• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No, Connies - Hillary is not going to have her security clearance revoked

Er, no. There is no law saying a candidate is barred from running for the office of the presidency as long as they meet the requirements in the constitution.

There isn't? Huh. You've stumped me. I definitely don't know of anything to back up the claim.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
 
The bill says

Is the problem that Hilliary is not an employee of the federal government? Or is it the choice of using "extreme carelessness"?

She was at the time of the violations.
 
But the ever over-reaching GOPpers are going to try.

They introduced a bill, called the TRUST Act:

"Today U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) joined Senator Core Gardner (R-CO) and Senator Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) to introduce legislation aimed at revoking the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security clearance."
Sen. Tim Scott joins group aimed at revoking Clinton's security clearance | WCIV



“If the FBI won’t recommend action based on its findings, Congress will. At the very least, Secretary Clinton should not have access to classified information and our bill makes sure of it,” Gardner said in a statement.

Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance | TheHill'

Now, five points to the first person who can tell us why this bill

1) will never pass
2) wouldn't affect Hillary
3) is unconstitutional

You don't need a bill to do that... Hilary broke the laws by mishandling top secret data; and the ONLY defense is that this "was not intended". The fact is that intention does not enter the equation.

Consider, you are at a restaurant with a folder containing classified data. Then, as you leave, you forget to grab the folder, and by the time you get back the folder is gone. It does not matter whether or not that was your intention to mishandle the data, the data was mishandled.

So, EITHER, hilary INTENDED to mishandle the data in which case the FBI was wrong on their decision.
OR, she did not intend to mishandle the data, in which case she is too incompetent to be entrusted with classifed data that could potentially harm the country, its people, or its military.
 
Show me exactly what in the bill qualifies it as a bill of attainder or ex post facto

A bill to prohibit any officer or employee of the Federal Government who has exercised extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information from being granted or retaining a security clearance.

It is explicitly phrased to punish an action already taken.
 
Intent means nothing in regards to constitutionality, show me exactly what in the bill is unconstitutional

Who said anything about intent? It's worded to punish an action that has already been taken, that's the definition of an ex post facto law.
 
Who said anything about intent? It's worded to punish an action that has already been taken, that's the definition of an ex post facto law.

How? show me the exact words in the bill
 
How? show me the exact words in the bill

Sure:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3135/text?q={"search":["cory+gardner"]}
SEC. 3. Security clearances with respect to individuals who have mishandled classified information.

(a) Granting of clearances.—No officer or employee of the Federal Government who has exercised extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information may be granted a security clearance.

(b) Revocation of clearances.—The security clearance of any officer or employee of the Federal Government who has exercised extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information shall be revoked.

It's worded so it can be applied to people who've already been careless in handling classified info, thus making it an ex post facto law, thus unconstitutional.
 
Sure:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3135/text?q={"search":["cory+gardner"]}


It's worded so it can be applied to people who've already been careless in handling classified info, thus making it an ex post facto law, thus unconstitutional.

Is this your first time reading a bill?

This is the only part of the bill that has to do with any law

Section 793(f) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by inserting “(1)” after “(f)”;

(2) by striking “(1) through” and inserting “(A) through”;

(3) by striking “(2) having” and inserting “(B) having”; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

“(2) In this subsection, the term ‘gross negligence’ includes extreme or reckless carelessness.”.

The first 3 sections of the bill are just rhetoric and meaningless as it relates to actual laws.
 
Is this your first time reading a bill?

About my third time actually, foreign bureaucracy ain't my thing.

This is the only part of the bill that has to do with any law

The first 3 sections of the bill are just rhetoric and meaningless as it relates to actual laws.

Yes, it inserts what I quoted into Section 793(f) of title 18 of the US Code.

But this is getting a bit tedious, so I'll just ask, if it's not ex post facto, how can it apply to Clinton?
 
It's worded so it can be applied to people who've already been careless in handling classified info, thus making it an ex post facto law, thus unconstitutional.


So, let me see if I understand what you're saying...

No law can be passed which places further restrictions on anyone who presently holds any given security clearance.

Is that about right?
 
So, let me see if I understand what you're saying...

No law can be passed which places further restrictions on anyone who presently holds any given security clearance.

Is that about right?

No. What the Constitution says is no law can be passed to punish someone for something they've done prior to the law being passed.
 
No. What the Constitution says is no law can be passed to punish someone for something they've done prior to the law being passed.

Is not being granted a security clearance a punishment? Hundreds of millions of innocent Americans are punished every year by not being granted security clearances? People who've spent too long in some foreign countries are punished by being denied security clearances, even though they've committed no crime?


It's hard to see how any sane person would ever trust Clinton with classified information again, if it weren't for the fact that Trump would possibly be as bad or worse and the hope that Clinton has 'learned her lesson' and won't do it again.
 
Last edited:
Is not being granted a security clearance a punishment? Hundreds of millions of innocent Americans are punished every year by not being granted security clearances? People who've spent too long in some foreign countries are punished by being denied security clearances, even though they've committed no crime?

It's the punishment prescribed by this bill for being careless with classified information.
 
Last edited:
So, let me get this straight.

Let's say Hillary gets elected. We're going to take away security clearance from the sitting President of the United States because of a crime she was never charged with?
 
It's the punishment prescribed by this bill for being careless with classified information.

Only it's not a punishment. Security clearances aren't a right; they're a privilege and responsibility granted under specific circumstances with all kinds of conditions attached. Changing those circumstances is not a punishment.

Looks like there's all kinds of other things wrong with the notion, but the ex post facto thing doesn't look like one of them.
 
Only it's not a punishment. Security clearances aren't a right; they're a privilege and responsibility granted under specific circumstances with all kinds of conditions attached. Changing those circumstances is not a punishment.

Looks like there's all kinds of other things wrong with the notion, but the ex post facto thing doesn't look like one of them.

Changing those conditions can be a punishment. If someone is specifically barred from getting a security for something they've specifically done, it's a punishment for that action.
 
But the ever over-reaching GOPpers are going to try.

They introduced a bill, called the TRUST Act:

"Today U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) joined Senator Core Gardner (R-CO) and Senator Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) to introduce legislation aimed at revoking the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security clearance."
Sen. Tim Scott joins group aimed at revoking Clinton's security clearance | WCIV



“If the FBI won’t recommend action based on its findings, Congress will. At the very least, Secretary Clinton should not have access to classified information and our bill makes sure of it,” Gardner said in a statement.

Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance | TheHill'

Now, five points to the first person who can tell us why this bill

1) will never pass
2) wouldn't affect Hillary
3) is unconstitutional

We all understand that the liberal elites are immune to laws.
 
So, let me get this straight.

Let's say Hillary gets elected. We're going to take away security clearance from the sitting President of the United States because of a crime she was never charged with?

Not to worry.

It can't - and won't be done.
 
So, let me get this straight.

Let's say Hillary gets elected. We're going to take away security clearance from the sitting President of the United States because of a crime she was never charged with?

The FACT of the matter is that she mishandled classified data.

This was either a case of intentionally breaking the law, in which case she should not be trusted with classified data, OR
she did not intentionally mishandle classified data, in which case she is too incompetent to be trusted with classified data.

The fact that the FBI decided not to indict her, in spite of the facts of the matter (which does not require intention) is more a statement of just how corrupt your government is...

The announcement might as well have been "she broke the law, but the US is a banana republic and hillary is above the laws that you peasants must abide by"
 
Back
Top Bottom