personnel who see this going on might not feel it in the country's best interests to whistle-blow what's going on, but stay anonymous to protect themselves?


It’s possible but given the history of bullshit stories I take a wait and approach.

You should too.

So it seems that it was Trump himself who ordered the override, though both Trump and Ivanka have publicly denied it. Hmm... who to believe...
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply


----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trump believes Putin, Saudi prince & un. His clearance should be revoked and booted ASAP.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [tyrod1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If the President says its OK to give him clearance, then it should be OK.
The President didn't make this decision willy-nilly; he first checked with Putin and Putin said it was OK, "Jared hasn't compromised by the CIA or the FBI - he is loyal to us".



Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Guffaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pooty likes him some backdoor channel.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
So back to the topic of the thread, you think these "sources" are likely bogus and the story made up?


I don’t know. There’s a solid history of news stories using “sources†that end up being false so I see stories like this one and think, hmmm, I wonder if it’s true....

And you should too.

Quote:
You think it unlikely that Kushner's and others' security clearances were turned down initially and then overruled by a Trump appointee?


I have no idea. I also have no idea whether such a thing would be unusual or something that has happened a lot with other administrations. We’ve never really had “sources†telling the press about such machinations before.

So who knows?

Quote:
You think it unlikely that security personnel who see this going on might not feel it in the country's best interests to whistle-blow what's going on, but stay anonymous to protect themselves?


It’s possible but given the history of bullshit stories I take a wait and approach.

You should too.

So it seems that it was Trump himself who ordered the override, though both Trump and Ivanka have publicly denied it. Hmm... who to believe...

Again, it’s anonymous sources so....????

Memos are mentioned. No memos are produced in the story...

Maybe it’s all true????

And there’s this from the story....

Quote:
While the president has the legal authority to grant a clearance, in most cases, the White House’s personnel security office makes a determination about whether to grant one after the F.B.I. has conducted a background check. If there is a dispute in the personnel security office about how to move forward — a rare occurrence — the White House counsel makes the decision. In highly unusual cases, the president weighs in and grants one himself.

So even if the story is true, and it very well could be, what is the issue? It’s not illegal according to the NYT.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If it's true, the issue is that he lied about it.



"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Bretom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bretom wrote:
If it's true, the issue is that he lied about it.

Ok. Is it news that the president lies?

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Bretom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bretom wrote:
If it's true, the issue is that he lied about it.

But that's what he said, not what he meant, or what he meant but didn't say or as it he didn't say it exactly like that, or someone else said it and meant something? Oh hell, I can't remember all of the mental gymnastics necessary to defend Trump's lying.

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not if you've given up. For everyone else, yes, every provable instance of the president lying is still news.



"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek
Last edited by: Bretom: Mar 1, 19 6:29
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
So even if the story is true, and it very well could be, what is the issue? It’s not illegal according to the NYT.
So with the same caveat of truthfulness of the story as you make, I would expect that our President would have a bar for national security and related decisions higher than "not illegal."

When all of the nation's security institutions and many of his advisers are not recommending that Jared be granted a TS clearance, it clearly falls into ill-advised or a poor decision. I know the President doesn't a moral compass, so it is not possible to expect him to see that this is a problem. But I would expect rational people, who aren't trying to always find the contrarian position, to be able to discern the difference.

There is no precedent for a prior President making such a decree against the advice the security experts for any staff members, but especially not for a relative.

Suffer Well.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [jmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jmh wrote:
Quote:

So even if the story is true, and it very well could be, what is the issue? It’s not illegal according to the NYT.

So with the same caveat of truthfulness of the story as you make, I would expect that our President would have a bar for national security and related decisions higher than "not illegal."

When all of the nation's security institutions and many of his advisers are not recommending that Jared be granted a TS clearance, it clearly falls into ill-advised or a poor decision. I know the President doesn't a moral compass, so it is not possible to expect him to see that this is a problem. But I would expect rational people, who aren't trying to always find the contrarian position, to be able to discern the difference.

There is no precedent for a prior President making such a decree against the advice the security experts for any staff members, but especially not for a relative.

This is why they love him. He does what he wants, he's just like them.

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
So back to the topic of the thread, you think these "sources" are likely bogus and the story made up?


I don’t know. There’s a solid history of news stories using “sources†that end up being false so I see stories like this one and think, hmmm, I wonder if it’s true....

And you should too.

Quote:
You think it unlikely that Kushner's and others' security clearances were turned down initially and then overruled by a Trump appointee?


I have no idea. I also have no idea whether such a thing would be unusual or something that has happened a lot with other administrations. We’ve never really had “sources†telling the press about such machinations before.

So who knows?

Quote:
You think it unlikely that security personnel who see this going on might not feel it in the country's best interests to whistle-blow what's going on, but stay anonymous to protect themselves?


It’s possible but given the history of bullshit stories I take a wait and approach.

You should too.


So it seems that it was Trump himself who ordered the override, though both Trump and Ivanka have publicly denied it. Hmm... who to believe...


Again, it’s anonymous sources so....????

Memos are mentioned. No memos are produced in the story...

Maybe it’s all true????

And there’s this from the story....

Quote:
While the president has the legal authority to grant a clearance, in most cases, the White House’s personnel security office makes a determination about whether to grant one after the F.B.I. has conducted a background check. If there is a dispute in the personnel security office about how to move forward — a rare occurrence — the White House counsel makes the decision. In highly unusual cases, the president weighs in and grants one himself.


So even if the story is true, and it very well could be, what is the issue? It’s not illegal according to the NYT.

Yes, there is no doubt the president has the authority.

Sounds like you're therefore cool with the scenario of the president overruling the advice of the security services and granting his son-in-law access to our country's most sensitive classified information?

Cummings has requested all documentation relating to the process, so we should know for sure if the NY Times' sources are reliable or not. The fact that Sarah Sanders had "no comment" may or may not be an indication of anything.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Yes, there is no doubt the president has the authority.

Right, so shouldn’t this be the end of it?

Quote:
Sounds like you're therefore cool with the scenario of the president overruling the advice of the security services and granting his son-in-law access to our country's most sensitive classified information?

Never said that. And what I’m “cool with†or not has no bearing on what the president can or can’t do.

Quote:
Cummings has requested all documentation relating to the process, so we should know for sure if the NY Times' sources are reliable or not.

Which has been my stance all along. Is the story true?

And again, even if the story is true....

Quote:
Yes, there is no doubt the president has the authority.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:

Never said that. And what I’m “cool with†or not has no bearing on what the president can or can’t do.


So, are you cool with it, if true?
Last edited by: Kay Serrar: Mar 1, 19 6:43
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:

Never said that. And what I’m “cool with†or not has no bearing on what the president can or can’t do.


So, are you cool with it, if true?

I don’t really care.

Indifferent would be a better word.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You also have to remember. During the 2016 election, a major issue was protocols established to secure classified information.

One candidate's history of being careless with those protocols was a major issue for people.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Duffy wrote:
[quote]Yes, there is no doubt the president has the authority.


Right, so shouldn’t this be the end of it?


Quote:
Sounds like you're therefore cool with the scenario of the president overruling the advice of the security services and granting his son-in-law access to our country's most sensitive classified information?


Never said that. And what I’m “cool with†or not has no bearing on what the president can or can’t do.

Quote:
Cummings has requested all documentation relating to the process, so we should know for sure if the NY Times' sources are reliable or not.


Which has been my stance all along. Is the story true?

And again, even if the story is true....

Quote:
Yes, there is no doubt the president has the authority.


There are many things which the President has the authority to do. Just because he has the power to do it, doesn't mean he should.

We have granted these powers to the President with an assumption of trust and good judgement. When he uses powers that he has authority to use with bad judgement or for self serving purpose, we- the people, the press and/or other branches of government- should call him out on it.

It is a pretty simple concept and most people find it easy to understand.

Suffer Well.
Last edited by: jmh: Mar 1, 19 6:51
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:

Never said that. And what I’m “cool with†or not has no bearing on what the president can or can’t do.


So, are you cool with it, if true?


I don’t really care.

Indifferent would be a better word.

What Duffy tried to say:
"I don’t really care. Indifferent would be a better word."

What we heard with his mouth full of Trump's balls:
"Mmmff, mmff, [gulp], mmfff, urrll, aarrgh, mmmmmmmmmm..."
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [jmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
There are many things which the President has the authority to do. Just because he has the power to do it, doesn't mean he should.

And I have said on many occasions here, both before and during Trump’s administration, that we need really think about what powers we (us, the people) relinquish to the president, etc. because someday someone we don’t like will be using that power.

And look where we are...

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
Well, no clearance gets you into everything. I had access to a fuck ton of top secret information with my interim clearance. But the program I got hired to work on wouldn't accept me until I got my final clearance, and there were others in my office who already had their final clearance who were never accepted.

So while your idea of "partial clearance" may be in the right spirit, technically it is incorrect.

Well, yes you still have a need to know.

What are you talking about, your experience is exactly how I described it working. With an interim TS clearance you have access to all the TS information you have a need to know, but not any SCI. SCI requires you have a final clearance and then are cleared for the SCI program.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
There are many things which the President has the authority to do. Just because he has the power to do it, doesn't mean he should.


And I have said on many occasions here, both before and during Trump’s administration, that we need really think about what powers we (us, the people) relinquish to the president, etc. because someday someone we don’t like will be using that power.

And look where we are...

Wait, wha... I thought you didn't care?
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
You also have to remember. During the 2016 election, a major issue was protocols established to secure classified information.

One candidate's history of being careless with those protocols was a major issue for people.

yes it was, for some people. I think what Clinton was actually illegal but I guess that’s a minor detail.

And to turn this back around on you, many people who were saying what Clinton did was no big deal (even though it was actually illegal) are now freaking out about what trump supposedly did (even though it’s perfectly legal).

I’ve had the same reaction to both situations...meh.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [jmh] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jmh wrote:
Quote:

So even if the story is true, and it very well could be, what is the issue? It’s not illegal according to the NYT.

So with the same caveat of truthfulness of the story as you make, I would expect that our President would have a bar for national security and related decisions higher than "not illegal."

When all of the nation's security institutions and many of his advisers are not recommending that Jared be granted a TS clearance, it clearly falls into ill-advised or a poor decision. I know the President doesn't a moral compass, so it is not possible to expect him to see that this is a problem. But I would expect rational people, who aren't trying to always find the contrarian position, to be able to discern the difference.

There is no precedent for a prior President making such a decree against the advice the security experts for any staff members, but especially not for a relative.

The amount of people that saw Jared's information, knowing the president wanted him to get a clearance, and still saying nope, means there is something serious in there. Must be some giant red flags. People aren't just going to go against what the president wanted for small issues.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
There are many things which the President has the authority to do. Just because he has the power to do it, doesn't mean he should.


And I have said on many occasions here, both before and during Trump’s administration, that we need really think about what powers we (us, the people) relinquish to the president, etc. because someday someone we don’t like will be using that power.

And look where we are...

Wait, wha... I thought you didn't care?

The point is that some of you on this forum have zero problem with power grabs when “your guys†are doing it and are loudest complainers when “the other guys†take advantage of it.

I’ve been consistant here all along. “My guys†are us, the people.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
There are many things which the President has the authority to do. Just because he has the power to do it, doesn't mean he should.


And I have said on many occasions here, both before and during Trump’s administration, that we need really think about what powers we (us, the people) relinquish to the president, etc. because someday someone we don’t like will be using that power.

And look where we are...

On that we agree.

But for someone who is "indifferent," you seem to have a strong opinion on the topic and enthusiastic participation on a thread about it.

Suffer Well.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:

Never said that. And what I’m “cool with†or not has no bearing on what the president can or can’t do.


So, are you cool with it, if true?


I don’t really care.

Indifferent would be a better word.

Your actions bely your words. If you were indifferent, you wouldn't post so much defending it.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
There are many things which the President has the authority to do. Just because he has the power to do it, doesn't mean he should.


And I have said on many occasions here, both before and during Trump’s administration, that we need really think about what powers we (us, the people) relinquish to the president, etc. because someday someone we don’t like will be using that power.

And look where we are...


Wait, wha... I thought you didn't care?


The point is that some of you on this forum have zero problem with power grabs when “your guys†are doing it and are loudest complainers when “the other guys†take advantage of it.

I’ve been consistant here all along. “My guys†are us, the people.

Show me where I've supported "power grabs". I'm not even sure who you think are "my guys" since I only voted Democrat for the first time in November 2018. Nice try at whataboutism though.

It's amazing how far you'll go to not call out Trump's unpalatable behaviour. But it's ok. We know you're actually an independent.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Harbinger] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Harbinger wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:

Never said that. And what I’m “cool with†or not has no bearing on what the president can or can’t do.


So, are you cool with it, if true?


I don’t really care.

Indifferent would be a better word.

Your actions bely your words. If you were indifferent, you wouldn't post so much defending it.

I’m not defending it.

Lack of complaint is not a defense.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What clinton did was not illegal though... There were investigations... So that point makes little sense. Sure you can think it is illegal. By all accounts of what matters, what she did was not illegal. It would be similar if Mueller's report comes back and says everything trump did was very cool and very legal. My opinion doesnt matter.

I think Clinton's emails situation was blown out of proportion. She was someone who was able to handle classified info.

Here, trump override protocols (after saying he cared very much about protocols) to give someone classified info who on all accounts should not have been given access.

The situation would have been more similar to if clinton had given passwords to her email server to friends, because she wanted them to look at stuff.

Which is worse, someone who should have access to info, setting up access to the info in a careless manor. Or given access to info that they shouldnt have. Its like a bank security guard forgetting to lock up the vault vs. the bank security guard giving the keys to the vault to a friend.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I’m pretty sure what she did was illegal.

This is information I got from people who know more about this than I do.

People like slowguy, Steve Hayley and James Comey.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Show me where I've supported "power grabs". I'm not even sure who you think are "my guys" since I only voted Democrat for the first time in November 2018. Nice try at whataboutism though.


Oh, sorry. I thought you were for single payer healthcare and huge government action to combat climate change.

I must have mistaken you for someone else.

Quote:
t's amazing how far you'll go to not call out Trump's unpalatable behaviour. But it's ok. We know you're actually an independent.

Aren’t there enough people here already doing that? I’m not one to go with the pack.

I’m pointing out things like a completely dishonest press. I expect more from journalists than from politicians.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Last edited by: Duffy: Mar 1, 19 7:32
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Link to Comey saying what clinton did was illegal?

This wasn't your ordinary bureaucrat who just mishandles one document. This was something more than that. But not something that anybody would prosecute,†Comey said.
Last edited by: patentattorney: Mar 1, 19 7:39
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Well, yes you still have a need to know.

What are you talking about, your experience is exactly how I described it working. With an interim TS clearance you have access to all the TS information you have a need to know, but not any SCI. SCI requires you have a final clearance and then are cleared for the SCI program. "


I'm just agreeing with Slowguy that your term "partial clearance" isn't correct. Where I worked, we had a whole library full of documents classified as Top Secret. I had access to all of those documents. We did not have a "partial top secret" room and then a "full top secret" room.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
Show me where I've supported "power grabs". I'm not even sure who you think are "my guys" since I only voted Democrat for the first time in November 2018. Nice try at whataboutism though.


Oh, sorry. I thought you were for single payer healthcare and huge government action to combat climate change.

I must have mistaken you for someone else.

Quote:
t's amazing how far you'll go to not call out Trump's unpalatable behaviour. But it's ok. We know you're actually an independent.


Aren’t there enough people here already doing that? I’m not one to go with the pack.

I’m pointing out things like a completely dishonest press. I expect more from journalists than from politicians.

Indeed you must have mistaken me for someone else, although I do support some measures to combat climate change.

So in order to preserve your "maveric" status, you refuse to call out Trump for allegedly doing something you point out above is a problem, simply because others are already doing so? ok... That's actually pretty intellectually weak.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
So in order to preserve your "maveric" status, you refuse to call out Trump for allegedly doing something you point out above is a problem, simply because others are already doing so? ok... That's actually pretty intellectually weak.

What am I suppose to be calling out Trump for?

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
There are many things which the President has the authority to do. Just because he has the power to do it, doesn't mean he should.


And I have said on many occasions here, both before and during Trump’s administration, that we need really think about what powers we (us, the people) relinquish to the president, etc. because someday someone we don’t like will be using that power.

And look where we are...

Wait, wha... I thought you didn't care?

The point is that some of you on this forum have zero problem with power grabs when “your guys†are doing it and are loudest complainers when “the other guys†take advantage of it.

I’ve been consistant here all along. “My guys†are us, the people.

You are so full of shit. You were one of the harshest critics of the left, the democrats and Clinton. And although you aren’t an ardent defender of Trump (choosing instead to criticize those who do complain about the Orange Madman) you sure as shit don’t criticize him.

Just wear your #MAGA hat with pride, you have earned it.

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
Link to Comey saying what clinton did was illegal?

This wasn't your ordinary bureaucrat who just mishandles one document. This was something more than that. But not something that anybody would prosecute,†Comey said.

Quote:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

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.

https://www.fbi.gov/...rsonal-e-mail-system

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [CaptainCanada] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
You were one of the harshest critics of the left, the democrats and Clinton.

Yes.

Quote:
And although you aren’t an ardent defender of Trump (choosing instead to criticize those who do complain about the Orange Madman) you sure as shit don’t criticize him.

That’s not true at all. I’ve criticized him here on policy numerous times.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your link does not show that Comey said what she did was illegal. In fact, even your quoted segments dont show that. Your quoted segments say
1) POTENTIALLY there was something (this does not mean there is something), 2) Given a different set of facts, things would be different. In no way did comey say what she did was illegal.

In your link. Comey infact clearly states the opposite.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
So in order to preserve your "maveric" status, you refuse to call out Trump for allegedly doing something you point out above is a problem, simply because others are already doing so? ok... That's actually pretty intellectually weak.


What am I suppose to be calling out Trump for?

Post #72

You state a general problem, and then say "and here we are" implying this is an example of the general problem.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
"Well, yes you still have a need to know.

What are you talking about, your experience is exactly how I described it working. With an interim TS clearance you have access to all the TS information you have a need to know, but not any SCI. SCI requires you have a final clearance and then are cleared for the SCI program. "


I'm just agreeing with Slowguy that your term "partial clearance" isn't correct. Where I worked, we had a whole library full of documents classified as Top Secret. I had access to all of those documents. We did not have a "partial top secret" room and then a "full top secret" room.

I never said there was such thing as a partial clearance and I agree there is not, but I don;t know why you think that I did.

I was correcting slowguy when he said that "That interim clearance is a full clearance". I pointed out that does not apply to SCI information, which matches your experience.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I thought it had been established that intent wasn’t a necessity to illegality.

Whatever. I don’t give a shit about Hillary’s emails.

And before you say “why did you bring it up?†I didn’t bring it up.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
You were one of the harshest critics of the left, the democrats and Clinton.


Yes.

Quote:
And although you aren’t an ardent defender of Trump (choosing instead to criticize those who do complain about the Orange Madman) you sure as shit don’t criticize him.


That’s not true at all. I’ve criticized him here on policy numerous times.

if there is anything that deserves condemnation its putting your family in your administration; giving them top security clearances against the advice of the intelligence agencies and your own chief of staff; and then straight-up lying about it to the american people. only MAGA-tattooed loyalists would try to defend this, and your latest defense (across multiple subjects) parallels that of the republicans in the house: old news; seen that; don't care.

you could face up to the moment. or, give us a funny meme in response, which means captaincanada pretty much nailed it, but at least we'd get something!

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
What clinton did was not illegal though... There were investigations... So that point makes little sense. Sure you can think it is illegal. By all accounts of what matters, what she did was not illegal. It would be similar if Mueller's report comes back and says everything trump did was very cool and very legal. My opinion doesnt matter.

I think Clinton's emails situation was blown out of proportion. She was someone who was able to handle classified info.

Here, trump override protocols (after saying he cared very much about protocols) to give someone classified info who on all accounts should not have been given access.

The situation would have been more similar to if clinton had given passwords to her email server to friends, because she wanted them to look at stuff.

Which is worse, someone who should have access to info, setting up access to the info in a careless manor. Or given access to info that they shouldnt have. Its like a bank security guard forgetting to lock up the vault vs. the bank security guard giving the keys to the vault to a friend.

You do realize that she gave unfettered access to the guy that setup her email server and then that guy deleted 30k, IIRC, emails after a subpoena was issued. So yes she gave her password to classified documents to someone that didn't have clearance to see those documents. If someone that wasn't politically connected did that they would be sitting in jail right now.

Having said that based on what has been published it seems like Trump is playing fast and loose with classified info also. If Trump has the ability to override his intelligence community I think this is something that we should change.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 Pagliano didnt have a clearance?
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
I thought it had been established that intent wasn’t a necessity to illegality.

Whatever. I don’t give a shit about Hillary’s emails.

And before you say “why did you bring it up?†I didn’t bring it up.

Hate to break it to you, but you did bring up Hilary's emails first in this post. There was zero mention of Clinton's emails in this thread prior to you bringing her up.

It's amazing how much you talk about things you don't give a shit about, or how when shown to be wrong, you suddenly don't care about things any more.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
Pagliano didnt have a clearance?

He might have later but not at first, but Platte River didn't have clearance. Then there is also the illegally deleting emails while under a subpoena.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
if there is anything that deserves condemnation its putting your family in your administration; giving them top security clearances against the advice of the intelligence agencies and your own chief of staff; and then straight-up lying about it to the american people.

And if that is what really happened then, yes, it deserves condemnation.

But you can refer to my very first post in this thread for more on that.

Nothing has changed since then. We have a press report based on unnamed “sourcesâ€.

Is the story true? Given the track record the only honest answer is “I don’t knowâ€.

Quote:
and your latest defense (across multiple subjects) parallels that of the republicans in the house: old news; seen that; don't care.

Again, I’m not defending anything. I’m just being cautious about the veracity of the news reports.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If trump doesn't trust American intel community....don't give him or his money grubbing relatives any intel. Let them get from bibi, pooty, fat bastard(which one) or saudi prince.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
if there is anything that deserves condemnation its putting your family in your administration; giving them top security clearances against the advice of the intelligence agencies and your own chief of staff; and then straight-up lying about it to the american people.


And if that is what really happened then, yes, it deserves condemnation.

But you can refer to my very first post in this thread for more on that.

Nothing has changed since then. We have a press report based on unnamed “sourcesâ€.

Is the story true? Given the track record the only honest answer is “I don’t knowâ€.

Quote:
and your latest defense (across multiple subjects) parallels that of the republicans in the house: old news; seen that; don't care.


Again, I’m not defending anything. I’m just being cautious about the veracity of the news reports.

that's an upgrade from not caring. good.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"I never said there was such thing as a partial clearance and I agree there is not, but I don;t know why you think that I did.

I was correcting slowguy when he said that "That interim clearance is a full clearance". I pointed out that does not apply to SCI information, which matches your experience. "



This whole discussion follows posts 1 & 2. Kay referred to a "partial clearance" and slowguy corrected saying that an interim clearance is not "partial" but a "full clearance," while also recognizing that there are different levels of clearance.


I think it was pretty clear that slowguy didn't mean to imply that an interim clearance got you access to ALL classified documents, but neither does the finalized clearance.






At the end of the day, this is all semantics. Everyone agrees that different levels of clearances are required for different materials, and that an interim clearance is enough to get access to lots of TS information but that other TS information may require the clearance to be finalized, or that you receive a higher level.

Call it peanut butter if you want.






-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
if there is anything that deserves condemnation its putting your family in your administration; giving them top security clearances against the advice of the intelligence agencies and your own chief of staff; and then straight-up lying about it to the american people.


And if that is what really happened then, yes, it deserves condemnation.


https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=6875640#p6875640

Your statements are inconsistent. Does it deserve condemnation, or do you not care?

I'm guess your mental gymnastics will state: "both" or something asinine. Maybe time to post a gif of a yawning cat.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Quote:
if there is anything that deserves condemnation its putting your family in your administration; giving them top security clearances against the advice of the intelligence agencies and your own chief of staff; and then straight-up lying about it to the american people.


And if that is what really happened then, yes, it deserves condemnation.


https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=6875640#p6875640

Your statements are inconsistent. Does it deserve condemnation, or do you not care?

I'm guess your mental gymnastics will state: "both" or something asinine. Maybe time to post a gif of a yawning cat.

I condemn!

There. Feel better now?

That showed Trumo!

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply


Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Beyond the pissing contests herein, might I intrude:


This old thread is now brought forward and current by the recent, non attribution sourced NYT and Wapo reporting of Gen Kelly writing a memo for the record claiming he was not the responsible party for giving Kushner an TS/SCI Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance authorization. What is the NYT's batting average on these sources? Not too bad.

The intelligence agencies, who source the products deemed to be sensitive and have access restricted to a select few who have a need to know and be authorized to be read in, reached the conclusion that Jared should not have access. Gen Kelly endorsed their conclusion. Were concerns and the negative endorsement to the request for clearance valid? Yes; political? Yes; personal? Maybe.

Somebody in the WH security clearance office signed off approving TS/SCI clearance disregarding previous negative endorsements. Why? Someone higher than chief of staff Kelly told him/her to do it.

Kelly, suspecting future loss of memory by others and missing documents, wrote his own CYA document.

Laws broken? Nope. National security endangered? How is that peace in the middle east working out? Is MBS working out? Are Kushner's finances in the black and clean as a whistle?

Jared could in no way do his job without said clearance authorization and access. He got it and is acting in the best interest of his father-in-law.

Just one more entree added for the Democratic Congress to chew on.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think he always had the clearance. I quickly searched and couldnt find anything where this was mentioned. I think an IT guy doing someone that high ups work would have a clearance.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
I think he always had the clearance. I quickly searched and couldnt find anything where this was mentioned. I think an IT guy doing someone that high ups work would have a clearance.

As I said I am not sure about him. You failed to mention Platte River or the deletion of 30k emails under a subpoena.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You were the one who originally brought it up.

edit: actually that was your entire argument. That the person who set up her server didnt have clearance. Now you are saying, lets not discuss that guy.
Last edited by: patentattorney: Mar 1, 19 11:06
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
You were the one who originally brought it up.

edit: actually that was your entire argument. That the person who set up her server didnt have clearance. Now you are saying, lets not discuss that guy.

Actually it wasn't my entire argument. I also talked about the deleted emails under subpoena. Plus the person that originally setup the server was Justin Cooper who didn't have clearance or expertise in computer security.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This was your initial argument: You do realize that she gave unfettered access to the guy that setup her email server and then that guy deleted 30k, IIRC, emails after a subpoena was issued. So yes she gave her password to classified documents to someone that didn't have clearance to see those documents.

your arguments were based on giving someone access to classified information, and then with that access the guy deleted emails.

I am going to assume Mills, HRC chief of staff had clearance. I doubt her original email server set up had classified info on it because it was her home email server before she was SOS, which is what the entire controversy was about. If the set up originally was for classified information, I feel like this would have been a bigger deal, and would have shown that she had intent.


If your arguments are now just about the deleted emails, sure but that is a completely different question from my original premise. The original premise was clinton mismanaged information she had rights to see (as would her head of IT and chief of staff) and didnt give access to others which is completely different than giving rights to someone to view documents that the shouldnt have.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
This was your initial argument: You do realize that she gave unfettered access to the guy that setup her email server and then that guy deleted 30k, IIRC, emails after a subpoena was issued. So yes she gave her password to classified documents to someone that didn't have clearance to see those documents.

your arguments were based on giving someone access to classified information, and then with that access the guy deleted emails.

I am going to assume Mills, HRC chief of staff had clearance. I doubt her original email server set up had classified info on it because it was her home email server before she was SOS, which is what the entire controversy was about. If the set up originally was for classified information, I feel like this would have been a bigger deal, and would have shown that she had intent.


If your arguments are now just about the deleted emails, sure but that is a completely different question from my original premise. The original premise was clinton mismanaged information she had rights to see (as would her head of IT and chief of staff) and didnt give access to others which is completely different than giving rights to someone to view documents that the shouldnt have.


I agree that my first post was confusing. There are two issues that I was talking about.

The guy that setup the server didn't have clearance or security background. He had access to the server up until Platte River took over, so he had access to all the classified emails that were on the server.

The guy from Platte River that deleted the emails while under subpoena didn't have clearance either.

ETA: You also said she didn't break the law. The last time I checked deleting evidence while under subpoena was illegal.
Last edited by: trimick: Mar 1, 19 12:25
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trimick wrote:
ETA: You also said she didn't break the law. The last time I checked deleting evidence while under subpoena was illegal.

In 2014, months prior to public knowledge of the server's existence, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and two attorneys worked to identify work-related emails on the server to be archived and preserved for the State Department. Upon completion of this task in December 2014, Mills instructed Clinton's computer services provider, Platte River Networks (PRN), to change the server's retention period to 60 days, allowing 31,830 older personal emails to be automatically deleted from the server, as Clinton had decided she no longer needed them. However, the PRN technician assigned for this task failed to carry it out at that time.

Last time I checked deleting emails years before a subpoena is issued is not a illegal. It is not Hillary's fault the technicition forgot and then when the remember tried to cover up their mistake.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
She didn’t delete the emails. She didn’t direct the deletion of the emails under subpoena. She directed the deletion of emails way before the subpoena was issued

Also did cooper have access to the emails once she was sos?

Pretty much everything your have been arguing is just wrong.
Last edited by: patentattorney: Mar 1, 19 12:59
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
trimick wrote:

ETA: You also said she didn't break the law. The last time I checked deleting evidence while under subpoena was illegal.


In 2014, months prior to public knowledge of the server's existence, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and two attorneys worked to identify work-related emails on the server to be archived and preserved for the State Department. Upon completion of this task in December 2014, Mills instructed Clinton's computer services provider, Platte River Networks (PRN), to change the server's retention period to 60 days, allowing 31,830 older personal emails to be automatically deleted from the server, as Clinton had decided she no longer needed them. However, the PRN technician assigned for this task failed to carry it out at that time.

Last time I checked deleting emails years before a subpoena is issued is not a illegal. It is not Hillary's fault the technicition forgot and then when the remember tried to cover up their mistake.

So are you saying that if someone in the Trump administration does something illegal and Trump doesn't know about he shouldn't be help accountable? The buck stops with him if something illegal happens in his administration he should be held accountable same with Hillary.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
She didn’t delete the emails. She didn’t direct the deletion of the emails under subpoena. She directed the deletion of emails way before the subpoena was issued

Also did cooper have access to the emails once she was sos?

Pretty much everything your have been arguing is just wrong.

Yes Cooper had access to the emails once she was SOS.

Her underlings broke the law and you are trying to say shouldn't be held accountable.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trimick wrote:
chaparral wrote:
trimick wrote:

ETA: You also said she didn't break the law. The last time I checked deleting evidence while under subpoena was illegal.


In 2014, months prior to public knowledge of the server's existence, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and two attorneys worked to identify work-related emails on the server to be archived and preserved for the State Department. Upon completion of this task in December 2014, Mills instructed Clinton's computer services provider, Platte River Networks (PRN), to change the server's retention period to 60 days, allowing 31,830 older personal emails to be automatically deleted from the server, as Clinton had decided she no longer needed them. However, the PRN technician assigned for this task failed to carry it out at that time.

Last time I checked deleting emails years before a subpoena is issued is not a illegal. It is not Hillary's fault the technicition forgot and then when the remember tried to cover up their mistake.


So are you saying that if someone in the Trump administration does something illegal and Trump doesn't know about he shouldn't be help accountable? The buck stops with him if something illegal happens in his administration he should be held accountable same with Hillary.

Well, if trump tells someone specifically to do something legal and then they go and do something illegal instead, I would mostly be surprised trump told someone to do something legal.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wait. So now you are arguing that clinton should be held accountable for her underlings breaking that law? I agree that people who broke the law should be accountable. However, from all accounts, this does not appear to be HRC. My analogy still stands, a bank security guard not locking the vault (case 1) vs. the bank security guard giving the keys to the vault to a friend, even if locking the vault (case 2).

In case number 1, the person acted carelessly. If someone were to rob the bank, they are partially to blame. They are fully to blame for not following protocol. But the didnt do something illegal, no matter how stupid you want to argue the person was in their actions.

In case number 2, the person committed an overt act, by giving the keys away. This is the major distinction.

Link to cooper having access to info once she was SOS?
Last edited by: patentattorney: Mar 1, 19 13:26
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
Wait. So now you are arguing that clinton should be held accountable for her underlings breaking that law? I agree that people who broke the law should be accountable. However, from all accounts, this does not appear to be HRC. My analogy still stands, a bank security guard not locking the vault (case 1) vs. the bank security guard giving the keys to the vault to a friend, even if locking the vault (case 2).


In case number 1, the person acted carelessly. If someone were to rob the bank, they are partially to blame. They are fully to blame for not following protocol. But the didnt do something illegal, no matter how stupid you want to argue the person was in their actions.

In case number 2, the person committed an overt act, by giving the keys away. This is the major distinction.

Link to cooper having access to info once she was SOS?




Here is a link that says that Platte River didn't have clearance. I am looking for the article I read about Cooper still have access and if I find I will post. But from this link it is clear that Hillary gave access to someone that didn't have clearance.


Yes I think Hillary should be held accountable for her underlings breaking the law just like I do with Trump and all other public officials.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
  


Gotcha. The article you posted said that the material presented to the remote server had already been redacted for work emails.

So even if she was irresponsible with not being deligent in deleting the emails, it wasn’t like she turned over access to everything.

Also I am not sure if any of the marked emails were actually on that sever. It appears that the emails on that server were the ones that got “washedâ€. So we don’t actually know what was in those emails.
Last edited by: patentattorney: Mar 1, 19 14:16
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:

Never said that. And what I’m “cool with†or not has no bearing on what the president can or can’t do.


So, are you cool with it, if true?


I don’t really care.

Indifferent would be a better word.


Your actions bely your words. If you were indifferent, you wouldn't post so much defending it.


I’m not defending it.

Lack of complaint is not a defense.

That might be true by itself, but when you constantly argue back at anyone else who does complain, that pattern sure starts looking a lot more like a defense to anyone else...
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Your link does not show that Comey said what she did was illegal.

I think it was pretty clear to anyone familiar with the laws that pertain to handling of classified information that Sec Clinton's actions violated those laws. Whether or not Mr. Comey explicitly stated as much, and whether or not he chose to recommend that those actions be prosecuted really doesn't have any bearing on whether the actions were illegal. Prosecutors choose not to prosecute illegal acts all the time, due to lack of evidence, higher priorities, and a variety of other reasons, as I'm sure you know very well.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I was correcting slowguy when he said that "That interim clearance is a full clearance". I pointed out that does not apply to SCI information, which matches your experience.

In order for you to correct me, you'd have to be correct. You're not. An interim clearance is a full clearance, and grants clearance to information at the same level as a finalized clearance.

Access to SCI material is a separate step. Neither interim nor finalized TS clearances grant access to SCI information. They grant clearance for TS information (not access, which additionally requires need to know).

It's true that you can't be granted additional clearance to SCI information without having attained final clearance (at whichever level). That applies for SECRET SCI information as well. Once you've been granted final clearance, you would still need additional authorization for eligibility to access SCI information, and subsequently would only be granted clearance within the SCI realm to those categories of information that pertain to your job. I.e. even having a TS/SCI clearance doesn't grant you clearance or access to all SCI information.

Your argument is like saying, a SECRET clearance isn't a full clearance because it doesn't apply to TS information. It's nonsensical.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
I was correcting slowguy when he said that "That interim clearance is a full clearance". I pointed out that does not apply to SCI information, which matches your experience.


In order for you to correct me, you'd have to be correct. You're not. An interim clearance is a full clearance, and grants clearance to information at the same level as a finalized clearance.

Access to SCI material is a separate step. Neither interim nor finalized TS clearances grant access to SCI information. They grant clearance for TS information (not access, which additionally requires need to know).

It's true that you can't be granted additional clearance to SCI information without having attained final clearance (at whichever level). That applies for SECRET SCI information as well. Once you've been granted final clearance, you would still need additional authorization for eligibility to access SCI information, and subsequently would only be granted clearance within the SCI realm to those categories of information that pertain to your job. I.e. even having a TS/SCI clearance doesn't grant you clearance or access to all SCI information.

Your argument is like saying, a SECRET clearance isn't a full clearance because it doesn't apply to TS information. It's nonsensical.

You said an interim clearance is a full clearance, it is not.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:



Gotcha. The article you posted said that the material presented to the remote server had already been redacted for work emails.

So even if she was irresponsible with not being deligent in deleting the emails, it wasn’t like she turned over access to everything.

Also I am not sure if any of the marked emails were actually on that sever. It appears that the emails on that server were the ones that got “washedâ€. So we don’t actually know what was in those emails.

In 2013 all ~60k emails were transferred to PRN. In December 2014 Mills told PRN to delete 31k of "personal emails", so they had access to everything that was on the server.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So this new story seems true. Kushner's lawyer released this statement last night:

"In 2018, White House and security clearance officials affirmed that Mr. Kushner’s security clearance was handled in the regular process with no pressure from anyone,"

Now he has released a new statement:

“Mr. Lowell was not aware of nor told of any request for or action by the President to be involved in the security clearance process. Again, officials affirmed at the time that the regular process occurred without any pressure.â€

Looks like Lowell found out what actually happened and is covering his ass.


This is crazy, Kushner should not have had the job in the first place, let alone get a clearance.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
I was correcting slowguy when he said that "That interim clearance is a full clearance". I pointed out that does not apply to SCI information, which matches your experience.


In order for you to correct me, you'd have to be correct. You're not. An interim clearance is a full clearance, and grants clearance to information at the same level as a finalized clearance.

Access to SCI material is a separate step. Neither interim nor finalized TS clearances grant access to SCI information. They grant clearance for TS information (not access, which additionally requires need to know).

It's true that you can't be granted additional clearance to SCI information without having attained final clearance (at whichever level). That applies for SECRET SCI information as well. Once you've been granted final clearance, you would still need additional authorization for eligibility to access SCI information, and subsequently would only be granted clearance within the SCI realm to those categories of information that pertain to your job. I.e. even having a TS/SCI clearance doesn't grant you clearance or access to all SCI information.

Your argument is like saying, a SECRET clearance isn't a full clearance because it doesn't apply to TS information. It's nonsensical.


You said an interim clearance is a full clearance, it is not.

It is. And it especially is relative to the OP discussion of a "partial clearance." It's not a final clearance.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OneGoodLeg wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Harbinger wrote:
Duffy wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
Duffy wrote:

Never said that. And what I’m “cool with†or not has no bearing on what the president can or can’t do.


So, are you cool with it, if true?


I don’t really care.

Indifferent would be a better word.


Your actions bely your words. If you were indifferent, you wouldn't post so much defending it.


I’m not defending it.

Lack of complaint is not a defense.

That might be true by itself, but when you constantly argue back at anyone else who does complain, that pattern sure starts looking a lot more like a defense to anyone else...

You are completely missing the point of what I’m “arguing†about. My point was (and still is) that we don’t know if the accusations in the stories are true. The press has a long track record of putting out stories about trump using anonymous sources that turned out to be untrue.

As I have said all along, if the stories are true it is problematic.

But, in the end here, the president has the authority to do what is alleged that he did.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
But, in the end here, the president has the authority to do what is alleged that he did.

Again, because you seem to keep ignoring this part, the issue is not really about what the President has the authority to do. The issue is what these allegations say about his judgment and character.

Of course, nothing might be true. It's in the realm of possibility that all of it is made up. However, for the sake of discussion, let's assume it's all true.

The President appointed his unqualified daughter and son-in-law to federal positions. He granted them access to information and discussions they weren't cleared for. When security professionals recommended that his son-in-law's not receive clearance, he told them to give it anyway. He subsequently lied about pushing the clearance through. All of this, paired against the multitude of accusations that he has, at best, conflicts of interest between his duties as POTUS and his and his family's business relationships in foreign countries.

It raises entirely appropriate questions about the judgment exercised and the reasoning for these actions.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes. If the story is true.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
Yes. If the story is true.

Has your sense of whether the story is true or not evolved along with the three evolving statements issued by Abbe Lowell, Kushner's lawyer?
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well that certainly lessens my argument!

At the end of the day. I don’t think there were any correctly marked classified materials at the time. (I think there were two email threads with incorrectly marked materials). Then a bunch of retroactively marked documents. So she didn’t actually know she was giving access to anything classified. But this is a different argument than I was originally making.

What trump did was go against advisers to give access to people who were deemed unqualified. Obviously this is a different argument than I was originally making. But if someone had told Clinton “these people shouldn’t have access to your emails†and she went along with it anyway. I think the controversy would have ended very differently.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
Well that certainly lessens my argument!

At the end of the day. I don’t think there were any correctly marked classified materials at the time. (I think there were two email threads with incorrectly marked materials). Then a bunch of retroactively marked documents. So she didn’t actually know she was giving access to anything classified. But this is a different argument than I was originally making.

What trump did was go against advisers to give access to people who were deemed unqualified. Obviously this is a different argument than I was originally making. But if someone had told Clinton “these people shouldn’t have access to your emails†and she went along with it anyway. I think the controversy would have ended very differently.

The FBI investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information.
https://www.politifact.com/...linton-email-defense
The FBI investigation found that 110 messages contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. Sixty-five of those emails were found to contain information classified as "Secret;" more than 20 contained "Top-Secret" information. Three emails, out of 30,000, were found to be marked as classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses, described as "portion markings" by Comey. He added it was possible Clinton was not "technically sophisticated" enough to understand what the three classified markings meant which is consistent with Clinton's claim that she wasn't aware of the meaning of such markings.
Clinton personally wrote 104 of the 2,093 emails that were retroactively found to contain information classified as "confidential."
https://en.wikipedia.org/...on_email_controversy
Three were marked classified at the time.
Are you trying to say that no one told Clinton that she couldn't share classified emails with someone that didn't have clearance?
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Doesn’t that mean that only 3 of the emails were marked with classified headers. And those three were marked incorrectly?

To me this seems like she didn’t know there was classified info in the emails. So she thought it was ok to share unclassified info.

This goes back to my only point. It is much worse to purposefully give access to someone who know shouldn’t have it vs. unknowingly give access. If the fbi has found that Clinton knowingly gave access she would have been criminally liable.
Last edited by: patentattorney: Mar 2, 19 13:05
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You realize that you've been led down the rabbit hole of Hillary Clinton's f*ing email from long ago? Instead of discussing the actual issue, namely the issuance of top secret clearances over the objections of the intelligence agency warnings.

You are being played. Refuse to play.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
Doesn’t that mean that only 3 of the emails were marked with classified headers. And those three were marked incorrectly?

To me this seems like she didn’t know there was classified info in the emails. So she thought it was ok to share unclassified info.

This goes back to my only point. It is much worse to purposefully give access to someone who know shouldn’t have it vs. unknowingly give access. If the fbi has found that Clinton knowingly gave access she would have been criminally liable.

3 emails were properly marked and she didn't know that 'c' meant classified. She had properly marked classified material in her email that she gave knowingly access to someone that didn't have clearance.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 

Is that the correct making?

And did she knowingly give access. Which has been the entire crux of my argument.
Last edited by: patentattorney: Mar 2, 19 19:12
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:

Is that the correct making?

And did she knowingly give access. Which has been the entire crux of my argument.

Yes Comey said it was marked correctly. She claims she didn’t know that ‘c’ meant classified. Our SOS and ex-first lady claims she didn’t know that ‘c’ meant classified. Really. Hillary knowingly gave someone without clearance access to classified documents. And should have been help accountable. Trump gave someone clearance that shouldn’t have gotten clearance and should be held accountable. At least it seems that Trunp followed the law, one that needs to be changed. Neither one comes out look competent.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
(C) is for confidential, the lowest level of classification. Almost never used and I would guess many people with clearances wouldn’t recognize it.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
But, in the end here, the president has the authority to do what is alleged that he did.


Again, because you seem to keep ignoring this part, the issue is not really about what the President has the authority to do. The issue is what these allegations say about his judgment and character.

Of course, nothing might be true. It's in the realm of possibility that all of it is made up. However, for the sake of discussion, let's assume it's all true.

The President appointed his unqualified daughter and son-in-law to federal positions. He granted them access to information and discussions they weren't cleared for. When security professionals recommended that his son-in-law's not receive clearance, he told them to give it anyway. He subsequently lied about pushing the clearance through. All of this, paired against the multitude of accusations that he has, at best, conflicts of interest between his duties as POTUS and his and his family's business relationships in foreign countries.

It raises entirely appropriate questions about the judgment exercised and the reasoning for these actions.

Continuing along this line of truth assumption: In previous posts I presumed that Kushner, in order to perform effectively as the president's envoy in pursuit of middle east affairs and peace between Israel and Palestinians, would need to be read in with certain SCI material at the TS level. Some of the reporting out there is he does not in fact have that SCI access, but rather just only a permanent TS clearance. I know friends who are required routinely to pass polygraph tests to obtain and maintain SCI access. As I am no longer current and have forgotten so much I ask you to clarify polygraph requirements wrt SCI.

I appreciate your reluctance to participate in matters of truth and fact conjecture with open source reporting. I am not so reluctant, and can easily jump to the conclusion that this SCI or no SCI access is the critical feature here. Maybe Kushner refused to take a polygraph? maybe he failed the polygraph? Maybe he took and passed the polygraph and the agencies still refused to certify him? How hampered is he not having SCI material knowledge when he sits down with heads of state in negotiations on behalf of our government?

This story is so salacious it won't go away. The sidebar whataboutism in this thread with the Clinton server and mishandling classified material is indicative. The fact that the ultimate classification authority is the President and he is under investigation and is maybe a compromised national security risk is in play. Can we jump to suspect that state secrets are being purposely withheld from both Kushner and the president?

I have often railed against the system in place that allows for over classification and over restriction to access and systemic reluctance to declassify in a timely manner. But this current mess does give pause and re-emphasizes that long standing security protocols are essential to our nations security.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
“Hillary knowingly gave someone without clearance access to classified documents. “

That statement is just incorrect. This is why comey said no prosecutor would prosecute the case. At the end of the day, you feel differently. But your feelings don’t impact anything.

If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
“

If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.

Thanks. I haven’t laughed that hard in a very long time.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [davec] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If that is the case then the congressional Republicans and republican fbi director, and the republican head of the doj should all be disgraced. They ran like 6+ years of inquiries and we were left with “a different set of facts may lead to a different conclusion†and “no prosecutor would have brought chargesâ€.

If there is still an investigation into trump in 2023 (this is the equivalent of how long the inquiries into Clinton as sos would be) with the same or similar parameters of people leading the investigation, I would feel the same way.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
“Hillary knowingly gave someone without clearance access to classified documents. “

That statement is just incorrect. This is why comey said no prosecutor would prosecute the case. At the end of the day, you feel differently. But your feelings don’t impact anything.

If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.

Facts are facts and what I state is correct. There was classified material in her email. That material was properly marked, she was educated on those markings. She knowingly gave multiple people access to said classified emails. Those are the facts. The fact that charges weren't brought against her doesn't change those facts. These aren't my feelings these are facts. She didn't follow the law and wasn't held accountable. Again this is a fact. Repeating that they aren't facts isn't going to change the truth. If you handled classified information how Hillary did you would be in jail along with me.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [torrey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
torrey wrote:
(C) is for confidential, the lowest level of classification. Almost never used and I would guess many people with clearances wouldn’t recognize it.

I'd be very surprised at anyone with a clearance who didn't recognize CONFIDENTIAL markings. My experience is with military and DoD civilians, but I can't imagine any of them not knowing what (C) meant at the beginning of a paragraph.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.

There's really zero question on this. Sec Clinton did not follow the law.

She wasn't held legally accountable because Mr. Comey indicated that the case didn't rise to the typical level of prosecution. That's not the same as saying she followed the law. She did not.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.


There's really zero question on this. Sec Clinton did not follow the law.

She wasn't held legally accountable because Mr. Comey indicated that the case didn't rise to the typical level of prosecution. That's not the same as saying she followed the law. She did not.

All the laws require an intent to mishandle classified material. So if you have any evidence that she intended to mishandle classified material, then she did not break the law. Sure her clearance could be revoked, but I don't see how she broke the law.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Agreed. Accountable in this sense referred to criminal illegality. Where other posters have said that what she did was illegal or if you did what she did you would be in jail.

But that’s not the case. If 6 years of gop controlled congress plus a gop appointed head of the fbi came to that conclusion or didn’t have enough to bring charges, that’s what I am going to go with.

If others are saying otherwise that’s their own feelings on the matter, and they should also find the gop incompetent for not being able to bring enough eveidence to make a clear case against a clear criminal after 6 plus years of investigations.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
Doesn’t that mean that only 3 of the emails were marked with classified headers. And those three were marked incorrectly?

To me this seems like she didn’t know there was classified info in the emails. So she thought it was ok to share unclassified info.

This goes back to my only point. It is much worse to purposefully give access to someone who know shouldn’t have it vs. unknowingly give access. If the fbi has found that Clinton knowingly gave access she would have been criminally liable.

The notion that the classified information wasn't marked is a red herring that is thrown out all the time. It simply doesn't matter. When you sign an SF-312 NDA to gain access to classified, it very specifically states that you are responsible for protecting both marked and unmarked classified information. And, assuming that Hillary is reasonably intelligent, I would state that there is simply no way that she didn't know that classified information was in those emails. Especially since at least one of the emails was about a special access program (SAP). I've seen classified "spillage" a couple of times in my career, and in both instances it was caught almost instantaneously. Given the fact that Hillary isn't an idiot, the notion that she simply didn't know it was classified is laughable.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [patentattorney] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
patentattorney wrote:
Agreed. Accountable in this sense referred to criminal illegality. Where other posters have said that what she did was illegal or if you did what she did you would be in jail.

But that’s not the case. If 6 years of gop controlled congress plus a gop appointed head of the fbi came to that conclusion or didn’t have enough to bring charges, that’s what I am going to go with.

If others are saying otherwise that’s their own feelings on the matter, and they should also find the gop incompetent for not being able to bring enough eveidence to make a clear case against a clear criminal after 6 plus years of investigations.

First, I have no idea why you are bringing up the fact that the GOP controlled Congress in this matter. Are you aware of some special process in which Congress can force the DOJ to bring charges against somebody? What does that have to do with anything?

There is also reporting lately that the DOJ from the get-go set an impossibly high standard to indict Hillary.

Lastly, there is this: https://thehill.com/...face-charges-but-was

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [gofigure] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gofigure wrote:
I appreciate your reluctance to participate in matters of truth and fact conjecture with open source reporting. I am not so reluctant, and can easily jump to the conclusion that this SCI or no SCI access is the critical feature here. Maybe Kushner refused to take a polygraph? maybe he failed the polygraph? Maybe he took and passed the polygraph and the agencies still refused to certify him? How hampered is he not having SCI material knowledge when he sits down with heads of state in negotiations on behalf of our government?

There are multiple steps in the process. The first is to obtain clearance (in this case TS). After that, you have to be determined to be SCI eligible. That's a formal designation, but all it says is that you're eligible for the next step. It doesn't grant you clearance for any specific information. After that you have to be "read into" whatever SCI information categories you are expected to need access to for your job. When you're done with that job, you get "read out" of those categories of information, and don't have access again.

Polygraphs occur at various points for various reasons, and may or may not be the sticking point for access to information, depending on what you need access to and what job you're going to.

My read of the situation is that Kushner probably was never granted SCI eligibility, so he wouldn't have needed to take a polygraph specifically for access to SCI info. He might have been required to take a polygraph for other reasons such as counter-intelligence or counter-terrorism reasons; I don't know.

I also can't speak to what information he would absolutely need to have access to in order to accomplish the goals of his talks. It's entirely possible that he might be able to have those talks without access to SCI information. It's not as if he would likely be directly discussing SCI information with the foreign delegations.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [gofigure] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gofigure wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
But, in the end here, the president has the authority to do what is alleged that he did.


Again, because you seem to keep ignoring this part, the issue is not really about what the President has the authority to do. The issue is what these allegations say about his judgment and character.

Of course, nothing might be true. It's in the realm of possibility that all of it is made up. However, for the sake of discussion, let's assume it's all true.

The President appointed his unqualified daughter and son-in-law to federal positions. He granted them access to information and discussions they weren't cleared for. When security professionals recommended that his son-in-law's not receive clearance, he told them to give it anyway. He subsequently lied about pushing the clearance through. All of this, paired against the multitude of accusations that he has, at best, conflicts of interest between his duties as POTUS and his and his family's business relationships in foreign countries.

It raises entirely appropriate questions about the judgment exercised and the reasoning for these actions.


Continuing along this line of truth assumption: In previous posts I presumed that Kushner, in order to perform effectively as the president's envoy in pursuit of middle east affairs and peace between Israel and Palestinians, would need to be read in with certain SCI material at the TS level. Some of the reporting out there is he does not in fact have that SCI access, but rather just only a permanent TS clearance. I know friends who are required routinely to pass polygraph tests to obtain and maintain SCI access. As I am no longer current and have forgotten so much I ask you to clarify polygraph requirements wrt SCI.

I appreciate your reluctance to participate in matters of truth and fact conjecture with open source reporting. I am not so reluctant, and can easily jump to the conclusion that this SCI or no SCI access is the critical feature here. Maybe Kushner refused to take a polygraph? maybe he failed the polygraph? Maybe he took and passed the polygraph and the agencies still refused to certify him? How hampered is he not having SCI material knowledge when he sits down with heads of state in negotiations on behalf of our government?

This story is so salacious it won't go away. The sidebar whataboutism in this thread with the Clinton server and mishandling classified material is indicative. The fact that the ultimate classification authority is the President and he is under investigation and is maybe a compromised national security risk is in play. Can we jump to suspect that state secrets are being purposely withheld from both Kushner and the president?

I have often railed against the system in place that allows for over classification and over restriction to access and systemic reluctance to declassify in a timely manner. But this current mess does give pause and re-emphasizes that long standing security protocols are essential to our nations security.

There is no requirement to take a polygraph to get access to SCI.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.


There's really zero question on this. Sec Clinton did not follow the law.

She wasn't held legally accountable because Mr. Comey indicated that the case didn't rise to the typical level of prosecution. That's not the same as saying she followed the law. She did not.


All the laws require an intent to mishandle classified material. So if you have any evidence that she intended to mishandle classified material, then she did not break the law. Sure her clearance could be revoked, but I don't see how she broke the law.

That's simply not true. The law doesn't allow you to mishandle classified information accidentally.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
.

Polygraphs occur at various points for various reasons, and may or may not be the sticking point for access to information, depending on what you need access to and what job you're going to.

My read of the situation is that Kushner probably was never granted SCI eligibility....

I also can't speak to what information he would absolutely need to have access to in order to accomplish the goals of his talks. It's entirely possible that he might be able to have those talks without access to SCI information. It's not as if he would likely be directly discussing SCI information with the foreign delegations.

Thanks for the edification. Maybe I have been reading too many spy novels, but I was thinking that a SCI file "read in" might help with any source and method sensitive intel we would have on the adversary or ally sitting across the table. Also, to effectively conduct an effective after action intel-debrief of any meeting, would almost by definition require discussion on said info in order to add to the file and analyze further. I just find it hard to think we are not disadvantaging ourselves there if we were to have Jared talk to MBS without him having full understanding of all material intel we have on MBS, unless it is that we do not trust him. Therein the rub. His father-in-law did burn some Israeli sensitive intel with the Russian foreign minister early on
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.


There's really zero question on this. Sec Clinton did not follow the law.

She wasn't held legally accountable because Mr. Comey indicated that the case didn't rise to the typical level of prosecution. That's not the same as saying she followed the law. She did not.


All the laws require an intent to mishandle classified material. So if you have any evidence that she intended to mishandle classified material, then she did not break the law. Sure her clearance could be revoked, but I don't see how she broke the law.


That's simply not true. The law doesn't allow you to mishandle classified information accidentally.

No, it is true.

Now, you may argue that she should instead be charged with 18 USC section 793 (f), since that says only gross negligence, but it is part of the espionage act and to charged with it requires intent.

Seriously, find a case where someone was charged in civilian courts for mishandling classified information through negligence.
18 U.S. Code § 1924
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.


There's really zero question on this. Sec Clinton did not follow the law.

She wasn't held legally accountable because Mr. Comey indicated that the case didn't rise to the typical level of prosecution. That's not the same as saying she followed the law. She did not.


All the laws require an intent to mishandle classified material. So if you have any evidence that she intended to mishandle classified material, then she did not break the law. Sure her clearance could be revoked, but I don't see how she broke the law.


That's simply not true. The law doesn't allow you to mishandle classified information accidentally.


No, it is true.

Now, you may argue that she should instead be charged with 18 USC section 793 (f), since that says only gross negligence, but it is part of the espionage act and to charged with it requires intent.

Seriously, find a case where someone was charged in civilian courts for mishandling classified information through negligence.
18 U.S. Code § 1924


This is from your first link.

(a)
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

That is pretty clear. She set up a private email server and knowingly transmitted classified material over it. Not sure how that isn't intent.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [spot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Congressional oversight is a huge power to wield. You can run fact finding missions if you want. If the dems controlled both houses (or even one) then this oversight may never of occurred.

So you think dems would have run 8 investigations into Benghazi? Do you think dems would have forced Hillary to testify? It shows that the gop ran their oversight to the full extend of their powers and uncovered whatever evidence they could. They turned this evidence over to a republican led fbi (after doj recusal I think).
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trimick wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.


There's really zero question on this. Sec Clinton did not follow the law.

She wasn't held legally accountable because Mr. Comey indicated that the case didn't rise to the typical level of prosecution. That's not the same as saying she followed the law. She did not.


All the laws require an intent to mishandle classified material. So if you have any evidence that she intended to mishandle classified material, then she did not break the law. Sure her clearance could be revoked, but I don't see how she broke the law.


That's simply not true. The law doesn't allow you to mishandle classified information accidentally.


No, it is true.

Now, you may argue that she should instead be charged with 18 USC section 793 (f), since that says only gross negligence, but it is part of the espionage act and to charged with it requires intent.

Seriously, find a case where someone was charged in civilian courts for mishandling classified information through negligence.
18 U.S. Code § 1924


This is from your first link.

(a)
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

That is pretty clear. She set up a private email server and knowingly transmitted classified material over it. Not sure how that isn't intent.

You should read that again. She did not knowingly send classified over it.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
trimick wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.


There's really zero question on this. Sec Clinton did not follow the law.

She wasn't held legally accountable because Mr. Comey indicated that the case didn't rise to the typical level of prosecution. That's not the same as saying she followed the law. She did not.


All the laws require an intent to mishandle classified material. So if you have any evidence that she intended to mishandle classified material, then she did not break the law. Sure her clearance could be revoked, but I don't see how she broke the law.


That's simply not true. The law doesn't allow you to mishandle classified information accidentally.


No, it is true.

Now, you may argue that she should instead be charged with 18 USC section 793 (f), since that says only gross negligence, but it is part of the espionage act and to charged with it requires intent.

Seriously, find a case where someone was charged in civilian courts for mishandling classified information through negligence.
18 U.S. Code § 1924


This is from your first link.

(a)
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

That is pretty clear. She set up a private email server and knowingly transmitted classified material over it. Not sure how that isn't intent.


You should read that again. She did not knowingly send classified over it.

If she didn't knowingly send classified material over it then she is a moron. Is that your argument? She is too stupid to know what is classified and what isn't? She is lots of things but stupid isn't one of them.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.


There's really zero question on this. Sec Clinton did not follow the law.

She wasn't held legally accountable because Mr. Comey indicated that the case didn't rise to the typical level of prosecution. That's not the same as saying she followed the law. She did not.


All the laws require an intent to mishandle classified material. So if you have any evidence that she intended to mishandle classified material, then she did not break the law. Sure her clearance could be revoked, but I don't see how she broke the law.


That's simply not true. The law doesn't allow you to mishandle classified information accidentally.


No, it is true.

Now, you may argue that she should instead be charged with 18 USC section 793 (f), since that says only gross negligence, but it is part of the espionage act and to charged with it requires intent.

Seriously, find a case where someone was charged in civilian courts for mishandling classified information through negligence.
18 U.S. Code § 1924

The espionage act isn't the only law pertaining to handling of classified material, and I didn't say anything about whether someone should be prosecuted. I said that Sec Clinton DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. There's really no question about that statement.

The law requires people with access to classified information to protect that information. It requires them to ensure classified information is not transmitted to unauthorized personnel. It requires them to immediately report the compromise or disclosure of classified information once discovered.

E.O. 13526 states that:

(d) Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.

(e) Persons authorized to disseminate classified information outside the executive branch shall ensure the protection of the information in a manner equivalent to that provided within the executive branch.

(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently: (1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;

There's plenty of room to argue about whether she should have been prosecuted. However, there is zero room to argue about the fact that she did not follow the law.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.


There's really zero question on this. Sec Clinton did not follow the law.

She wasn't held legally accountable because Mr. Comey indicated that the case didn't rise to the typical level of prosecution. That's not the same as saying she followed the law. She did not.


All the laws require an intent to mishandle classified material. So if you have any evidence that she intended to mishandle classified material, then she did not break the law. Sure her clearance could be revoked, but I don't see how she broke the law.


That's simply not true. The law doesn't allow you to mishandle classified information accidentally.


No, it is true.

Now, you may argue that she should instead be charged with 18 USC section 793 (f), since that says only gross negligence, but it is part of the espionage act and to charged with it requires intent.

Seriously, find a case where someone was charged in civilian courts for mishandling classified information through negligence.
18 U.S. Code § 1924


The espionage act isn't the only law pertaining to handling of classified material, and I didn't say anything about whether someone should be prosecuted. I said that Sec Clinton DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. There's really no question about that statement.

The law requires people with access to classified information to protect that information. It requires them to ensure classified information is not transmitted to unauthorized personnel. It requires them to immediately report the compromise or disclosure of classified information once discovered.

E.O. 13526 states that:

(d) Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.

(e) Persons authorized to disseminate classified information outside the executive branch shall ensure the protection of the information in a manner equivalent to that provided within the executive branch.

(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently: (1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;

There's plenty of room to argue about whether she should have been prosecuted. However, there is zero room to argue about the fact that she did not follow the law.

EO are laws though, so she didn't break a law.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.


There's really zero question on this. Sec Clinton did not follow the law.

She wasn't held legally accountable because Mr. Comey indicated that the case didn't rise to the typical level of prosecution. That's not the same as saying she followed the law. She did not.


All the laws require an intent to mishandle classified material. So if you have any evidence that she intended to mishandle classified material, then she did not break the law. Sure her clearance could be revoked, but I don't see how she broke the law.


That's simply not true. The law doesn't allow you to mishandle classified information accidentally.


No, it is true.

Now, you may argue that she should instead be charged with 18 USC section 793 (f), since that says only gross negligence, but it is part of the espionage act and to charged with it requires intent.

Seriously, find a case where someone was charged in civilian courts for mishandling classified information through negligence.
18 U.S. Code § 1924


The espionage act isn't the only law pertaining to handling of classified material, and I didn't say anything about whether someone should be prosecuted. I said that Sec Clinton DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. There's really no question about that statement.

The law requires people with access to classified information to protect that information. It requires them to ensure classified information is not transmitted to unauthorized personnel. It requires them to immediately report the compromise or disclosure of classified information once discovered.

E.O. 13526 states that:

(d) Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.

(e) Persons authorized to disseminate classified information outside the executive branch shall ensure the protection of the information in a manner equivalent to that provided within the executive branch.

(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently: (1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;

There's plenty of room to argue about whether she should have been prosecuted. However, there is zero room to argue about the fact that she did not follow the law.


EO are laws though, so she didn't break a law.

Really? That's what you plan to hang your hat on?

E.O.s have the force of law. And E.O. 13526 isn't the only "law" that governs the safeguarding of classified material and information.

32 CFR Part 2001

§ 2001.41 Responsibilities of holders.
Authorized persons who have access to classified information are responsible for:
(a) Protecting it from persons without authorized access to that information, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities whenever it is not under the direct control of an authorized person;
(b) Meeting safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency head; and
(c) Ensuring that classified information is not communicated over unsecured voice or data circuits, in public conveyances or places, or in any other manner that permits interception by unauthorized persons.

§ 2001.48 Loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure.
(a)General. Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.


There's really zero question on this. Sec Clinton did not follow the law.

She wasn't held legally accountable because Mr. Comey indicated that the case didn't rise to the typical level of prosecution. That's not the same as saying she followed the law. She did not.


All the laws require an intent to mishandle classified material. So if you have any evidence that she intended to mishandle classified material, then she did not break the law. Sure her clearance could be revoked, but I don't see how she broke the law.


That's simply not true. The law doesn't allow you to mishandle classified information accidentally.


No, it is true.

Now, you may argue that she should instead be charged with 18 USC section 793 (f), since that says only gross negligence, but it is part of the espionage act and to charged with it requires intent.

Seriously, find a case where someone was charged in civilian courts for mishandling classified information through negligence.
18 U.S. Code § 1924


The espionage act isn't the only law pertaining to handling of classified material, and I didn't say anything about whether someone should be prosecuted. I said that Sec Clinton DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. There's really no question about that statement.

The law requires people with access to classified information to protect that information. It requires them to ensure classified information is not transmitted to unauthorized personnel. It requires them to immediately report the compromise or disclosure of classified information once discovered.

E.O. 13526 states that:

(d) Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.

(e) Persons authorized to disseminate classified information outside the executive branch shall ensure the protection of the information in a manner equivalent to that provided within the executive branch.

(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently: (1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;

There's plenty of room to argue about whether she should have been prosecuted. However, there is zero room to argue about the fact that she did not follow the law.


EO are laws though, so she didn't break a law.


Really? That's what you plan to hang your hat on?

E.O.s have the force of law. And E.O. 13526 isn't the only "law" that governs the safeguarding of classified material and information.

32 CFR Part 2001

§ 2001.41 Responsibilities of holders.
Authorized persons who have access to classified information are responsible for:
(a) Protecting it from persons without authorized access to that information, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities whenever it is not under the direct control of an authorized person;
(b) Meeting safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency head; and
(c) Ensuring that classified information is not communicated over unsecured voice or data circuits, in public conveyances or places, or in any other manner that permits interception by unauthorized persons.

§ 2001.48 Loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure.
(a)General. Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.

So you are hanging your hat on a "law", even then it is not clear that she violated that EO. Neglicence has a specific legal meaning and it is not clear that Clinton met that standard. Mostly, because there should have been no classified emails at all, classified information is sent on a totally different system, so she when she set up the email server, she never expected classified information to be on it, so it was not negligent. Also, a EO cannot be criminal, unless there is a statute.


Ok, she may have violated 32 CFR Part 2001.41, so that is a law. But it is not criminal law. It is part code of federal regulations and cannot create crimes beyone what congress has already created by statute. So yes, Clinton may have violate the law, but she did not violate any criminal law.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
So yes, Clinton may have violate the law...

Done. Full stop.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
So yes, Clinton may have violate the law, but she did not violate any criminal law.



How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [BLeP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BLeP wrote:
chaparral wrote:
So yes, Clinton may have violate the law, but she did not violate any criminal law.



The mental gymnastics that both sides do to ensure that their side is clean is unreal. Reps and Dems are destroying this country with this tribal mentality.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chriskal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chriskal wrote:
chaparral wrote:
chriskal wrote:
More of the best people.


Seriously, who are the 30 people granted clearances after being denied? Obviously Kushner and Gorka, I mean those people should obviously be kept far away from anything sensitive.


I’m just surprised that number isn’t higher. Top of my head though I’d be shocked if Bannon or the mooch would legitimate qualify.
-
From the but obama files, you may remember there was a problem with one of his closest advisors. Exposed by a wikileaks Podesta email: (bold added by me)
------------------------------------------------------
From:cbutts.obama08@gmail.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com, clu@barackobama.com Date: 2008-10-29 19:33 Subject: Re: security clearance issue
Chris can share the details with you tomorrow, but we agree that it would not be worth pushing for Benjamin Rhodes to receive interim status. We can communicate with Susan and Sarah generally that Benjamin wasn't given interim status, and either Chris or I can communicate directly with Benjamin. For your information, out of the approximately 187 people who we have moved through the process Benjamin was the only person declined interim status. The young lawyer Kate Shaw who is coordinating the process for us has done a great job. On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Cassandra Butts

<cbutts.obama08@gmail.com>wrote: > John, > > The FBI has indicated that they are inclined to decline interim security > clearance for Benjamin Rhodes who is OFA senior speechwriter and national > security policy person. They have not shared an explanation as to why. If > his interim status is denied, the FBI will still undertake a full-clearance > process review of his application post-election and make a final > determination. > > Susan and Sarah Sewall have expressed an interest in keeping Benjamin > involved in the process, but I have not followed up with them since > receiving this information today. > > In terms of our options, we could ask the FBI for an explanation on the > denial and make a determination if it is worth pushing to obtain an interim > status, or we can wait for the full review post-election. > > Let me know your thoughts on this. > > Best, > Cassandra > >
-----------
https://wikileaks.org/...emails/emailid/11883
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
chaparral wrote:
slowguy wrote:
patentattorney wrote:
If Clinton didn’t follow the law you better believe she would have been held accountable.


There's really zero question on this. Sec Clinton did not follow the law.

She wasn't held legally accountable because Mr. Comey indicated that the case didn't rise to the typical level of prosecution. That's not the same as saying she followed the law. She did not.


All the laws require an intent to mishandle classified material. So if you have any evidence that she intended to mishandle classified material, then she did not break the law. Sure her clearance could be revoked, but I don't see how she broke the law.


That's simply not true. The law doesn't allow you to mishandle classified information accidentally.


No, it is true.

Now, you may argue that she should instead be charged with 18 USC section 793 (f), since that says only gross negligence, but it is part of the espionage act and to charged with it requires intent.

Seriously, find a case where someone was charged in civilian courts for mishandling classified information through negligence.
18 U.S. Code § 1924


The espionage act isn't the only law pertaining to handling of classified material, and I didn't say anything about whether someone should be prosecuted. I said that Sec Clinton DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. There's really no question about that statement.

The law requires people with access to classified information to protect that information. It requires them to ensure classified information is not transmitted to unauthorized personnel. It requires them to immediately report the compromise or disclosure of classified information once discovered.

E.O. 13526 states that:

(d) Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.

(e) Persons authorized to disseminate classified information outside the executive branch shall ensure the protection of the information in a manner equivalent to that provided within the executive branch.

(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently: (1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;

There's plenty of room to argue about whether she should have been prosecuted. However, there is zero room to argue about the fact that she did not follow the law.


EO are laws though, so she didn't break a law.


Really? That's what you plan to hang your hat on?

E.O.s have the force of law. And E.O. 13526 isn't the only "law" that governs the safeguarding of classified material and information.

32 CFR Part 2001

§ 2001.41 Responsibilities of holders.
Authorized persons who have access to classified information are responsible for:
(a) Protecting it from persons without authorized access to that information, to include securing it in approved equipment or facilities whenever it is not under the direct control of an authorized person;
(b) Meeting safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency head; and
(c) Ensuring that classified information is not communicated over unsecured voice or data circuits, in public conveyances or places, or in any other manner that permits interception by unauthorized persons.

§ 2001.48 Loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure.
(a)General. Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.


So you are hanging your hat on a "law", even then it is not clear that she violated that EO. Neglicence has a specific legal meaning and it is not clear that Clinton met that standard. Mostly, because there should have been no classified emails at all, classified information is sent on a totally different system, so she when she set up the email server, she never expected classified information to be on it, so it was not negligent. Also, a EO cannot be criminal, unless there is a statute.


Ok, she may have violated 32 CFR Part 2001.41, so that is a law. But it is not criminal law. It is part code of federal regulations and cannot create crimes beyone what congress has already created by statute. So yes, Clinton may have violate the law, but she did not violate any criminal law.

That does not matter. Once she became aware that classified information was being introduced into that unclassified system, she have reported it immediately. The fact that she let it continue is negligent, unless you want to argue that Hillary is so stupid she wasn't aware (nor anyone else reading those emails) that classified information was being discussed. And, as has been been pointed out many times, it absolutely does NOT matter whether or not the information was marked as classified.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [spot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spot wrote:
That does not matter. Once she became aware that classified information was being introduced into that unclassified system, she have reported it immediately. The fact that she let it continue is negligent, unless you want to argue that Hillary is so stupid she wasn't aware (nor anyone else reading those emails) that classified information was being discussed. And, as has been been pointed out many times, it absolutely does NOT matter whether or not the information was marked as classified.

She was simultaneously the most qualified presidential candidate ever and too stupid to know she was reading classified information. As I said before the mental gymnastics in politics is crazy.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [trimick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trimick wrote:
spot wrote:
That does not matter. Once she became aware that classified information was being introduced into that unclassified system, she have reported it immediately. The fact that she let it continue is negligent, unless you want to argue that Hillary is so stupid she wasn't aware (nor anyone else reading those emails) that classified information was being discussed. And, as has been been pointed out many times, it absolutely does NOT matter whether or not the information was marked as classified.


She was simultaneously the most qualified presidential candidate ever and too stupid to know she was reading classified information. As I said before the mental gymnastics in politics is crazy.

She is an interesting case. She knew she was going to run for president. Any rational person would be handling the 8 years of Obama ridiculously carefully. You would make sure everything was in the clear. I assume it is arrogance that got her in trouble with things like her email and the foundation because I think she actually is a very intelligent person.

And I never really cared whether what she was doing with her email was technically legal or not. There was no benevolent reason to do it the way she did. I'm pretty certain she wasn't trying to play fast and loose with classified information. I think it was more about intentionally blurring the lines between her private dealings and her official government actions. Keeping those separate seems like such a quaint idea now.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
trimick wrote:
spot wrote:
That does not matter. Once she became aware that classified information was being introduced into that unclassified system, she have reported it immediately. The fact that she let it continue is negligent, unless you want to argue that Hillary is so stupid she wasn't aware (nor anyone else reading those emails) that classified information was being discussed. And, as has been been pointed out many times, it absolutely does NOT matter whether or not the information was marked as classified.


She was simultaneously the most qualified presidential candidate ever and too stupid to know she was reading classified information. As I said before the mental gymnastics in politics is crazy.

She is an interesting case. She knew she was going to run for president. Any rational person would be handling the 8 years of Obama ridiculously carefully. You would make sure everything was in the clear. I assume it is arrogance that got her in trouble with things like her email and the foundation because I think she actually is a very intelligent person.

And I never really cared whether what she was doing with her email was technically legal or not. There was no benevolent reason to do it the way she did. I'm pretty certain she wasn't trying to play fast and loose with classified information. I think it was more about intentionally blurring the lines between her private dealings and her official government actions. Keeping those separate seems like such a quaint idea now.

Yes, the argument over whether or not it was legal or not misses the question as to why she did it in the first place. It’s entirely possible that she did to avoid a FOIA request. It’s also possible that she wanted complete control over what anyone could glean from her emails and her actions as SecState vis a vis the Clinton Foundation.

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [spot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spot wrote:
j p o wrote:
trimick wrote:
spot wrote:
That does not matter. Once she became aware that classified information was being introduced into that unclassified system, she have reported it immediately. The fact that she let it continue is negligent, unless you want to argue that Hillary is so stupid she wasn't aware (nor anyone else reading those emails) that classified information was being discussed. And, as has been been pointed out many times, it absolutely does NOT matter whether or not the information was marked as classified.


She was simultaneously the most qualified presidential candidate ever and too stupid to know she was reading classified information. As I said before the mental gymnastics in politics is crazy.


She is an interesting case. She knew she was going to run for president. Any rational person would be handling the 8 years of Obama ridiculously carefully. You would make sure everything was in the clear. I assume it is arrogance that got her in trouble with things like her email and the foundation because I think she actually is a very intelligent person.

And I never really cared whether what she was doing with her email was technically legal or not. There was no benevolent reason to do it the way she did. I'm pretty certain she wasn't trying to play fast and loose with classified information. I think it was more about intentionally blurring the lines between her private dealings and her official government actions. Keeping those separate seems like such a quaint idea now.


Yes, the argument over whether or not it was legal or not misses the question as to why she did it in the first place. It’s entirely possible that she did to avoid a FOIA request. It’s also possible that she wanted complete control over what anyone could glean from her emails and her actions as SecState vis a vis the Clinton Foundation.

It's also entirely possible she just felt entitled to do whatever she wanted and decided she wanted to do what was most convenient for her, and paid little or not consideration to whether it was within the rules.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: WH security clearances [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A thread that began about Trump pushing for clearances of family members who would otherwise be denied has turned into a thread about Clinton and her emails.

Score another point for the right.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply