2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Would Not Be Trusted With A Security Clearance Today Based On Her Past Negligence
I've never had a clearance, but worked for companies that require them of some people and have seen some of these people fired for infractions as small as trying to sneak a newspaper out of a secured facility. That being said, there are well known protocols for granting clearance. When a security violation is made by someone, that person's clearance is revoked. Clearance is either later granted or denied at the discretion of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). First, it has been well established at this point that Clinton mishandled secret information, knowingly allowing that information to be present on an unsecured server and also directing staffers to transmit via unsecured communications secret information. From http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-emails-classified-2016-1
That is according to an intelligence official familiar with the probe into the former secretary of state's "homebrew" server, which is being led by the intelligence community's inspector general, Charles McCullough.
This included information that was higher than secret, at a level of Special Access Program, or SAP. Furthermore, from: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985
While not intentionally handing secrets over to people who shouldn't have them, this was a clear security clearance violation and is a negligent handling of classified information. Let's see why other people who previously had clearance lost it for similar reasons:
From DOHAs website: http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/2014.html
Handling Protected Information; Information Technology Systems; Personal Conduct
12/22/2014
Applicant was fired from his previous defense contractor employment for violating security procedures involving an information system and for not being upfront about his conduct during his employer�s investigation of the incident. Applicant has an otherwise unblemished record of handling classified information, but his claim of an accidental breach is not persuasive in light of his inconsistent accounts of the incident and other contradictory evidence. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 14-00998.h1
Case Number: 14-02447.h1
Personal Conduct; Handling Protected Information; Use of Information Technology Systems
12/01/2014
Applicant was involved in two security violations, and he lied about his actions on two affidavits. Clearance is denied. CASE NO: 14-02447.h1
Case Number: 14-00683.h1
Handling Protected Information; Personal Conduct
10/31/2014
Applicant demonstrated lack of judgment by committing a security violation in 2012. Notwithstanding the clear evidence of his security violation, he continues to make false statements denying it. His security violation and his false statements are likely to recur and cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 14-00683.h1
Case Number: 13-00676.h1
Handling Protected Information
03/24/2014
Applicant is an engineer with a record of four security violations. He left a classified tape on a bench in a laboratory in November 2006. In June 2012, he failed to secure a lock on a classified closed area. In October 2012, he left six classified hard drives unsecured in a closed area that was secured but not approved for open storage. In December 2012, he installed unapproved software on a classified information system. Applicant has since established routines to remind him of his security responsibilities, but his negligence in fulfilling his security responsibilities continues to cast doubt about his security worthiness. Clearance denied. CASE NO: 13-00676.h1
There are many many more cases of people being denied reinstatement of their clearance there. But these (and many others not posted) particularly highlight similar cases of use of information technology inappropriately to hold and/or transmit classified information. Like Hillary, these people were not necessarily doing anything intentional. But unfortunately, like Hillary, they also had trouble owning up to their own behavior in this matter and that is ultimately what cost them their clearance.
What kind of President would Hillary make if she can't even meet this minimal standard of handling classified information?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Human101948
(3,457 posts)There is, by the way, a lot of talk but it seems that every time one of these stories appears about how there was super secret stuff on her server, it is proven to be B.S.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)This story is being covered by all major news organizations and the fact is her private unsecured server held classified information at the highest level. The Inspector General himself made the statements regarding this issue in a letter he sent to the Senate on Monday. There is no question it is a violation of the laws of handling classified information.
840high
(17,196 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)This follows the template of the Benghazi scandal, and harks back to an earlier time, when we heard something like, "Mr. Chairman, I have here a list of 57 known communists in the State Department."
merrily
(45,251 posts)was on her server. You really think his letter to Congress will be proven to be b.s.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)“I think this was a very coordinated leak,” Brian Fallon said on CNN. “Two months ago there was a...report that directly challenged the finding of this inspector general, and I don’t think he liked that very much. So I think that he put two Republican senators up to sending him a letter so that he would have an excuse to resurface the same allegations he made back in the summer that have been discredited.”
The comments came after Inspector General Charles McCullough III told senators that he believes at least several dozen of emails Clinton sent and received while she was secretary of state contained classified material at the highest levels, according to a letter obtained by McClatchy.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article55628755.html#storylink=cpy
merrily
(45,251 posts)My question was a legitimate response to your post. If you don't want to answer it fine. But don't answer something I didn't ask and could care less about, namely that Brian Fallon, a Clinton spokesperson, has a different opinion (one that he is being paid very well to have) than the US Inspector General for the U.S. Intelligence Community.
There was a letter to Congress that was made public. The U.S. Inspector General put his professional cred on the line with the US Congress and the American public, knowing how high profile this is--and knowing that Clinton might be the next head of the Executive Branch that cuts his paychecks. Do you really think that letter will be proven to be bs?
Human101948
(3,457 posts)and they have all gone up in smoke. There is solid evidence that this is a jihad by Republicans to diminish the threat of a Hillary Clinton presidency. There is plenty of evidence that classifications are being changed after the fact. That this inspector might be be involved in an interagency turf war in D.C. is very possible. So your certainty about the veracity of these charges seems foolhardy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)it this time. This is the Executive Branch of the Obama (D) administration.
And no, all the other accusations have not gone up in smoke. Just ask Susan McDougall, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. And then there was also the "little" matter of a sitting President, who was also a lawyer at the time, lying to the Grand Jury under oath, which all America can verify, having seen him do so on TV.
FYI, that something does not result in a criminal conviction or prosecution does not mean it was a baseless charge.
That this inspector might be be involved in an interagency turf war in D.C. is very possible.
Really! "Very possible," or pulled straight out of your ear? What is your basis for claiming it's "very possible?" What kind of turf war are you claiming?
He works for the Executive Branch. In another year, Hillary may be able to throw him out of his job.
So your certainty about the veracity of these charges seems foolhardy.
Before you imply I am either reckless and/or a fool, kindly quote the exact words I used to express my alleged certainty about the veracity of these charges.
Meanwhile, please don't put words in my mouth or my posts. As I said, I don't play bs posting games. Thanks.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)You know, I never really felt much enthusiasm for President Clinton until the right wing witch hunt impeached him. Many Americans reacted similarly and gave him fantastic poll numbers in response. They knew which side was the right side in that fight.
You don't play posting games but there you are posting and then posting again.
merrily
(45,251 posts)This is a political discussion board. Posting and replying to posts is what happens on a political discussion board.
If you make claims that can't stand up to challenge, that's on you. And, your perception of eagerness on my part is evidence of nothing.
They knew which side was the right side in that fight.
To paraphrase one of your heroes, it all depends on how you define "right."
After several years of fighting Jones' right to sue and her lawsuit, Clinton settled the Jones suit for more than she had originally sued for shortly after the law on employment related sexual harassment changed.
There is zero question he had an affair with Lewinsky and lied about it to his cabinet, to America, and finally to a grand jury while under oath. There is zero doubt Susan McDougallwent to prison for refusing to answer two or three questions that involved Bill Clinton.
I only wish the US public knew as much about the ins and outs of lawsuits and political events as you seem to think they do.
However, this, too, has nothing to do with what you've been claiming and changing the subject doesn't cut it either.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Some of us just know this is really a serious issue and not trumped up (no pun intended) shit from the Republicans.
Renew Deal
(81,846 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)was marked classified at the time she sent it?
Note -- these from your Business Insider article were not:
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)The IC Inspector General has stated it. And it's been widely reported.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)What am I missing?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Also, that people who receive security clearances receive lengthy training, including how to identify and handle classified information that was not properly marked.
Btw, "But it wasn't marked" was Karl Rove's defense for outing Plame.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)This alone is a security violation:
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)of the information provided in that statement. I'm not the one seeing what he wants to see here, you are.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)DSB
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Seriously you should quietly log off for a while.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Seriously you should quietly log off for a while.
Seriously, sir, you shouldn't demand that posters on an anonymous message board do anything.
Thank you in advance.
Lovingly and respectfully,
DSB
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)I suspect you have spent too much time on this site criticizing others that you are not perceiving reality for what it is.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Sir, this looks like more of a demand than a suggestion:
Seriously you should quietly log off for a while.
-berni-mccoy
Sir, may I please ask you two questions:
Do you routinely demand that strangers do things they are disinclined to do?
and
How does that work out for you?
Thank you in advance.
Lovingly and respectfully,
DSB
P.S. I have a third question. How does one quietly log off as opposed to noisily log off?
Thank you in advance, again.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)you've been on here far too long criticizing people and covering that stink in passive-aggressive statements like "Lovingly and respectfully,"... Please take my *suggestion* for your own benefit. Or not, and make a fool of yourself. Really, your choice, I could seriously give a rats ass.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)You demanded that I log off, ergo:
-berni-mccoy
I merely had the temerity to label it a demand which it is.
Respectfully,
DSB
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)you've provided insults. Touché I guess?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)As I've already stated, your conclusions go beyond the evidence you've provided. Your earlier counter example only confirms it.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Your response which was a blatant insult without explaining your own opinion is the only smelly turd laying in this dialogue.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)This is what I wrote:
If that's an "insult" then you're too thin-skinned to discuss and defend your ideas in a public forum.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)That's an insult based on the evidence I provided. And I answered your request. That was your response. You've got nothing but insults in retort and demands of bullshit.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Do I need to repeat it?
YOU started the insults, my friend.
I'm done with you and your whining.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)And here's another fact. You haven't refuted anything. Thanks for playing though. It's been...um... interesting?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)I admit I am flawed but I am still staggered by the painful lack of self awareness I observe. A modicum of self awareness is essential to emotional health.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)From today's State Department daily briefing:
QUESTION: Yesterday you were asked – it was still the State Department’s assertion that none of the documents that have been released contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. You said of the documents that have been released, “Yes, that’s the case.” Do you mean when you say that, just to point a really fine point on this, that none of that information was marked classified, or has the State Department made a definitive assertion that none of those documents contained classified information?
MR TONER: No, we – and a fine point is fine. But we’ve said none of the emails released to this point in our monthly productions were marked classified at the time that they were sent. They were upgraded at the time of release.
QUESTION: But you can’t say definitively that they didn’t contain classified information at the time they were sent, just that they weren’t marked as classified?
MR TONER: Correct. And we’ve also said that – acknowledged that there are other reviews and investigations into some of these broader questions.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/01/251619.htm#IRAQ
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)These charges are really funny. The so call beyond top secret information is material in news reports http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985
The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.
The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.
“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.”
The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was “top secret” because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of “parallel reporting” that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985#ixzz3xvQpGCwW
E-mails discussing material in the Washington Post are not top secret or SAP.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)Every Clinton denial has carefully spoken of nothing MARKED classified. That ignores that the SoS deals with classified info constantly and that obviously if she wrote an email, no one then looked at it and classified it!
Here are questions on email in today's State Department briefing. I included the full section on it - it is a public document and it would save people from having to look for it. I bolded the text where the SD was willing to only back that nothing was marked and explicitly did not rule out that things could have been classified.
STION: Different subject?
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: I would like to go to the very popular email subject just for a little bit here.
MR TONER: Ever popular, evergreen.
QUESTION: Right. I was hoping that you could give us an update on the status of the interagency FOIA review, if you have a number of how many instances of classification have been flagged by the intelligence community thus far, how’s that process of kind of reconciling those differences going, just kind of in general terms. And then I have some more specific questions.
MR TONER: Sure. Well, in terms of specific numbers, I mean, I think you know the global numbers that we’ve talked about in terms of documents released overall. I think we’ve talked about a large amount of material, obviously, some 55,000 pages that have been released or will be released ultimately. And we’re focused on that process. We continue to work closely within – or with, rather, our interagency partners and – and on this process of clearing these – this mass amount of documents and through the FOIA process. But – and that work continues. I mean, we’ve done – made enormous strides over the past several months, but there’s obviously still a good number of documents, although we’re in the final tranche, I think, of them. But we’re committed to meeting those commitments.
QUESTION: As these instances of, I guess, potentially classified information are found, though, and flagged and kind of gone through further review in the process, are – is the State Department getting to where those have mostly been resolved, and will they be settled in time for everything to be released by the 29th?
MR TONER: Well, I don’t want to definitively say today, because as you know, given the enormous amount of work to be done in clearing these emails for release, for public release through the FOIA process, we have had to push deadlines out a little bit. So I can’t say definitively today that we’ll meet the next deadline for the release of the next tranche of emails. But I can assure you that the team working on this is working nonstop, full stop – 24/7, if you will – on trying to get through these documents.
In terms of classified documents, I mean, we continue to work with the interagency. And I spoke a little bit about this yesterday. The intelligence community has always been a part of this review process. And in fact, last July we directly brought them in, brought a team from the IC into our review process in order to review the full collection of Secretary Clinton’s emails. So this is a natural dialogue that takes place in this review process, not particular to this set of emails. Obviously, this is a high-profile FOIA case, but it’s not unusual for – when we’re looking at processing these FOIA requests that there’s going to be disagreement or discussion, I guess, rather, between various agencies over what might or might not need to be classified. And we’re working through that. We’ve worked through it already in a number of cases and we’re going to continue to work through that as we get through this final tranche of emails.
QUESTION: But can you characterize those emails that have been flagged for further review? Is it a large batch? Is it – I mean, how would you characterize the numbers if you can’t give a specific number?
MR TONER: I don’t want to necessarily say it’s a large batch. I don’t have numbers certain. All I can say is that we take, obviously, this review process very clear – or very seriously, rather, and as well as our obligation, our responsibility, as needed, to classify any material that is deemed eligible for classification. And we’ve done this already, upgraded a number of emails in that regard. But I don’t – I just don’t have a number or a specific number, an accurate number I can give you today on what might still be out there.
QUESTION: But if you can’t come to terms with the intelligence community or with any particular agencies on a specific email, what happens to that email? Is it – I mean, is it just not released? Is it redacted in full? What happens if those are irresolvable?
MR TONER: It’s a good question and a fair one. I think our expectation is that we’ll resolve all these discussions. And again, I don’t want to necessarily couch this in terms that there’s some kind of conflict. We’re just working with our colleagues in the intelligence community to address their concerns, as we do with other members of the interagency, as we review these emails. There’s also other emails that touch on other equities within the interagency. That’s a part of the review process. We’ve gotten through this before with this particular FOIA process and with other FOIA processes, and we’ll get through it this time.
QUESTION: Aside from this particular case, is it common for agencies to disagree so fundamentally on whether something is or isn’t classified?
MR TONER: I think so, and we’ve talked a little bit about this throughout this particular process, that classification is not an exact science. It’s not a black and white kind of thing. There are differing viewpoints over what should be classified and how the same information can be obtained in different ways and through different modes. And that’s always, again, a discussion we welcome. We want to have that, because as I said before, ultimately our responsibility here is not to put out anything that should be upgraded or should be deemed classified. And we take that responsibility very seriously at the same time as we comply with the FOIA request to make these documents public.
QUESTION: Yesterday you were asked – it was still the State Department’s assertion that none of the documents that have been released contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. You said of the documents that have been released, “Yes, that’s the case.” Do you mean when you say that, just to point a really fine point on this, that none of that information was marked classified, or has the State Department made a definitive assertion that none of those documents contained classified information?
MR TONER: No, we – and a fine point is fine. But we’ve said none of the emails released to this point in our monthly productions were marked classified at the time that they were sent. They were upgraded at the time of release.
QUESTION: But you can’t say definitively that they didn’t contain classified information at the time they were sent, just that they weren’t marked as classified?
MR TONER: Correct. And we’ve also said that – acknowledged that there are other reviews and investigations into some of these broader questions.
QUESTION: Okay. And then just a few things on specific statements that Secretary Clinton and her spokespeople have been saying in recent days. What’s the protocol for State Department employees sending articles that contain information that, while in the public domain, is considered by the government to be classified?
MR TONER: What is the protocol for that?
QUESTION: Is it allowed?
MR TONER: If you’re talking about, like, for example --
QUESTION: Forwarding an article.
MR TONER: What’s that?
QUESTION: Forwarding an article.
MR TONER: Forwarding an article. I’d have to get the specific language for you, but it’s strongly discouraged to, for example, access WikiLeaks material and other material that is allegedly classified. It’s --
QUESTION: Not prohibited, though?
MR TONER: I don’t know. Again, I don’t have the exact language in front of me.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: I’ll have to get back to you on that.
QUESTION: And then I promise this is my last one on this.
MR TONER: That’s okay. No worries.
QUESTION: The – Secretary Clinton’s campaign spokesperson has also said that there are political motives at play with the intelligence community inspector general. Has this review process been politicized?
MR TONER: From our viewpoint, not at all. We’ve approached this in a very pragmatic way in terms of we have a FOIA request, we need to fulfill that request, we need to make these rather significant number of emails public, but we have to do so in a way that protects any classified information that may be contained in them and upgrade them as necessary and redact them as necessary. I’d just refer to you – if there’s specific comments about the motivation for the ICIG, I’d have to refer you to them.
QUESTION: Staying with the emails --
MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: The Daily Caller reported earlier this week that a group of emails that they obtained under a lawsuit showed that then-State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull, after being informed that Secretary Clinton’s private BlackBerry had failed a number of times, proposed providing her with a State Department-issued BlackBerry and – that would have various kinds of protection so that it would continue working and so on. And it – in his note he said that the official BlackBerry or the – would mask her identity but would be subject to FOIA requests. And the emails that they say they have obtained show Huma Abedin, the former Secretary’s deputy chief of staff, as saying that giving the Secretary a State-issued BlackBerry equipped with a state.gov email address, “doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
My question is: Why, from an institutional point of view, would it not make sense for the Secretary of State to have an official BlackBerry from the State Department with an email address – with a state.gov email address that was believed to be more reliable than the personal email address and device that former Secretary Clinton was using. Why doesn’t that make sense from an institutional point of view?
MR TONER: Sure. And you’re probably not going to be very satisfied with my answer, but I hope you can respect the fact that I’m aware of the article, I’m aware of these emails. I can’t speak to the content of them or make a judgment or offer, really, an opinion – even an institutional one – over what was said or not said in them, given that, as I said, there’s other investigations, reviews, looking at some of these questions.
So we obviously take our responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act very seriously. We’re looking at getting these emails out. I can’t – if I – I can’t address your questions because of these reviews, because of these investigations and inquiries underway. I don’t want to get ahead of them. I would just simply note that Secretary Kerry himself has asked the inspector general to look at some of these matters last March, and we’ve worked closely with the OIG, and it’s – on this review, and we welcome its findings once it comes out with them. But I just don’t want to get ahead of those investigations.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/01/251619.htm#IRAQ
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)Here are some more facts on this matter http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586
The officials say the emails included relatively "innocuous" conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program, which technically is considered a "Special Access Program" because officials are briefed on it only if they have a "need to know."
As a legal matter, the U.S. government does not acknowledge that the CIA kills militants with drones. The fact that the CIA conducts drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, however, has long been known. Senior officials, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former CIA Director Leon Panetta, have publicly discussed CIA drones.
In 2009, Feinstein disclosed during a public hearing that the U.S. was flying Predator drones out of a base in Pakistan. Also that year, Panetta called drone strikes in Pakistan "the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership." Various public web sites continue to keep track of each CIA drone strike.
At issue are a new batch of emails from Clinton's home server that have been flagged as containing classified information in a sworn statement to the inspector general of the intelligence community. The sworn statement came from the CIA, two U.S. officials tell NBC News.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)DSB
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)And the only one playing the victim is Hillary
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Reminds me of the Biblical admonition that what you do in the dark will be brought out in the light.
Lovingly and respectfully,
DSN
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Maybe you should consider my suggestion above then.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)-berni_mccoy
Sir, calling a demand a suggestion no more makes it so than if by calling myself Muhammad Ali I become the 1960 Light Heavyweight Olympic champion and three time heavyweight champion of the world.
Respectfully as always,
DSB
Thenewire
(130 posts)Good old republican talking points from Sanders supporters. It is getting even harder to split the two. If Sanders truly wanted change he should have run as a candidate for the republicans since a lot of his arguments consists of the same vitriol they have been spouting over the years about the establishment.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)It's a serious probe.
What's getting hard is realizing you Hillary supporters don't give two hoots if our nominee won't be able to run because she'll be dealing with criminal charges.
Thenewire
(130 posts)The investigation is a result of a republican political hit against Obama in the 2012 election. That didn't work so they moved on to the next target. Of course, they couldn't find anything more incriminating on Clinton other than the foolish decision to use a private server to store emails which is something republicans have also been doing. I don't understand why you are so desperate for Sanders. He is part of an old belief system that has no bearing on the realities of today's world. I'm not saying that you cant challenge the establishment but what will come of it. What we have now isn't artificial, it has built up to this and it will not change in 4 or 8 years, maybe not even in 20 years. It wont change even if Sanders is elected as long as there is a republican party. What we can do is win the small battles until we achieve political consensus. I see that like the republicans there are a lot of his supporters who are willing to throw it all away just to make a point.
840high
(17,196 posts)
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)Unlike you, I have held a security clearance with compartmentalized access beyond Top Secret. Oddly enough, I got it when I was only 21 years old, after a quite thorough investigation that included interviews by FBI agents of people in my home town. Still, I was only 21 years old, with very little history to investigate.
Removal of clearances is another matter, and depends a great deal on the violations or lapses, but also on the authority level of the person involved. The less easy it is to replace that person, the more likely they will not lose their clearance. That is especially true of people in very high level positions.
I actually retained my clearance, despite being arrested for protesting in uniform at the Pentagon during an anti-war movement in 1969. Why, I'm not sure. The protest had nothing to do with my work in any way, so that may have played a role. It may also have involved my particular skills in a specific area, which made me a little difficult to replace immediately.
Oddly enough, people who hold high office in the civilian world, such as Secretaries of State, are very, very unlikely to be refused a security clearance or to lose one once obtained. The same is true for members of Congress who sit on intelligence committees. It's very rare for such a person to be refused a clearance or to lose one.
The intelligence community is funny about things like that, oddly enough.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)And glad they didn't revoke your clearance. And I agree there is a different standard for elected officials in high powers. But I wonder what happens for past members (she holds no office today).
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)I confess that I was never, ever, involved with the clearance process, except as a person subject to the process. I was also inside the intelligence environment, rather than being employed by some vendor. As such, I was subject to the UCMJ, as an NCO in the USAF. The penalties for actual security breaches were pretty severe, and I never, ever made such a breach.
I can say this much, however. Even Presidents are not completely trusted by intelligence organizations. When a President visits such an organization, the spaces he will visit are carefully sanitized to remove extremely sensitive materials. I witnessed that in person in one of my roles during my time in service. I can't give any details, but such things were a commonplace. Anyone not involved on a day-to-day basis, but who had some kind of oversight, was not completely trusted and efforts were made to reduce the amount of sensitive information they might observe.
The whole need-to-know thing is paramount in priority once you move beyond mere Top Secret materials. Limiting access to as small a group as possible is always the goal. Often, it seemed foolish to me, but it was always the practice.
On the other hand, the group with extraordinary clearance levels often included people who seemed to me to be questionable in one way or another. That includes myself, really. I wouldn't have given me clearance for some of the things I had access to. As it happened, my own personal ethics would have kept me from disclosing anything I learned, but how on Earth were they to know that?
Bottom line, it always seemed to me, was that it was more important to limit access to people you'd think you could trust than to those you'd think would be the most dangerous to have access. Often, what was classified at the highest levels was the stuff that would be most embarrassing if exposed, rather than the most dangerous to things like national security.
Odd work to be involved in. When offered an opportunity to continue in that field after my enlistment was up, I decided not to continue and went on my way, albeit with some pretty serious travel restrictions and other limitations. As far as I know, I'm still not allowed to travel to several countries. Not that I'd care to, but it's odd.
Looking back to being 21 years old, it all seems a bit surrealistic, and I still have strange dreams from time to time that involve some of those places and situations. I'll never reveal any details, and by this time they'd no longer be of any interest to anyone, but such is that business. I'm glad I walked away from it, to tell the truth.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)That, however, will not guarantee that she'll be able to see anything she wants. In fact, there will certainly be many things that no President will ever see. That's the reality.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)On Thu Jan 21, 2016, 04:14 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Hillary Would Not Be Trusted With A Security Clearance Today Based On Her Past Negligence
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511040762
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is a rambling, sexist tirade.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jan 21, 2016, 04:16 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Over the top, and just plain silly.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pffft.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Gothmog
(144,919 posts)This attack is really sad and bogus http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/
The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had a similar response, calling the story "nothing new."
"None of the emails that are alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton. The question of whether she received emails with classified information has nothing to do with any action taken by Secretary Clinton," she said. "Additionally, none of the emails that were sent to Secretary Clinton were marked as including classified information, a requirement when such information is transmitted."
Feinstein said the inspector general was being used for "baldly partisan attacks."
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Obama appointed him and Feinstein confirmed him (as did all the other Dems). Now after he points out a major failure of Hillary's is he labeled a political hack. That is by definition ratfucking.
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)Articles in the New York Times are not SAP http://www.npr.org/2016/01/20/463730125/-top-secret-email-revelation-changes-nothing-clinton-says?live=1
Clinton added, "I'm just going to leave it up to the professionals at the Justice Department, because nothing that this says changes the fact that I never sent or received material marked classified."
She said "the best we can determine" is that the emails in question were a forward of a New York Times article on a classified drone program and that they had likely been retroactively classified.
"How a New York Times public article that goes around the world could be in any way viewed as classified, or the fact that it would be sent to other people off of the New York Times site, I think, is one of the difficulties that people have in understanding what this is about," Clinton said.
Though the drone program was classified at the time, it was being written about publicly, which Clinton said, "strikes me as somewhat strange that there would be a — an effort by those who are leaking this — and obviously that's what's happening — to try to raise concerns and doubts about information in the public sector."
She added, "But even if they have retroactive concerns and doubts, that doesn't change the fact that these were not marked classified at the time they were sent or received."
The premise of this thread is that reading the NYT or the Washington Post is illegal. I do not think that this theory will survive in court
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
senz
(11,945 posts)about matters that most people treat with seriousness and care.
I don't know why she does these things; it's as if she thinks she's untouchable, above the law, entitled. She seems to place herself beyond the values and concerns one normally expects from public servants or any self-respecting professional.
It's one of many reasons I think she would be a bad president.
