Paperview
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 10,341
- Reaction score
- 5,075
- Location
- The Road Less Travelled
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
Points!!
How exactly is it unconstitutional?
It's a bill of attainder in all but name
How exactly is it unconstitutional?
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
It's a bill of attainder in all but name
Article 1: Section 9.
Points!!
The bill is explicitly written: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. "
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.
Show me exactly what in the bill qualifies it as a bill of attainder or ex post facto
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
Points!!
Comey said anybody else would face consequences, and Hillary should as well.
You can't argue that point.
The President is not an employee of the Federal Government?
If not then what is he?
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
Written correctly, only one person would have been affected.
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?