• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

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.

“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
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,564
Reaction score
8,052
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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

How exactly is it unconstitutional?
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

Congress cannot pass retroactive legislation of this kind.
 

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Congress cannot pass retroactive legislation of this kind.

In addition:
The power to grant security clearances resides with the Commander in Chief.

Separation of Powers.


Also, too: As it pertains to Hillary, have a gander at the language of the bill again - see if you can spot a glaring problem with it.

:D
 

Fishking

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
30,469
Reaction score
10,547
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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

There is already a law on the books that would bar Hillary from not only losing her clearance but would also bar her from ever holding public office. Of course, it would take some integrity from the Obama admin to actually indict her and we already have the answer on that.

So the bill would really only be doing part of the punishment that she already should have had.
 

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is already a law on the books that would bar Hillary from not only losing her clearance but would also bar her from ever holding public office.

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.
Of course, it would take some integrity from the Obama admin to actually indict her and we already have the answer on that.

So the bill would really only be doing part of the punishment that she already should have had.

No points for you.
 

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,720
Reaction score
6,276
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
In addition:
The power to grant security clearances resides with the Commander in Chief.

Separation of Powers.


Also, too: As it pertains to Hillary, have a gander at the language of the bill again - see if you can spot a glaring problem with it.

:D

The bill says
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.

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

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left

Yeah, but you don't lose your security clearance as soon as you leave government service. I am retired from the Army but my TS clearance doesn't expire for another 18 months or so. Are you saying that the Defense Intelligence Agency, who issued me my clearance, doesn't have the power to strip it between now and the day it expires since I am not currently a government employee?
 

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah, but you don't lose your security clearance as soon as you leave government service. I am retired from the Army but my TS clearance doesn't expire for another 18 months or so. Are you saying that the Defense Intelligence Agency, who issued me my clearance, doesn't have the power to strip it between now and the day it expires since I am not currently a government employee?
The bill is explicitly written:

"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. "
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The bill is explicitly written:

"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. "

Hmm. So that doesn't apply to her. I wonder if they are thinking they can stop her from getting a clearance as President? That would be ridiculous. I'm not even sure that the President technically has, or needs, a security clearance because the security clearance system is established by Presidential Executive Order.

Yeah, huge separation of powers issue here.
 

Paperview

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
10,341
Reaction score
5,075
Location
The Road Less Travelled
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hmm. So that doesn't apply to her. I wonder if they are thinking they can stop her from getting a clearance as President? That would be ridiculous. I'm not even sure that the President technically has, or needs, a security clearance because the security clearance system is established by Presidential Executive Order.

Yeah, huge separation of powers issue here.

Presidential security clearance is automatic.

He/ She is the Commander in Chief.

Automatically, upon election.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,762
Reaction score
37,271
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Show me exactly what in the bill qualifies it as a bill of attainder or ex post facto

The GOP specifically tried (and failed) to target Hillary Clinton with it, by their own admission.
 

Mason66

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
27,004
Reaction score
6,365
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Comey said anybody else would face consequences, and Hillary should as well.

You can't argue that point.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,564
Reaction score
8,052
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The GOP specifically tried (and failed) to target Hillary Clinton with it, by their own admission.

Intent does not make a bill unconstitutional, show me what exactly in the bill is unconstitutional
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
82,762
Reaction score
37,271
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Intent does not make a bill unconstitutional, show me what exactly in the bill is unconstitutional

Written correctly, only one person would have been affected.
 
Top Bottom