October 13, 2018

Should Have Mentioned Sooner: Hillary on Her Husband and Trump

Filed under: Scams,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 4:45 pm

If a world record for tone-deafness existed, Hillary Clinton would have it.

Look at what she was saying, just as Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation had moved into being very likely:

Hillary Clinton draws contrast between sexual misconduct accusations against Trump, Bill Clinton

… Hillary Clinton is drawing a contrast between the sexual misconduct allegations against her husband, former President Clinton, and those leveled against President Trump.

In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, said the main difference between the allegations is that there was an investigation led by Republicans into the claims against her husband, while Clinton said there has been no serious investigation of Trump.

The allegations of rape and assault against Bill Clinton, which the former president has denied …

Clinton was impeached after lying under oath about having a consensual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, who was then a White House intern. He has been accused by four women of nonconsensual sexual interactions.

Bill Clinton was credibly accused, with hard evidence, witness corroboration — and, in the case of Paula Jones, an $850,000 lawsuit settlement.

And let’s not forget the second article of impeachment — obstruction of justice, on a massive scale.

Please don’t ever stop talking, Hillary.

Share

2 Comments

  1. This CBS news story is not credible, based on the government’s public policy and procedures for security clearances. A person can choose to not use his or her clearance, but only official decision makers (aka “adjudicators”) can “revoke” a security clearance.

    To claim one can self-revoke a security clearance is the equivalent of quitting a job to avoid having being “fired for cause” on your work history official records.

    If one could “revoke” a security clearance, then a clearance holder can potentially reduce — at their own initiative — the automatic investigative powers allowed to the FBI and OSI for counter-intelligence investigations. A security clearance holder’s ability to raise the show-cause requirements on Investigators is limited to quitting any-and-all jobs that sponsor the security clearance billet. Quit the job that requires a sticker on your phone reminding you the govt-owned phone is subject to random monitoring. Quit the job that requires a pop-up displayed during the login-setup procedures reminding you that it is a govt-owned computer that is subject to employer monitoring. (This is the work equivalent of an apartment renter always being at risk of the landlord arriving inside the apartment with 24-hour notice, and the landlord arriving to allow Law Enforcement inside the apartment with no notice related to Reasonable Suspicion or Search criteria depending on well-established criteria if the LEOs wish whatever they see inside the apartment to be admissible in court.)

    The lack of a weblink to the Grassley letter is curious. The lack of quotes from the letter is curious. Is the reporter describing the Clinton-spin on the situation; a spin which may be a distorted or erroneous interpretation of the letter if we could read the actual text?

    The reporting says: “According to the letter released by Grassley, the State Department said that Clinton’s clearance was revoked on Aug. 30. Five of Clinton’s aides, who she had asked be designated as researchers, had their security clearances revoked on Sept. 20.” Where is the typical weblink to the Grassley letter? There can likely be no such letter, because the Security Clearance status of any Individual Persons is Privacy Act information, as therefore exempt from automatic disclosure when responding to a reporter’s FOIA request. Similarly, remembering that Senator Grassley and his staff are notorious for respecting procedure and for not leaking, it is especially important to reminder that any “letter released by Grassley” under his signature is unlikely to make such an Personal Information error as to disclose the status of any persons’ security clearance.

    This news article smells like premature spin by the Clintons and/or by one or more of their staffers.

    “Retiring senior officials usually retain a basic level of security clearance”. ALL holders of security clearances retain their respective security clearance status in the JPAS system-of-record, valid until either revoked for cause or expires when the Periodic Standard Background Reinvestigation comes due and the person is no longer employed on a sponsoring billet.

    This paragraph needs to be explained: “The CIA “holds” former directors’ security clearance and renews it every five years for the rest of their lives. But that requires former CIA directors to behave like current CIA employees if they want to keep their clearance, which means avoiding travel to certain countries and generally living in a manner above reproach.” One can live in whatever manner one likes, but the KEY POINT is to “renew it every five years” means the holder of the security clearance voluntarily fills out the SF50, disclosing all manner of details to assist the STANDARD REINVESTIGATION. That Mrs Clinton is unwilling to assist a simple STANDARD BACKGROUND REINVESTIGATION is the meaningful piece of information here. She is not just openly showing an intent to “avoiding travel to certain countries” but also a desire to not pre-disclose every trip so that Counter-Intel Officers may just to randomly monitor or surveil her activities during that trip. She is also avoiding a post-trip report if she observed anything of potential concern during that trip (like the person deliberately watching her group at the train station, and then again another day).

    This news reporting is misleading, and it shows the reporter clearly does not understand the common-sense interpretation of the public policies on security clearances. The reporter has allowed herself to be used to publish someone’s spin. And the reporter’s supervising editor — by failing to require a public link to the alleged Grassley letter — is colluding with the willingness to be used by whoever providing the silly interpretations described in the article and the absolutely ridiculous headline.

    “Hundreds if not thousands of private companies apply for their employees to receive security clearances. ” Hundreds if not thousands of employees live by and know the SPBR procedures. A smaller percentage has had to work through an issue with one or more employees, when some issue caused a temporary suspension of an employee’s clearance (such as a DUI arrest, whether for being validly drunk, or just the designated driver who smelled like beer and vomit after delivering a friend or co-worker safely home and the despite fatigue trying to get themselves safely home) and had to work with appropriate personnel through the process of document (during the Pending Investigation period of the suspension) that leads to the Investigation submitted to the decision-maker (aka the Adjudicator) who then decides to (a) remove the suspension and return to the Employee to good standing or (b) revokes the clearance. Receipt of an LOI/SOR (Letter of Intent with Statement of Reasons) cannot give the receiving Employee the power to self-revoke ones own clearance to then block the Investigators from doing their CI job.

    Really really needs to see the alleged letter, which is allegedly from Senator Grassley himself or from ‘the Judiciary Committee’. This smells.

    Reference:
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-security-clearance-revoked-by-her-own-request-today-2018-10-12/

    Hillary Clinton’s security clearance revoked by her own request
    By CAROLINE LINTON CBS NEWS October 12, 2018, 8:58 PM

    Comment by Cornfed — October 14, 2018 @ 7:24 pm

  2. All very good points. No one with any sense of reality can believe that Mrs. Clinton woke up one morning and decided she didn’t want her security clearance any more.

    Comment by Tom — October 17, 2018 @ 4:02 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.