she considers them "ours"

As utterly useless replies go it was a stunning success.

So, try and embrace our future with compassion and reason.

I really am feeling bad for him. His whole campaign has been hijacked.

But she has mishandled classified information - there is no question there. If this was anyone else, they are ineligible for a security clearance.

Source: Having had a government security clearance and having read all policies regarding handling of classified material.

Agree.

by way of his/her position as POTUS to all classified information based on a need to know.

The frequency with which classified materials are inadvertently handled inappropriately would probably surprise you. If you accept that her use of the private server was authorized, then what happened would not lose her a clearance, nor prevent her from getting one.

And it's all moot because the president can direct that ANYONE be given a clearance. The use of pot is cause for denying one a clearance, even if you don't inhale. But I'm pretty sure her husband was cleared.

She has privilege though and would not be treated the same most likely

Less, I mean. You lose a clearance for either repeated careless behavior, or intentionally violating the rules. (Yeah, you also lose it for "reportable" life events too). But none of that is "less".

You are not allowed to place classified material on a non-secure form of media, whether it be a server, hard drive, memory stick, etc. Knowingly doing so is a willful violation of policies regarding the handling of classified materials. She could clear it up with a standard polygraph test if she wants to claim she was unaware.

But maybe my years of holding a TS/SCI clearance and having to consistently review and sign those requirements led me astray.

She did not "knowingly" place them as such. No one has claimed as such either. There are frequent and regular data spills all the time. Unless they are obviously intentional, if they act to cover up what happened, or if they repeatedly spill data after counseled, this isn't going to lose a clearance. None of these things are true in this case.

And you shouldn't be announcing your clearance level in a public/social media forum.

Additionally, I no longer hold a clearance so it isn't announcing anything except past experience.

The wouldn't bother with a spill as trivial as this, and with no evidence that anyone that shouldn't have see it, did gain access. Again, to date they have made no assertion to this affect (although I am a bit surprised that her account wasn't hacked on a regular basis.)

There will be no indictment fairy, Bernie is not going to be the nominee and you can support Hillary on this board or you are free to go elsewhere.

The OP says that she will not be indicted. That wasn't the question. The question was the procedure and policy that will be put into place to grant her continued access to classified documents.

I was enlisted in intel for six years. My clearance is still active. If I had participated in the use of a declassified, public server to disseminate information that was potentially classified, I would not have my clearance.

That's all the OP was questioning. Don't like it, move along.

If you can't get on board with the nominee, then you move along. It is simple really.

This is an issue for some of us who work/worked in intelligence. We're highly skilled and trained on policy and procedure. As I've stated in past posts, if she would acknowledge the situation beyond placing the blame on another person setting up the server or the e-mails being classified at another time, it would lend to her credit.

It doesn't mean we're not on-board with the candidate. It means that it's an issue that matters to us.

differ from others, even ones not popular with the majority here as long as we abide by the TOS.

If Hillary has made the turn to the General, I think this is the part where you are supposed to be expressing the need for unity and what a big tent the Democrats have...

It is hard to figure out a way to disagree with Hillary's positions because Hillary supporters on the jury call it divisive and destructive and they are able to block and censor this site. Period end. It is censorship.

Three quarters of the people here are Bernie supporters, meaning we are bringing more revenue to the site than you. The admins have clearly stated that primary rules are in effect, and you obviously don't work for the FBI so you are just spouting nonsense.

Either way, you need to quit bullying other posters; your attitude is part of the ugly.

And I am clapping my hands like crazy - I BELIEVE IN THE INDICTMENT FAIRY - and if enough of us keep clapping, the whole lot of them might be carted off to jail.

The FBI investigates crimes and it doesn't take a year to say "nothing to see".

In the meantime, kindly knock off the rude, abusive, obnoxious BULLYING of people who think Hillary Clinton is a disasterous mess and divisive force in the Democratic Party - until THE ADMINS decide to empty the place, NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT WHO BELONGS HERE.

Since many critical presidential decisions are made after reviewing classified material, I'd say that having a top level security clearance is vital to the job. Not having clearance is therefore a disqualifier.
And let's suppose she picks Blumenthall to a Cabinet position, and he can't get a security clearance. He shouldn't be approved.

There is no rule that disqualifies anyone from getting a security clearance for mishandling classified information.

BTW, she wont be indicted because she did nothing legally wrong.

Do you think our government would grant Edward Snowden a renewal on his clearance?

Do you not understand the difference??

information and posted it on the internet. Heaven knows what he told the Chinese and the Russians. That you can compare the two just shows how far gone the Sander's supporters are.

Politicians can mishandle information, but whistle blowers are not granted immunity?

According to my training, both should be treated equally. Theft or distribution.

mishandling and STEALING are so far from being the same thing that trying to compare them is completely laughable. He wasn't at the job and saw problems and then whistleblew - he GOT the job in order to steal the information. I know he's got fans here on DU and while I do think the information should be public - he's still a thief who broke the law. Even martyrs take their punishment.

Even good people make mistakes. I'm a Bernie supporter, but I acknowledge that Clinton is our candidate. I'll vote for her without reservation.

I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with a good person, such as the Secretary (and future President), admitting that classified material was mishandled.

That's all. The great part is we can disagree and still vote for the right person.

She SHOULD do exactly that and I suspect she will when it's all said and done. I'm very glad you will vote for whoever the nominee is...so will I and I've said so from the beginning. Donnie as President makes my blood run cold.

Part of my problem with Clinton is that she's too ready to attempt to rewrite history rather than admit she was wrong about something (such as TPP setting the "gold standard&quot . Although I haven't followed the details of this email fracas very closely, my vague impression was that this was an exception -- that she had already said that it was a mistake to set up her own server.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it is that you think she should do?

For some people that's enough. For others, she needs to do more and for a small group, it will never be enough.

automatically has any level of clearance needed. We elect our Presidents. They are in charge of the entire intelligence community. It's all part of the Executive Branch.

That said, Presidents do not have access to all classified information and they are aware of that. If, however, they have Need to Know, they can have access to any classified information. There is a system.

I'll give you an example from personal experience. As a USAF E-4, I worked inside the NSA building at Ft. Meade. I was a Russian linguist. Shortly after Richard Nixon became President, he made a visit to the NSA. The entire building was sanitized before hand, with all compartmentalized material stowed away very carefully. He was briefed by the heads of the agency, and had a tour of the facility, and got to observe a simulation exercise, but he was a red badge visitor. The entire building was cleared of anything he did not have Need to Know access to see.

I had the extreme displeasure of being involved in that simulation. At one point, President Nixon was standing immediately behind my work station, and I was introduced to him and explained what I was supposed to be doing at that station in general terms. I said, "Good Morning, Mr. President," but it was all I could do not to add "you asshole" to that sentence.

Soon enough, he was out of the building after about three hours, and people resumed their normal activities.

Presidents are automatically cleared for all levels of classified materials, but won't see all that much of those materials. They are briefed. They don't deal with the actual material very often. But, as Commander in Chief, the clearance is automatic.

For your service. Even more kudos for keeping your cool with that bozo standing there in the room with you.

This was a big issue with some military friends of mine about Trump. The issue forced me to research it. NON ISSUE president gets clearance no matter what, it would be kinda scary if they did not IMHO.

Thanks for posting

If anyone finds anything that says president can be denied security clearance I would be interested to read

Usually it is because they don't have enough information. As you said, Trump would also have unlimited access to classified information, as needed. I'm not sure what part of being head of the Executive Branch and Commander in Chief of the military escapes people's attention. The President is The Boss. He or she can see whatever he or she wants. Of course, what a President doesn't know even exists might not be seen by the President since it wouldn't be asked for. No doubt there are things like that...I can't say for sure, though.

People don't seem to understand that. I find it very sad. We need much better education about government. I'm Shocked at some of the things people say here.

And ROTFLAO at Camp Bansalot's butthurt.

If it's just more Benghazi outrage, then no.

this and give it a little thought. Now that the FBI is investigating, the Republicans have some legitimization for their cause. They talk about obstruction of justice because she hid her emails from them during their investigations, when she had them all the time at home.
They'll be going for it and we need to wake up and think it through before then.

If Hillary is lucky enough to win it will be a long four years.

People think small at times.

So really, it certainly is no small thing on a security level, or for the party, when one of our own can't be trusted to properly handle classified materials when she herself had to sign that she read and agreed with the policy. She certainly won't be indicted but she has mishandled classified info and that should be a concern, just as I would be concerned with anyone mishandling classified info.

having access to stuff. Fortunately, he was too freaking stupid to demand more than he was shown. Probably many Presidents have been in that situation. Being the boss doesn't always mean you know everything that is going on. Funny how that works.

Presidents all decide things based on briefings and rarely by examining the details. It comes with the level of complexity and responsibility.

because that is much more of a reality than the crap you are proposing.

Trump will argue that any male with Hillary's record of abuse of Security and other transgressions would not have a security clearance let alone be accepted as a candidate for President. Then when you consider all of her other "issues" and "problems", the only thing left for her is the "female" card..... In fact, he may argue that the only reason she isn't being criminally charged is because of her being a female and the judicial system not wanting to appear that they are picking on "her". Should be a fun political season........

and invite you to ... Benghazi!!!! Really, you have no idea what you are talking about. None at all. Stop posting Trey Gowdy's talking points. As Clinton demonstrated at her 11 hour hearing, this is a load of lies.

Their expiration date is approaching.

successful.

Didn't Bill set himself up for potential blackmail when he was messin' with Monica (and maybe others) ?

That was the real issue as far as I'm concerned, not that he parsed the word "is" to Sunday and back. blackmail is the oldest trick in the book. No, I don't think he was blackmailed, but just putting himself in the situation to be was a serious lack of good judgment.

Anything goes, as long as a D does it, I guess?