Clearly the point is to manipulate Fox News believers into spreading disinformation for the purpose of deflecting from the continuing disintegration of the Trump Administration.
No, it isn't.
3 years after leaving, Clinton and her staffers were pretty much out of the loop. No one was routinely sending them classified info. They probably didn't have access to the systems that had classified info on them.
So what?
Maintaining classification doesn't grant you access.
Let's say you are a contractor for the NSA. You're on a 6 month contract, which does not get renewed. Your employer puts you in a holding pattern for 2 months while finding a new assignment for you. During that time, you maintain your clearance, but you have no access.
This is not a big deal. At all.
That underlined, bolded text in my post is a hyperlink. To a story from 2015 in which an Assistant Secretary of State confirmed to Grassley that Clinton still had security clearance.
This isn't news. This is a sad attempt to recycle a story from two years ago to divert attention from the trainwreck unfolding before our eyes in the White House. The "let's investigate Clinton" well is finally running dry. What we need to be investigating is the Trump administration.
In 2015, Cheryl Mills’ attorney said her client had access as late as Oct. 30 of that year, according to documents reviewed by Fox News. After leaving the State Department, Mills was an advisor to Clinton’s presidential bid. Heather Samuelson, a lawyer who worked under Mills and also was a staffer for Clinton in 2008 during her presidential run, also apparently retained an active Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) security clearance, according to records reviewed by Fox News.
This is not normal. And it certainly gives the appearance of special treatment.
I want to know how many times she and her campaign staff used those security clearances to access files during her campaign.
I didn't see where your article confirmed that 6 of Clinton's aides retained their security clearance.
Clinton announced her bid for president in April 2015. According to the article Cheryl Mills still had active access as late as Oct. 2015. She also was an adviser for Clinton's campaign.
It's completely normal, and happens with literally every security clearance that is issued out.
Probably ****ing none because that isn't how security clearances work. This has been explained to you multiple times by now.
I didn't see where your article confirmed that 6 of Clinton's aides retained their security clearance.
Clinton announced her bid for president in April 2015. According to the article Cheryl Mills still had active access as late as Oct. 2015. She also was an adviser for Clinton's campaign.
How convenient for Clinton to have several advisers in her campaign who were once her aides at the State Department all maintaining their security clearances.
This is not normal. And it certainly gives the appearance of special treatment.
I want to know how many times she and her campaign staff used those security clearances to access files during her campaign.
This was in the news over a year ago. And Grassley has known this since October 2015.
This is not news. It's a distraction from the ongoing FBI and Congressional investigations of Trump and his cronies.
No it is not normal,
as she negotiated to have here aides at the State Dept. keep their security clearances who just months later became her campaign advisers. Nothing normal about that.
It doesn't make sense to retain your security clearance after James Comey’s July 5 announcement where he said the FBI found Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” That's just stupidity.
Grassley continually asking the Obama administration to confirm it is old news. It took Tillerson's State Department to confirm it. It is outrageous that she and six aides were allowed to continue with such a clearance. Grassley is calling for an investigation on how long she and her aides were allowed access to top secret and classified information after leaving office. Several of her aides at the State Dept were advisers on her campaign, Cheryl Mills and Huma Weiner to name a couple.
I never heard of such a thing being allowed, have you?
Holy mother of-- Okay, what is YOUR definition of "normal"? Because NORMALLY speaking BY PROTOCOL, security clearances are good up to TWO YEARS. After the TWO YEAR mark, you are reevaluated. What ****ing part of this is rocket surgery to you?
Namely because it's a total fabrication that Hilary would need to "negotiate" for people to keep their clearances. They would, and should have the same level of clearances they were allowed for the duration of two years from the date they were approved. How would you know anything about what is "normal" about the intelligence world if you self-admitted you've never held a security clearance yourself?
According to Grassley's statements, she did negotiate for them to keep their clearances which allowed them access to top secret and classified info as he put it "ostensibly" for her aides to assist in writing Clinton's Memoirs.
That's the info Grassley received from the State Department recently. Grassley said all his requests to Kerry to confirm Clinton's aides maintaining their Security clearance in 2015 and again in 2016 were ignored.
If it was no big deal, then why did Kerry's State Dept. ignore Grassley's multiple requests to confirm the information?
Nope. But then this might be mostly a non-story since this would be no different than the advantage any president has over their challenger.
What really matters if the political nature of the data gathering done. In Obama appointees turned parts of the IC into oppo research outlets for the Democrats then that is the story.
Because despite a pretty good record of bipartisanship, he's being a pain in the ass, wants to punish Clinton and her staffers, and is trying to beat a dead horse in order to distract attention from the dumpster fire burning on the White House grounds? Just a guess.According to Grassley's statements, she did negotiate for them to keep their clearances which allowed them access to top secret and classified info as he put it "ostensibly" for her aides to assist in writing Clinton's Memoirs.That's the info Grassley received from the State Department recently. Grassley said all his requests to Kerry to confirm Clinton's aides maintaining their Security clearance in 2015 and again in 2016 were ignored.
If it was no big deal, then why did Kerry's State Dept. ignore Grassley's multiple requests to confirm the information?
The reasons "why" Clinton would need her aides to have valid clearances are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that as long as they had valid security clearances will still be valid, but ultimately worthless once Clinton and her aids were no longer working with the State Department. At that point, when Clinton was running for President, all those clearances were was a statement from an agency that performs background checks saying "this person has nothing personal, behavioral, or health related issues that could cause this person to leak potential information." Again, not a skeleton key to the great castle of classified information like you're trying to force yourself to believe it is.
The Obama administration was notorious for ignoring requests. All the FOIA's obtained by reporters and other groups seeking information were often ignored. It often resulted in go back to court and having a judge order the administration release the information. Just last week it was reported that those who got no where with the Obama administration are now having their requests fulfilled under a new administration. Just last week long awaited pieces of info on Benghazi were released to some group. Pretty damning stuff too but hardly a whimper in the media.Of course they were ignored, Grassley was trying to break security protocol by revoking security clearances for no damn reason but to spite a political opponent. That's not operational security, that's being a dick for the sake of being a dick.
At this point, it feels like carrying this discussion with you is like speaking with a brick wall. I gave you all the information you would need to make the well informed, logical decision that A) Security Clearances are not all they're cracked up to be. B) Clinton and her aides were granted no special favor in maintaining clearances. And C) You didn't possess the faintest idea on the world of operational security and that perhaps should do more research on the matter before assuming what is and what isn't "normal" for the intelligence community.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?