Hillary still has a security clearance to access secure US government documents?

[dan_bgblue]

Does she hold a government position of some sort that has need to know which allows her the security clearance?

I thought she had been demoted to average citizen.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...clearance.html

[jazyd]

Question is why?

[CitizenBBN]

This is the thing that gripes me more than anything else about the hypocrisy of the Trump witch hunt.

Look, the guy's not perfect, but anyone who thinks he's colluded more with foreigners or done more to obstruct justice than any past resident of the White House is just not seeing the big picture IMO. Hillary's actions while Sec of State were criminal, and Obama covered her butt. Went on TV to dismiss the entire investigation, clearly Comey was instructed to downplay it, no telling what all else, and I'm sure Bush and everyone else have done similar things. it's just typical politics, and if this were reversed the media would be defending the current POTUS and screaming that this is all just a big distraction to keep her from pursuing her agenda for America.

Yet here we have someone who everyone seems to agree committed felony levels of gross negligence while in her position, and she doesn't even have her clearance revoked.

I love the lawsuits against Trump for "corruption" b/c he still owns businesses and somehow some foreign nation may give him a good deal on a hotel site so he's corrupted, yet a few hundred million dollars flowing to the Clinton Foundation, or Obama now being flown around the world in private jets staying in massive mansions and such is all OK.

Corruption in Washington has been rife forever, with Presidents and others all getting paid off big time when they retire, and coming out of office worth millions more than when they went in. It's all dirty and hidden and no one in Washington wants to expose it b/c it's all part of their livelihood.

But Trump's actions are far more open, far more public and easily identified, so it would so much easier to spot anything questionable, yet that's all a huge problem.

What would you rather have, Trump with a hotel in the UAE and we can look at the deal and see the terms and then decide if those free missiles were part of it or these shell game companies (remember that memo from longtime Clinton aide about how many millions the firm got from having Bill Clinton on the Board?????) where you can't trace or prove anything ever so they rake in millions if not tens of millions from big donors and foreigners?

Don't worry about Trump, he's too loud mouthed and too much of an open book to be a problem. Worry about people like Hillary sending 30,000 unknown State Department emails through a system that was probably being traced by every enemy and ally we had. Collusion? How about just being such an egomaniacal idiot you just hand them your state secrets?

Rant over, or at least on pause.

[CitizenBBN]

For example, Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac during this investigation, and we now know she was trying to get the public image of the thing improved for the Dems.

Yet that was downplayed across the board as no big deal, just two people meeting to share pics of their grandkids.

Now imagine if it came out that Trump flew to some airport and met with the Russian Foreign Minister on his plane during the election. Think he could get off with the grandkids excuse with the media like Lynch and Clinton did? Anyone?

What if it came out that Melania got $1 million in payments from a Russian investment firm backed by Putin for a modeling shoot?

Yet this b**** hasn't even been punished enough to have her security clearance pulled despite even the guy who said she shouldn't be prosecuted saying she committed gross negligence. Any average person in the Government doing what she did would be in prison, she still gets top secret access, and people think Trump is the problem? That he's the one that's going to give the farm away to the Russians?

Obama hands Iran billions while letting them do everything including importing uranium, Hillary does the "reset" with Russia and helps stabilize the Putin regime economically, they allow Putin to buy 20-25% of the US uranium reserve, and Trump is the guy who is going to not put America first and sell us out?

[UKHistory]

Once a person has left a government position, they should not have access to sensitive information. If the article is accurate, that is highly inappropriate.

[KeithKSR]

Once a person has left a government position, they should not have access to sensitive information. If the article is accurate, that is highly inappropriate.

I agree. The problem is that once people leave the government they retain their security clearances. I think this is very dangerous.

[CitizenBBN]

Once a person has left a government position, they should not have access to sensitive information. If the article is accurate, that is highly inappropriate.

From what I can tell a lot of people retain their security clearances after they leave government. As I understand it Flynn still had his after being dismissed by the Obama Administration, and I've seen other reports of others.

I don't know that they get briefings and such like they would while in their job, but they do seem to retain their clearance after they leave, at least some of them do. I don't know if that's b/c they obviously know things, or what, but you'd think their exit agreements would cover that stuff and they'd be cut out of any new information by not having clearance.

But in Hillary's case, and arguably in Flynn's depending on what outside work he was doing, you have an example of someone who has been PROVEN to be irresponsible with the nation's secrets and yet she doesn't have it revoked.

Even if someone thinks she shouldn't be prosecuted for negligence (and IMO it's a clear black letter case), surely we can all agree someone like that should have their clearance revoked. I know in other cases that were reported during all this mess several examples were used where their clearance was revoked for far less.

I just find it very biased by the media that they only get outraged about Trump things. There are PLENTY Of things on both sides to get outraged about, I just want the media to get outraged equally. It's fine to question Trump and certainly to look at Russian involvment in the election even if the Trump people had nothing to do with it, but then we should also be looking at Hillary's questionable actions and new news like this unmasking and possible use of US intelligence for political purposes.

It just came out that Obama has sealed the Rice unmasking records as part of his library files, which puts them out of reach by FOIA for 5 years. I don't think that's a coincidence, but where's the media outrage over a President who promised to be the most transparent in history locking up records on possible wrongdoing even after he's left office? I guarantee we won't see a peep about it.

[Doc]

I could be wrong but I believe they keep it in order so that the gov't can keep tabs on them from releasing what they already have had access to. Since she had access to information as SOS and knows stuff, she isn't a normal citizen. To keep the clearance means she must keep the mouth shut. Were she to lose the clearance she isn't at the same standard of regulation. IE, the gov't is able to keeps tabs on her thru its regular reviews etc to maintain that status whereas if they revolk the clearance they no longer are doing the background checks, etc. Again, I could be wrong

[UKHistory]

I have not left government. When I leave the EOP in December I will receive guidance on book deals (not that I am in position to write a tell all) and my security status.

I just can't believe clearance would be retained after you leave. Clearance being revoked would still hold a person to maintaining classified info upon punishment of imprisonment. Hoping the article is misleading.

[CitizenBBN]

Doc/History,

As I understand it, you are still bound by the security of what you know from your clearance even after your clearance is terminated. That's part of your exit agreement. Just like how in a company you can be bound by a non-disclosure long after you are no longer an employee.

So you don't have to keep it just b/c you once had it and were privy to secret information.

Besides, when someone has their clearance forcibly revoked it's not like they can then go tell those secrets. they're bound by their agreement.

My guess is this is a symptom of being important enough. Hillary, Flynn, etc. those guys keep their clearance. Maybe they don't get briefed, but they have clearance and access so they can still be in the play with people.

Look at the emails with her and her advisors, official and otherwise. This info is getting passed around among this elite ruling class, those guys are all in the club. Now the average person in the government with clearance wouldn't keep theirs when they go, and would be in jail for the kind of negligence we've seen with Hillary (and I bet she's far from alone on both sides), but these top level elites get a pass.

I have several friends with clearance, esp. in IT. They manage the systems. If they were 1/1000th as negligent as Hillary they'd be in jail, and they know it. Likewise, Flynn was fired for differences with the Administration, and Obama says he "warned" trump about him, but then why didn't Obama remove his clearance? It's a big joke of the ruling class.

Trump won and Sanders would have won the primary b/c Americans see this two tier system and they're sick of it. In the end that's why Hillary lost, b/c she's the poster child for that system and Americans know it, so as repulsive and non-Presidential as Trump is at least he wasn't an establishment elite. that's really what it came down to IMO.

[UKHistory]

I just can't believe that afte leaving her position as Secretary of State and now no longer a candidate for president (both presidential candidates start getting briefings--so there has to be some clearance there) she has clearance for anything. She should not be allowed in the NEOB unless someone lets her in at this point.