Should Hillary Clinton's access to classified information while First Lady be investigated?

[zulchzulu]

While First Lady, Hillary Clinton did not have official access to National Security clearances, did not have clearances to view classified information, was not given clearance to access Presidential Daily Briefings and in 1998, was barely speaking to Bill Clinton because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

She says she has the experience to be in the White House and uses her "experience" as First Lady to pad her message that she was in the middle of things. Just what was she looking at and having access to that would make her such an "expert"? Did she access and view classified information without the proper security clearances? It sounds like she is guilty of such.

If that is the case, she may have had access to classified information that she was not allowed to have access to. She was not authorized to be able to view classified information that she appears to be bragging about. The U.S. classification system is currently established under Executive Order 13292 and has three levels of classification — Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret.

Should Americans be concerned with unauthorized disclosures of classified information to those without clearances and should there be regulation imposing civil penalties for those that gave her access to classified information?

The American people deserve to know whether Hillary Clinton was stepping over the line...again.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. I doubt they talked about classified info.

Outside her right to know.


:sarcasm:

[MADem]

10. Sure they did. And she no doubt had the required clearance, too.

That said, guess who has the right to "clear" anyone for access to classified material? The ABSOLUTE right?

Without any investigations, forms to fill out, or any of that pesky bullshit?

Er...let's see...that would be...The President.

If he (or perhaps one day, she) tells you, you're "cleared."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Are you telling me that Pickles knows everything!?!

:scared:

[MADem]

18. She knows what George chooses to share with her. That's the way it is, like it or not.

It's the worst job in the world, really, when you think of it--you catch shit and you don't even get paid.

When Pickles pranced off to the Middle East and had her pic taken with those ladies in their full metal hijab, it is entirely within the realm of not just possibility, but LIKELIHOOD, that she was performing off-the-record, out-of-the-public-eye ambassadorial communications as well. That business came not too long after Big Dick went over that way.

I doubt she was doing any "negotiating," simply because she doesn't have the background for that sort of work, but it's highly likely that she was doing a little "message delivering" here and there. It speaks to the importance of the message, diplomatically, when you have someone "close to the throne" as it were, delivering it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. You catch shit...and then you ride the gravy train for the rest of your life.

:think:

[LSparkle]

12. There are degrees of clearances ...

I'm sure some kind of clearance is required for/given to First Ladies, but to a lesser
extent than that granted to, say, the National Security Advisor.

[MADem]

27. Of course there are. I've held most of them, myself.

The point remains though--if the President shares it with you, you are CLEARED. The very action of sharing by the Chief Executive "makes it so."

It's a point people here are desperate to ignore, to try to make an incredibly stupid and erroneous 'point' of some sort.

See, in order to bag the First Spouse for being "given" that classified material, you have to bag the person who PROVIDED it.

When discussing the sins of Operational Security and safeguarding classified material, PROVIDING the material to someone not authorized to have access to it is the larger "crime," RECEIVING the material isn't.

Of course, if you've never been involved in OPSEC, you might not realize that.

This whole discussion is very instructive, though. When there's this much reaching going on, that suggests a good outcome for the Clinton campaign.

[msongs]

2. nice slime but you forgot proof she actually saw any such thing. nt

[JimGinPA]

6. Yeah, Since That's Safely Locked Away In Bubba's Library

:rofl:

[zulchzulu]

13. Without access to classified information, what value was her First Lady experience?

Let me know how a First Lady without access to classified information can somehow say she has foreign policy experience.

I've been to Europe, Asia, Australia, Central and South America and Canada. Is that foreign policy experience?

[rodeodance]

60. silly Bill whispered it to her. ha ha

[MADem]

3. If the wife of a military ATTACHE gets a security clearance, I rather think

that First Ladies get one too.

Woof, woof....that dog ain't huntin'....

Keep flailing, though.

[LSparkle]

5. She did not have a security clearance

Looking for link but fairly sure it's been confirmed.

[MADem]

14. If the PRESIDENT tells you, you're "cleared." He's "top dog" capisce?

There are some things that, even in America, can be accomplished by Executive Fiat, and security clearances are one of them.

I can't believe how desperate people are, that they'd try to shop "OOOOOOOH!!! She didn't have a CLEARANCE!!!!!!" as an actual THEME. You do see, don't you, that it smacks of flopsweaty desperation?

Only someone who is naive in the extreme would think that any First Lady doesn't have access to material, all the way up to and including TS/SCI, as a function of their unpaid position and relationship to the President. Only a person who doesn't understand how anyone who is used in an ambassadorial function, to include First Ladies, Jesse Jackson freeing hostages, you name it, are granted access to material on a need to know basis. And guess who decides who "needs to know?" The POTUS. Wave of the hand, and it's a done deal.

:eyes:

It would be funny, only you're serious...and that makes it a bit ... sad.

[LSparkle]

17. It's not desperation on my part -- if this is true, it needs to be changed

First Ladies should NOT be seeing classified information just because they're sleeping with the president.
Maybe you feel that in Hillary's case this was OK, but as a general rule, I don't think this is appropriate,
especially if we're engaged in the so-called "war on terrorism". Imagine if someone like Martha Mitchell (wife of
Nixon's AG and a NOTORIOUS drunk dialer) had had access to this kind of info, and decided to share it with her
gossipy Washington socialite buddies? There is no guarantee that a First Lady will use discretion with that
information, and there's no recourse if she abuses the privilege (we can't impeach HER). This should be changed.

[MADem]

21. No, it DOESN'T need to be changed. The very "plausible deniability" of a first spouse is an ASSET.

A HUGE asset. Good grief.

Spouses are routinely used in this fashion. It seems that only people outside government don't seem to realize this, I guess.

Look at one of our nation's best "assets"--Valerie Plame. She was "just" the wife of an Ambassador. Just a woman. Nothing to worry about. Surely, she wouldn't worry HER pretty little head about anything...er...complicated! She's more interested in...oh, I dunno--baking cookies, fashion, maybe?

:eyes:

Listen to yourself. Should Eleanor Roosevelt not have had access to her husband's knowledge base, even as she acted as his eyes, ears, and legs?

"Gosspy Washington socialite buddies?" Who has those? Certainly not Senator Clinton. She was never a force on the DC social scene in that regard. Most First Ladies aren't. They attend the parties, but they stay removed from the fray, generally.

It's the President's decision and perogative when it comes to granting access to White House classified material, like it or not. I rather doubt a President would knowingly include a "notorious drunk dialer" in that inner circle. The Nixon WH was a study in a CFD (complete fucking disaster) and is hardly representative. And Martha wasn't the only big drinker in the Mitchell family, FWIW. How do you think she knew so much? She wasn't sitting in on National Security briefings. She was getting shitfaced with John, and listening to him whining and crying, and passing that crap on.

And FWIW, Martha didn't just call her galpal "buddies." She called the Washington Post. Big diff.

If the President wants the fucking JANITOR to have access to classified material, a wave of the hand makes it happen.

It's a good thing you aren't making the decisions in this regard, because you're just way off the mark. I can only suppose it's your opposition to the candidate that colors your view.

[LSparkle]

28. I'm obviously not as deep inside the Beltway as you

which also explains my choice in candidate.

[MADem]

32. Yeah, all of us "bums" who spent decades in uniform defending our "lousy" nation

should be excoriated for having to do that "inside the Beltway" shit as a function of our responsibilities. It makes us .. "evil."

:eyes:

Seems to me that BOTH candidates are "inside the Beltway" types. Unless "Obama's Senate" meets somewhere other than Cap Hill?

The maturity level here leaves something to be desired.

[Shakespeare]

34. OMFG, I can't believe you really think that's just fine and dandy.

"If he fucks you, you have clearance."

1. Doesn't work that way, and 2. just....OMFG.

[MADem]

39. What a moronic comment. "Fucking" has nothing to do with it. He didn't fuck Jesse Jackson, did he?

Stop acting like an immature ass. You denigrate yourself and cast aspersions on your own intellectual capacity with commentary like that. Nowhere was the assertion made that "fucking" was a necesary corollary to being granted access to classified material. It's the ADVISOR function that holds sway. You might look to RFK for a situational equivalent.

Discussion of classified material with trusted advisors "is what it is." You don't think when Jesse Jackson went off to "rescue hostages" or what-have-you as an independent entity that he wasn't granted full CLASSIFIED briefings on what was up in the countries in question?

Presidential advisors, paid, unpaid, related by blood or marriage, or simply old friends, ARE granted access to classified material by the President's act of sharing it with them.

And that IS how it works. No matter how often you "just...OMFG" about it. And even if you don't like it.

[Shakespeare]

40. "I know some people...." No, you don't know shit about the process.

My reaction was to the utter ridiculousness of your suggestion that Hillary had a high security clearance just 'cause Bill wanted her to.

You have no CLUE how military and diplomatic security clearances are granted, and you have made that embarrassingly clear. Several of us on this board DO know what the process is like, and your ignorance--and insistence that you're right--is rather mind-boggling.

You really should stop now before you embarrass yourself further.

[MADem]

41. Look, I spent many years in uniform. I do know, I don't care if you disbelieve me,

You're an acolyte, so of course you only "BELIEVE" what the Messiah feeds to you.

I know what I know, and you can talk trash and present halfassed opinions all day, it won't make it so. You plainly have no experience in this area--I do. Decades worth.

The government thanks me for my service via direct deposit on the first of every month.

But you do go on, why doncha? I won't tell you to "stop now"--because it does amuse when people who don't know what the hell they're talking about make halfassed and uninformed proclamations in a hectoring tone.

The only person who's doing the "self-embarrassing" is you.

[Shakespeare]

42. Correction, I'm NOT an Obama supporter, but thank for making yet another idiotic assumption.

I'm not the only person on this thread who's pointed out your extreme misunderstanding of 1. how security clearances work, and 2. why Hillary didn't have a high-level clearance.

And it's not just on DU--several high-profile dems have been making the rounds the last few days pointing out that Hillary didn't have clearance, and how that bit of fiction undoes her claims about being a strong national security candidate.

[MADem]

44. I understand how clearances work. You don't. You might have a

clue as to how an ENTNAC or a NAC is prosecuted for a rank-n-file type, but you don't have half a clue as to how it works in the upper echelons.

Just because you have the backing of others, and you're "not the only person" doesn't make you any more correct in your arguments. Mobs are often wrong, you know. I don't make assertions that aren't factual.

I would wager that the "high profile dems" who are "making the rounds" likely aren't Clinton supporters. My, what could possibly motivate all of them, in unison, to shop a pathetic theme like "Waaaaah, she received classified material for which she didn't have a national agency check on file authorizing her to receive said material!!" And I'd also wager that they probably never served in senior leadership positions in the military, or served in any capacity in either embassies or consulates overseas.

The more the Obama camp--whether or not you acknowledge that's where your tent is pitched, I don't really care--shops this story, the more it simply reiterates that Senator Clinton WAS involved in national security issues during her husband's presidency. IMO, that's a plus for her. So keep up the good work!

[Shakespeare]

47. Again, you assume far, far, FAR too much.

So you've decided for me that I'm an Obama supporter? Oh, that's rich. :rofl:

And how, pray tell, does this story having legs in ANY way reinforce that she was granted clearance? I'm very curious to know how YOU think you have information contrary to what government officials (who are in a position to know) have been saying otherwise the last few days.

I'm not part of a mob, but I do know quite a bit about how military and diplomatic clearances work, and how (and why) they are granted. You are still wrong, and laughably so, so suggest that she received a high-level clearance simply because she was the first lady.

[MADem]

48. I don't assume anything, and all of the "little rolling laughing men" in the world can't make what

you say valid in any fashion. I'm glad you "believe" that you know so very much about clearances. That no doubt provides you with an apparently much-needed sense of self-importance, even though the accuracy of your assertion is rather dubious.

Keep flogging the story, at any rate--full bore.

It'll keep you busy, at the very least.

[Shakespeare]

49. No, it's only providing me with great amusement as I read your posts.

I think if you REALLY thought she had any type of high level clearance, you'd produce a link either to an explanation that supports your outrageous contention, or a link that says outright that Hillary had one (hint: she didn't).

[MADem]

58. Again, you deliberately fail to use reason or logic.

The purpose of the entire classification system is to enable the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of government (that's the President, you see, and his crew) to LIMIT dissemination of material only to those that the PRESIDENT and his surrogates (Defense, State, Justice, etc.) want to have the material. It is a formalized methodology to keep track of government secrets. That's ALL it is.

The whole OPSEC program SERVES the Executive Branch.

You seem to have this "idea" in your head that these "rules" are entities in and of themselves, and aren't there to SERVE the Executive. Those rules are subordinate to the wishes of the President, they don't "override" him.

One more time, because it isn't sinking in--the act by the President of sharing the material is all that is required to "grant access." The President can clear you with a wave of his hand.

And generally speaking, "receiving" material isn't the greater crime--disseminating it is, in the big scheme. So, who's going to go arrest President Clinton and anyone who briefed the Senator on any classified topic...anyone? Buehler?

:eyes:

[LSparkle]

4. Maybe that's why we haven't seen the WH records ...

Might they reveal that she was allowed access to information that she shouldn't have
seen (without a security clearance)? Is there hard evidence that she was acting in
ways she should not have been, considering she was ONLY the First Lady?

[hedgehog]

7. In point of fact, I'm wondering why she wasn't given a clearance.

After all, she clearly served as an adviser if not THE chief adviser to Bill regardless of the fact that she had no official title. ("First Lady" is not an official title such as Chief of Staff, etc.)

[Captain Hilts]

16. It's assumed. Like ER having access to the Map room in the WH. during WWII...

she made an effort NOT to know secrets because she knew it would circumscribe her ability to travel freely, but FDR told her there were colored pins on the large maps in the map room depicting where the Roosevelt's kids were and should she want to know where they were, she could go there to see.

ER did not get a full-time body guard until she found out about The Bomb. Until then, locals guarded her or she travelled alone.

[NightWatcher]

8. she didnt do anything but shake hands with other first ladies

[Melinda]

9. Yes, because HRC herself stated that there must be transparency in govt:

If we are to lead this world commensurate with the power we possess, the ideals we proclaim, into a free and hopefully democratic future, we must first be consistent in the principles we champion and pursue. Nowhere is this more important than in the transparency of government decisions.

Without such transparency, how can leaders be accountable? How can people be informed? And without such transparency, the openness and information that is required for the lifeblood of a democracy to be healthy and strong, the pillars of that democracy are shaken.

Now, I would be the first to admit that in our democracy or in any democracy, there is always tension between the information that the Executive Branch needs and their opinion to keep secret any information that must and should be provided to the public in order to have a informed citizenry who can participate in the decisions that are necessary to sustain support for difficult and controversial involvements.

But we must always be vigilant against letting our desire to keep information confidential to be used as a pretext for classifying information that is more about political embarrassment than national security.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b11179.html

[Captain Hilts]

15. No. Wives are cleared just as husbands are. Standard practice in military and the WH. Non issue.

[moondust]

20. Wrong.

Nobody gets a clearance without a "need to know."

If they investigated the Clintons the defendent would be Bill because he had the clearance. It's not likely to happen.

[MADem]

29. Not entirely wrong. The spouses of ambassadors and attaches are assumed to HAVE a need to know.

They play a diplomatic role, one which is heightened in countries that are, er, somewhat repressive. Those spouses also, on the government dime, receive language training 'and then some' when the government official to whom they are married goes through training to assume a diplomatic role. Clearances ARE involved, too. In some places, they actually give the spouse a GS-designation, and a paycheck, just to formalize the deal.

A First Lady, a cabinet official's spouse, they too would be viewed as falling within that diplomatic rubric.

But the bottom line is, is the President tells you, then you have that "need to know." Because the Prez sez so.

[moondust]

33. Got a link to that?

Obviously Bushco believes the "Unitary President" is all-powerful and can ignore the laws of the land at will, and to some extent it may be true in very specific cases as you mention, but as a routine matter a first spouse has no real "need to know." I think a President would be hard pressed to justify granting on-the-spot security clearances to family members or friends.

[MADem]

37. No, I can tell you I have direct personal experience with it, though.

Without getting excessively detailed, I can tell you I've known "cleared spouses" and spouses who were on the payroll overseas. I've known spouses who went through language training "and then some" in order to be helpful in a principal's (both military and civil service) assignment.

This has nothing to do with the "Unitary Executive" argument. This predates that BushCo shit by not just decades, but generations. It's how the government operates. It's not "ignoring laws."

And as a routine matter, the First Spouse has as much "need to know" as the President cares to grant. That's just the way it is.

This harping about "security clearances" misses the point of them--the idea and purpose of them is so that the EXECUTIVE BRANCH can control dissemination of classified material throughout its organizational structure. See, the clearances are a tool to be used BY the Executive Branch--not a cudgel with which to pummel those working directly for, or advising, the President. When it comes to national security, it IS a one-way street. The President is the one calling the shots, and making the determinations as to what is classified, and what isn't, and who--within his own inner circle-- merits access, and who does not.

Most Presidents aren't idiots, gossiping and passing tidbits to friends and family to self-aggrandize; hell, they're in the most powerful position in the world, they don't NEED to prove anything.

They seek the counsel of those they TRUST, whose opinion they value, and like it or not, they have every right to do it.

I think this flopsweat effort to "nail" Senator Clinton because her husband granted her access to information and included her in his cadre of advisors (and she wasn't a newcomer to the role--she had been advising him for years prior to this, during his years as governor) is pretty friken lame. It's really reaching far into a rather tired and flaccid bag of tricks, and it reflects poorly on those shopping the particular complaint, too.

[moondust]

43. Hmm, interesting take.

In my years in language school and working in an intelligence branch I never came across a spouse with a clearance or even one in school. With the exception of married couples who both worked in classified jobs. But even then there was to be no discussion of classified information outside a secure location. The security "cops" were always reminding everybody that you could go to prison just for discussing your work with your spouse.

[MADem]

45. I'm not talking about language school, like Monterey or elsewhere.

I'm talking about senior military leaders and diplomats who receive pretty much private lessons, in DC, with a tutor and two or three others, intensively, over the course of several months, to get ready for an assignment. Massive "immersion" training. It's quite intensive.

You are correct that "normally" in the course of everyday military work in everyday military jobs--to include military intelligence work--a military spouse does not and should not have access to the uniformed member's classified material at ALL. And penalties for transgressing are, as they should be, severe. LT So-and-so or Major Such-and-Such shouldn't come home and say "Damn, honey, the Russkies have plussed up their weapons capability twofold lately! Get me a beer, will ya, and I'll run down this list of nuclear storage sites for ya!"

What I am talking about are very unique and specific situations--military attaches, for example, and some very senior leadership positions where the flag or general officer and his wife (to date it has always been wives) are expected to act in de facto "ambassadorial" roles. I have known wives who were put on the payroll in these sorts of situations, and they didn't have any "intelligence" background prior to their husband's assignment.

FWIW, the clearances for the spouses aren't held by the military, and their personnel records aren't, either, even if the spouse is the spouse of a military officer as opposed to a diplomat. They're held by State. If you're in uniform, you'd have no knowledge or record of the spouse's status, unless, of course, you were working at the embassy holding the material and had reason to access it.

[Captain Hilts]

54. Again, my mother was cleared when dad was doing hush hush sub stuff in USN. nt

[Captain Hilts]

53. My mother was cleared when my dad was involved in hush hush submarine stuff. nt

[MADem]

57. There is a whole sector of the military that "interfaces" beyond the usual parameters

with other sectors of the government, from the "Three Letter" outfits to State, and that "military experience" is not the same at all as what the average individual in uniform enjoys over the course of a career. It's not the mainstream, it isn't done for most service personnel, but it does happen every now and again, more frequently at the fairly senior ranks in specialized assignments.

[BigDaddy44]

22. Are you nuts?

I had a top secret clearance. It sure as hell didn't transfer to my wife also. Nobody "clears" wives. A military officer can marry whoever he or she wants. No one does background investigations on them. And the Military officers security clearance is most definitely non-transferrable.

[ProSense]

24. Facts don't count! n/t

[SKKY]

26. And indeed, some can lose their clearance for who they're married to...

...A good friend of mine lost his clearance because his wife's brother was an official in the Communist Party of Andalucia. This guy obviously has watched way too many Clancy movies.

[MADem]

30. You weren't a military attache in a former Iron Curtain or otherwise communist country, I assume.

I can tell you right now that Barbara Bush had a clearance when her husband was "Envoy" to China. Very often, the wives of military attaches at certain 'key' embassies ARE cleared. As are the spouses of Ambassadors and other embassy officials at many locations.

It's situational, depending on the role and assignment of the principal, but some principals are often chosen with their spouse as a "package deal." If the spouse doesn't cut it, that otherwise superb candidate for that attache position might not get that job....and forever wonder why, not realizing that it just might have been the time the spouse got a little drunk and obnoxious at that four star's annual Christmas party that screwed the deal.

They no longer vet the spouses in the fitness reports (about twenty five or thirty years ago, they actually would do that--"The delightful Beatrice is a charming hostess, and a real asset to her up-and-coming junior officer husband"-- but they've stopped that stuff, now. The 'vetting' still takes place, though, when they're sorting out those sorts of 'particular' assignments. Word-of-mouth still holds sway, too. The culling is usually done, at least initially, by the OSI/NCIS type guys, who run around doing the "interviews" of references and others who know the principal in conjunction with the higher level clearances.

[Captain Hilts]

56. ER was permitted in the Uber Secret map room in the WH. She actually...

avoided learning secrets in order to not have the extra security detail. She knew about D-Day ahead, of time, among other things, etc.

It was when she learned about The Bomb she got a more serious security detail.

[Captain Hilts]

55. No, I'm not. My mother was cleared when dad was doing ultra stuff.

He had already been a sub skipper, in fleet intell and chief of staff for Squadron 10. She was cleared when he was placed on a citation board for submarines.

[SKKY]

23. That's incorrect...

...if she was going to be in a situation where she had the "need-to-know", then they would have "read her in", and that's only if it was essential to what she was doing at the time. There has been no indication she had the need-to-know for many things, so this would be interesting if there's something there.

[MADem]

31. The President's discussion of classified material with ANYONE is all the "need to know"

that needs to be provided.

See my commentary about OPSEC protocols elsewhere in this thread. It's incumbent upon the PROVIDER of the information to only provide it to those qualified to receive it. In the case of the President, he can classify AND declassify information with the wave of his hand, AND clear whosoever he sees fit.

The very act of the President sharing classified material with someone makes that person entitled to receive it. He IS the Chief Executive, not some Lieutenant (j.g.) telling his girlfriend about ship's movements so she can meet him at the pier when the battle group returns.

The idea of trying to "go after" Senator Clinton and hold HER culpable in some fashion because the PRESIDENT shared classified material with her in order to seek her counsel--and he can seek the counsel of ANYONE if he so desires, from university scholars to the WH groundskeeper--OR a relative, for that matter-- is just...idiotic.

[zulchzulu]

35. Is this from the "Make Up The Rules As We Go" Department?

Hillary Clinton DID NOT have NSA security clearance not access to Presidential Daily Briefings. She may have you duped, but that's the facts.

[Onlooker]

25. I think the OP should post this at FreeRepublic

Whatever you may think of Clinton, the kind of question you're raising is right out of the neocon playbook, and I don't think it belongs in DU. Remember, the $60 million taxpayer funded Republican witchhunt did great damage to our country, and we should not emulate the Republicans.

[zulchzulu]

36. Is that all you Hillbots have?

Could you answer the question or are you too stupid to?

[Onlooker]

38. I support Obama ...

... but I can't stand the utter lack of objectivity by some people.

[Barack_America]

51. Nope. This is a totally valid response to Hillary's "experience" challenge.

If she's going to criticize Obama for not having enough "experience", then we deserve to know exactly what "experience" she has.

As far as Hillary committing a crime by viewing classified data as First Lady, I think the OP meant that a little snarkily and was simply trying to point out Clinton's lack of experience.

[AtomicKitten]

46. She thinks if she says "I'm vetted" over and over a la Goebbels, we won't check under the hood.

Wrong!

[zulchzulu]

50. Hillary looks like she could figure out a Xerox machine, ya think?

[AtomicKitten]

52. I do, but she's probably looking for a shredder instead.

[TK421]

59. There's reaching....and there is just desperation

But I have to say this is only reaching....a bit

[rodeodance]

61. Your OP belongs in the conspiracy forum.