• 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!

Would you give a person like Hillary the top security clearance?

Would you give a person like Hillary the top security clearance?

  • Total voters
    27
Russell797 said:
Since the entire e-mail issue is a ploy by Republicans to smear an opponent I of course would trust her. NO criminality has been determined by the FBI, thus there has been no passing of classified information by Clinton on her private e-mail account. She opened herself up to this investigation, and for that she has no one to blame but herself, but she ultimately has been cleared of any serious wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

But but but but....Vince Foster!
 
year2late said:
But but but but....Vince Foster!
Click to expand...

These tactics will continue for as long as the public buys into unsubstantiated claims hook, line and sinker. Sadly, strategists use these tactics because they are effective. Ethics and fair play be damned.
 
JumpinJack said:
She didn't do anything differently in that respect from Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice, except she had a private server. The private server was MORE secure than the govt's. HER server has never been hacked. Furthermore, the server was legal.
Click to expand...

Everything in this post is either untrue, unconfirmed, or half-true at best.
 
azgreg said:
Here you go.

stripper_pole15.jpg
Click to expand...

Is that a Festivus pole or just the base of a lamp pole?
 
Would I give someone who was roundly lambasted and condemned by Comey and the State Department Inspector General for egregious carelessness and recklessness, exposing confidential e-mails to security risks, top security clearance? Who clearly violated subsection 793(f)? Who would have been prosecuted, disciplined and banned from any security clearance were she not so politically powerful and connected? Obviously not.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Versus somebody less careful than her, yes. Versus somebody more careful than her, no.

Therefore, yes.
Click to expand...

If she's the executive then all top security clearances would have to be given to the VP.
 
Cardinal said:
Versus somebody less careful than her, yes. Versus somebody more careful than her, no.

Therefore, yes.
Click to expand...

This isn’t a “versus” question. It’s whether or not she would be awarded a TS clearance.

No. Hillary Clinton would not, were she not a political appointee, would not pass a single-scope background investigation or be likely to be awarded a TS//SCI clearance.
 
JumpinJack said:
She didn't do anything differently in that respect from Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice, except she had a private server.
Click to expand...

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/] The IG report confirms that among Clinton’s predecessors only Powell used personal email for government business. Madeleine Albright did not use email at all, and Condoleezza Rice did not use personal email to conduct government business[/url]

Factcheck said:
In what reads like a direct rebuttal to Clinton’s claim that other secretaries of state have done the same thing, the IG report notes that the department’s policies on the use of personal email and nongovernment computer systems were “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated” during Clinton’s tenure. It said she should be “evaluated” differently than her predecessors.
“Beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011, the Department revised the FAM [Foreign Affairs Manual] and issued various memoranda specifically discussing the obligation to use Department [computer] systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not doing so,” the report says. “Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives.”
In addition to the policies we outlined from the mid-2000s, the report noted specific instances in which State Department officials acted to discourage the use of personal email for government business.
For example, on March 11, 2011, the assistant secretary for diplomatic security sent a memo to Clinton that said there has been “a dramatic increase since January 2011 in attempts by [redacted] cyber actors to compromise the private home e-mail accounts of senior Department officials.” That was followed by two high-level meetings in April and May 2011 on cybersecurity that were attended by “the Secretary’s immediate staff.”…
Click to expand...


Furthermore, she did indeed do something different. More specifically:

FBI: Hillary Clinton both sent and received Top Secret material over her private server.

The private server was MORE secure than the govt's.
Click to expand...
Hillary’s Server was unencrypted, unsecure, and open to hackers

HER server has never been hacked.
Click to expand...

FBI sources say there is a 99% likelihood Hillary’s Server was hacked by at least 5 foreign intelligence agencies.

Furthermore, the server was legal.
Click to expand...
US Government Policy since 2005 was that government business was to be conducted on government servers.[/quote]

Then she left without turning over her emails, meaning that:
[url=http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/]Hillary Clinton did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act

Then she unilaterally destroyed tens of thousands of emails, meaning that she violated the law against:

Destruction of Government Documents.

Then it came out that she had both sent and received classified information on that server, meaning that she had violated:

18 USC 793
 
cpwill said:
This isn’t a “versus” question.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not playing that game.

cpwill said:
It’s whether or not she would be awarded a TS clearance.

No. Hillary Clinton would not, were she not a political appointee, would not pass a single-scope background investigation or be likely to be awarded a TS//SCI clearance.
Click to expand...
 
Cardinal said:
Sorry, not playing that game.
Click to expand...

It's not a game - it's the question. TS clearances are not issued to one-of-a-given-number-of-people, but rather based on the results of a background investigation (and need to know) for all except political appointees who require them.
 
cpwill said:
It's not a game - it's the question. TS clearances are not issued to one-of-a-given-number-of-people, but rather based on the results of a background investigation (and need to know) for all except political appointees who require them.
Click to expand...

Moot point now!

Just do us (Democrats/liberals) a favor for the next four years: when Trump turns everything into a gigantic **** show, don't try to find some way to spin it as the Democrats' fault.
 
Cardinal said:
Moot point now!

Just do us (Democrats/liberals) a favor for the next four years: when Trump turns everything into a gigantic **** show, don't try to find some way to spin it as the Democrats' fault.
Click to expand...

1. He is a liberal. I have no intention of letting conservatism take the blame for non-conservative policies.

2. As I recall from the last guy, we get 5 years of blaming everything on Obama :D
 
Cardinal said:
Versus somebody less careful than her, yes. Versus somebody more careful than her, no.

Therefore, yes.
Click to expand...

That's just nuts!

She can't even pass a background check for a cop job!

Her as a President is a violation of the moral integrity of this country.

azgreg said:
Here you go.

stripper_pole15.jpg
Click to expand...

Nice Pole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom