Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Politics

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #371  
Old 07-06-2016, 01:28 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJIII View Post
From Ice's link...

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences,” Comey said. “To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

I guess the spirit of the 14th Amendment means nothing now.
No, what it really means is that security and administrative sanctions that would be otherwise applicable to an active Federal employee aren't applicable to someone who isn't. There is no doubt that if she were a regular Federal employee with a Top Secret clearance that her security clearance would be revoked (the security sanction) and she would be fired if the position required such a clearance (the administrative sanction).
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 07-06-2016, 01:34 PM
Wasillaguy's Avatar
Wasillaguy Wasillaguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
No, what it really means is that security and administrative sanctions that would be otherwise applicable to an active Federal employee aren't applicable to someone who isn't. There is no doubt that if she were a regular Federal employee with a Top Secret clearance that her security clearance would be revoked (the security sanction) and she would be fired if the position required such a clearance (the administrative sanction).
Would it not logically follow that if she were to require a security clearance in the future, it would be denied? And therefore she would not be eligible for a position that required a clearance?
__________________
"You can't always get what you want" -Rolling Stones
Reply With Quote
  #373  
Old 07-06-2016, 01:43 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasillaguy View Post
Would it not logically follow that if she were to require a security clearance in the future, it would be denied? And therefore she would not be eligible for a position that required a clearance?
Believe it or not, the President doesn't require a security clearance. His/her appointees and national security officials and workers do, but he/she doesn't. For that matter, Trump likely wouldn't get a TS clearance either. Having had one for 20 years, they look into things that could lead you to being blackmailed and the biggest of these items is past bankruptcies/money problems, extramarital affairs, and drug/alcohol abuse. He's had his share of the first two.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Reply With Quote
  #374  
Old 07-06-2016, 01:48 PM
bobabode's Avatar
bobabode bobabode is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
No, what it really means is that security and administrative sanctions that would be otherwise applicable to an active Federal employee aren't applicable to someone who isn't. There is no doubt that if she were a regular Federal employee with a Top Secret clearance that her security clearance would be revoked (the security sanction) and she would be fired if the position required such a clearance (the administrative sanction).
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Believe it or not, the President doesn't require a security clearance. His/her appointees and national security officials and workers do, but he/she doesn't. For that matter, Trump likely wouldn't get a TS clearance either. Having had one for 20 years, they look into things that could lead you to being blackmailed and the biggest of these items is past bankruptcies/money problems, extramarital affairs, and drug/alcohol abuse. He's had his share of the first two.
How dare you bring facts and rational arguments in here? This is a political blog, god damn it!
__________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
- Mr. Underhill
Reply With Quote
  #375  
Old 07-06-2016, 01:52 PM
Wasillaguy's Avatar
Wasillaguy Wasillaguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
Believe it or not, the President doesn't require a security clearance. His/her appointees and national security officials and workers do, but he/she doesn't. For that matter, Trump likely wouldn't get a TS clearance either. Having had one for 20 years, they look into things that could lead you to being blackmailed and the biggest of these items is past bankruptcies/money problems, extramarital affairs, and drug/alcohol abuse. He's had his share of the first two.
If you had one for 20 years, I'd think you would know not to talk about having had one.

I understand there's no requirement for the POTUS, that's why I started with "would it not logically follow" rather than "wouldn't the legal process require".
__________________
"You can't always get what you want" -Rolling Stones
Reply With Quote
  #376  
Old 07-06-2016, 05:09 PM
finnbow's Avatar
finnbow finnbow is offline
Reformed Know-Nothing
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasillaguy View Post
If you had one for 20 years, I'd think you would know not to talk about having had one.

I understand there's no requirement for the POTUS, that's why I started with "would it not logically follow" rather than "wouldn't the legal process require".
It's totally cool to talk about having had security clearances (I had a Secret for 15 years and a TS for 20). Hell, my Top Secret clearance (called a "Q" clearance in DOE/NRC parlance) was a valuable credential and is a job requirement for all sorts of good jobs in and out of government. I'm retired and haven't had such a clearance for about 5 years, so I can now again misbehave.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Reply With Quote
  #377  
Old 07-06-2016, 06:05 PM
Wasillaguy's Avatar
Wasillaguy Wasillaguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
It's totally cool to talk about having had security clearances (I had a Secret for 15 years and a TS for 20). Hell, my Top Secret clearance (called a "Q" clearance in DOE/NRC parlance) was a valuable credential and is a job requirement for all sorts of good jobs in and out of government. I'm retired and haven't had such a clearance for about 5 years, so I can now again misbehave.
The NISPOM and refresher training both explicitly state that individuals are not to discuss or reveal their security status with anyone other than official personnel. It also details the human threat and how the first step is for adversaries to identify potential marks by looking at resumes and social media.
It also explains that you are still obligated to maintain a vigilant security posture after your clearance has expired, and that failure to follow the rules and regulations set forth can result in loss of clearance, loss of job, loss of employer's facility clearance, federal arrest, fines, prosecution, and imprisonment.

Sounds like you subscribe to the Hillary school of security.
__________________
"You can't always get what you want" -Rolling Stones
Reply With Quote
  #378  
Old 09-26-2016, 11:19 PM
icenine's Avatar
icenine icenine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: San Diego via Vermilion Ohio and Points Between
Posts: 11,536
Hurray For Hillary 1-0 up against the Grifter.

Please join me in supporting Hillary Clinton as she steamrolls the Orange Dope into the asphalt that is the road to the White House in November!

Hurray For Hillary!!
__________________
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
Reply With Quote
  #379  
Old 09-26-2016, 11:29 PM
bobabode's Avatar
bobabode bobabode is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,188
Trump is roadkill.
__________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
- Mr. Underhill
Reply With Quote
  #380  
Old 09-27-2016, 08:11 AM
merrylander's Avatar
merrylander merrylander is offline
Resident octogenarian
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow View Post
It's totally cool to talk about having had security clearances (I had a Secret for 15 years and a TS for 20). Hell, my Top Secret clearance (called a "Q" clearance in DOE/NRC parlance) was a valuable credential and is a job requirement for all sorts of good jobs in and out of government. I'm retired and haven't had such a clearance for about 5 years, so I can now again misbehave.
I hve the DOE record of my Florence's clearance level but I would have to fetch it to see what it was as I can't remember the exact level. In any case all that part is now public knowledge..
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.