Comey admits HRC can't get security clearance for @POTUS.

Submitted by the_poorly_educated on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 9:00am

Go to 1:09:45 in the clip below and listen to what James Comey says about prosecuting HRC. He basically says she couldn't be employeed at the FBI . How the hell can HRC be Pres? The Republicans will be all over this if she is elected by the ignorant masses. How could Comey justify a security clearance for HRC after this comment?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?415887-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifie...

Tags:

Comey HRC

Vote

Comments

Submitted by duckpin on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 9:12am

I think being commander-in-chief trumps security protocols.

Clinton may not be able to work for the FBI but she can be the boss of the FBI through the Dept of Justice as other presidents have done.

—

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

Submitted by the_poorly_educated on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 9:17am

Really, I think the repubs will have something to say about that

Why even have sec. clearances if the person at the top shouldn't have one? Are you some sort of HRC shill?

—

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho

Submitted by JtC on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 10:35am

You're out of line...

the_poorly_educated in regards to duckpin being a HRC shill. Perhaps you should retract that or apologize.

Submitted by elenacarlena on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 1:51am

The painful truth is not shilling.

I agree with you that it's outrageous, but it is true. Whoever is the President gets the information regardless of inability to pass a background check. Indeed, the main nominees get it now. They're already briefing both Hill and Trump. Although they may be somewhat holding back at this point.

—

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

Submitted by Ellen North on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 1:57am

Lol, both will be calling

Lol, both will be calling their their brokers and Hill will no doubt be sharing some of the good investment tips with those who merit a reward.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by elenacarlena on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 2:18am

Good evening/morning, fellow insomniac!

Yes, I have no doubt they both have loose lips wherever they think appropriate, because neither think the rules apply to them.

—

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

Submitted by lunachickie on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 10:55am

Let's try this again

Why even have sec. clearances if the person at the top shouldn't have one?

That's another thing the GOP has--a solid argument against making her POTUS. The C-in-C should have to get sufficient clearance before they can even be POTUS.

That is the very first thing I said when the FBI--via Comey--had that "news conference" to announce they wouldn't prosecute Clinton--how can they justify her deciding who should have clearance when she can't get it herself?

The GOP should have been over this already. That they are not needs to be explained and very, very soon.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 3:41pm

Can we dump this "C-in-C" bullshit?

It just feeds the authoritarian/totalitarian mindset.

The President of the United States is the "Commander-in-Chief" OF THE US ARMED FORCES AND ONLY THE US ARMED FORCES.

Not Congress. Not the Supreme Court. Not the labor unions. Not the Chambers of Commerce. Not you. Not me. Not anyone who is not in uniform and on active military duty.

Get that "Commander-in-Chief" shit the fuck out of here, or be prepared to see a glitzy-uniformed jackoff reviewing troops like a tin-pot dictator. Because that's what s/he will BE - a tin-pot dictator of the biggest banana republic on earth.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by lunachickie on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 10:43pm

In your opinion

and that of the four people who upvoted you.

What craven bullshit. You're going to demand such a thing of me, because that which offends you has the potential to become authoritarian in nature? Let me count the ways of the irony. For starters.

Wow. So the President's Executive Branch doesn't serve at his pleasure? He only oversees The Military? AYFKM? Jesus, the attempt to beat this concept into a pulp--the notion that Hillary Clinton OR ANYBODY ELSE as President should have to be able to pass a fucking security clearance themselves--is really becoming obnoxious. Complain about it all you want, any way you want--this is not a far-out concept or an unreasonable conclusion to come to.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 11:01pm

Not taking issue with your position, only your phrasing

Since what we now have IS a Deep Security State, regardless of what the Founders intended, a high-level security clearance is, or should be, a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification. No argument there.

But I don't EVER want to hear another word about how the President is "Commander in Chief" of anybody who is not in Armed Forces uniform and on active military duty! That is just flat-out hogwash - and very dangerous hogwash. Words have power. Words shape perceptions. If people perceive themselves as good little flunkies who must jump when the President issues an order - congratulations, you now live in a full-on totalitarian state, and you'd better love Big Brother/Sister.

The President does not command me. I am not on his/her staff. I am not in his/her administration. I am not in the military. I bloody well don't have to salute, or jump to attention, or obey a stupid, crazy, or criminal order just because it's an order. And I can and if necessary will tell him/her to go to hell.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 1:15am

Okay.

1. I object to almost all elements of the security apparatus, so I'm unsympathetic to suggestions that said security apparatus should have a sign-off on who gets to be President.

2. There is nothing -- nothing -- in the Constitution or any subsequent historical precedent to give anybody authority to withhold from the duly elected President any information about the operations of the Executive Branch, not because the President is the "Commander in Chief", but because the President is the Chief Executive. I reject strongly any notion that some non-elected, non-accountable creep somewhere can tell the people that their choice for President is ineligible on the grounds that said choice cannot be trusted with state secrets, because you know what? NOBODY can be "trusted with" state secrets, least of all the people who collect, classify and manage those secrets; most of which are kept, not in order to protect the citizenry, or even the state, but rather to protect the privileges of those who exercise power using the state's authority, usually to do evil, often to do evil on a horrific scale.

I'd very much like to see a President get elected who would subsequently declassify about 99.9% of everything that is currently classified -- and I'm pretty certain that no such person would ever get the approval of the evil, odious sociopaths who operate the security agencies. In fact, quite the opposite to your opinion, I consider eligibility for a security clearance to be generally a disqualification for the office.

I'm not even a teensy bit flexible on this point. ALL of the agencies of the executive answer, finally, to the Chief Executive. Any power they exert over that executive represents a fundamental threat, which is why instances in which they do exercise such power -- as, for example, with a Special Prosecutor -- are rare and difficult practically to invoke, and that's as it should be. FUCK THE SECURITY AGENCIES, and FUCK THEIR SECRETS, and FUCK THEIR SECURITY CLEARANCES. They aren't our friends or our benefactors, and they aren't protecting us. They are our enemies -- vicious, evil, murderous enemies -- and they need to be gutted, shamed, and humbled, not handed a veto over who gets to be President.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

Submitted by neoconned on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 5:56am

I agree in principle

But people should really read Obama's Executive Order 13603 of March 16, 2012, which among other things, gives the government the right to "...requisition private property, force industry to expand production and the supply of basic resources, impose wage and price controls, settle labor disputes, control consumer and real estate credit, establish contractual priorities, and allocate raw materials towards national defense."

To me, this EO and its predecessors can be invoked to make the President the CinC of the entire nation if this is how those invoking the EO choose to interpret the working. We got to see a lot of this during Dubya's first term where labor legislation was redefined to favor employers without changing a single word of the original legislation.

Jim Powell said in Forbes on April 29, 2012 that Executive Order 13603 "is a blueprint for a federal takeover of the economy" and "... makes no effort to justify the destruction of liberty, no effort to explain how amassing totalitarian control would enable government to deal effectively with cyber sabotage, suicide bombings, chemical warfare, nuclear missiles or other possible threats."

Yet if the government were to decide that my job skills would benefit the national exercise, there is nothing in the EO which gives me any rights to object or refuse. Who would be expected to actually perform the work necessary to "expand production and the supply of basic resources" if not those employed to actually do so? And forget about overtime, for the EO givers the power to "impose wage and price controls" and to "settle labor disputes", all in the name of National Security.

More and more, it's clear that Carter, Gilens, and Page know of which they speak. The US IS now an oligarchy.

—

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

Submitted by duckpin on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 7:20am

Thanks for the timely reminder about the 2012 EO. Obama

has gone far beyond Bush in asserting executive powers and I agree with your interpretation.

—

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

Submitted by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 9:29am

I am embarrassed to say I didn't know about that executive order

I mentioned in an essay a while ago that I have discovered that I have been living in a liberal bubble. For years I got most of my news from Daily Kos and the Huffington Post for news aggregation and the Washington Post and the NYT as my major media sources. The only 1 of the 4 I even occasionally peruse at the moment is the NYT as the scales dropped from my eyes concerning the others and I read the NYT only occasionally to watch their continued death throes in being the former "news of record".

I do recall a few years ago, and I guess it would have been around 2012, picking up a lot of right wing frothing about "Obama the Dictator" in comment sections online and I didn't have a clue what was prompting the fear and loathing - it seemed quite literally, insane. Well , now I guess this executive order is what prompted it. And I can understand the froth. I don't recall seeing it discussed even as apologia or explanation on any liberal sites, maybe I just missed it. I can get through context of the comment above that the exercise of these powers seems to be in response to some kind of massive National Security threat, but the public can be forgiven a healthy skepticism in believing their leaders about what constitutes such a threat, sad to say.

My point is that if someone as a citizen wants to have any chance of obtaining some rational view of what can be regarded as "truth", they need to try to read media and viewpoints from both sides. Sometimes truth tellers are driven from the community, as witness the demise of Jane Hamsher when she didn't get on the Obama bandwagon regarding the ACA. Look at how many of us right here were harassed and driven from supposedly "liberal" and "Democratic" sites when we wouldn't fall down for the Party Line. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, etc. etc.

—

" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "

Submitted by Ellen North on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 12:46am

We know she isn't trustworthy

We know she isn't trustworthy, they know she isn't trustworthy, foreign leaders know she isn't trustworthy, she must know she isn't trustworthy - but she's not really running for President, after all, more like Clinton Mafia Head, so that makes it OK, right? It's not like she won't probably blow the whole place up with nuclear war crimes and Mutual Assured Destruction right after taking the public office she's stealing 'fair and square', so why worry about it?

No wonder Obama was going around to so many countries earlier, getting them to dispose of their nuclear weaponry or of weapon-level enriched uranium...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/world/europe/obama-asks-russia-to-join...

Obama Asks Russia to Join in Reducing Nuclear Arms

By JACKIE CALMESJUNE 19, 2013

BERLIN — Fifty years after John F. Kennedy famously assured Europeans that the United States would protect them against a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, President Obama on Wednesday marked the changed times by calling on Russia to join him in cutting the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals to well below the level of the Kennedy era. ...

...“After a comprehensive review, I’ve determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third,” Mr. Obama told an audience of 4,500 gathered in scorching heat on the east side of Berlin’s historic Brandenburg Gate — the side of the city walled off by the Soviets during the darkest days of the cold war. “And I intend to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond cold war nuclear postures.”

The proposal to limit American and Russian deployed strategic warheads to about 1,000 each would bring the two countries back to around the levels of 1954, experts said. The president also vowed to work with NATO to reduce the unrestricted smaller tactical nuclear weapons still in Europe and to push the Senate to finally ratify the 17-year-old Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Taken together, the moves revived the effort Mr. Obama began in Prague in 2009 to put the world on a path to eventually eliminating nuclear weapons, one of the most idealistic, if hotly disputed, aspirations of his first term.

... A Pentagon report released Wednesday affirmed that the United States would retain its nuclear triad — missiles, bombers and submarines — even amid further cuts. Mr. Obama did not take weapons off high alert and stopped short of seeking a vote anytime soon on the test ban treaty, which was rejected by the Senate in 1999. ...

... In his speech, Mr. Obama said the United States would host a global summit in 2016, his final year in office, “to continue our efforts to secure nuclear materials around the world” and “to begin negotiations on a treaty that ends the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.”
Peter Baker contributed reporting from Washington, and David M. Herszenhorn from Moscow.

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/27/in_hiroshima_obama_calls_for_world

In Hiroshima Obama Calls for World Without Nukes, Contradicting New $1 Trillion Weapon Upgrade Plan
May 27, 2016

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/us-ramping-up-major-renewal-in-nucl...

U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear Arms

By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGERSEPT. 21, 2014

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A sprawling new plant here in a former soybean field makes the mechanical guts of America’s atomic warheads. Bigger than the Pentagon, full of futuristic gear and thousands of workers, the plant, dedicated last month, modernizes the aging weapons that the United States can fire from missiles, bombers and submarines.

It is part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers. A recent federal study put the collective price tag, over the next three decades, at up to a trillion dollars.

This expansion comes under a president who campaigned for “a nuclear-free world” and made disarmament a main goal of American defense policy. The original idea was that modest rebuilding of the nation’s crumbling nuclear complex would speed arms refurbishment, raising confidence in the arsenal’s reliability and paving the way for new treaties that would significantly cut the number of warheads.

Instead, because of political deals and geopolitical crises, the Obama administration is engaging in extensive atomic rebuilding while getting only modest arms reductions in return. ...

You can't expect to break a stand-off by telling the other guys to put down their weapons while you load up on them and persistently attack and invade other people's places to kill them and take their stuff... especially not while cheating in a President who's already promised her donors the world, by military hook, if not by crooked hostile takeovers pretending to be 'trade deals'.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by riverlover on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 5:36am

As SoS she promoted selling out the mineral rights to 20%

of the US uranium in the ground to a company in Russia. SO at the same time as we were upgrading our arsenal (getting rid of old warheads, right) we dealt fresh uranium deposits to Russia so they could upgrade theirs as well. That mutual thing.

—

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

Submitted by ghotiphaze on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 9:32am

I think

The "shill" bill is completely out of line. Go back through duck's comment history before making allegations.

—

There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.

Submitted by duckpin on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 9:35am

Thanks. I was just trying to give my take on the political

reality of the situation.

The need for a security clearance for president would be a requirement that is not in the Constitution.

—

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

Submitted by kharma on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 10:22am

exactly...a small group of individuals would have the power

to accept or reject a candidate....oh wait, never mind that's the DNC.

—

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams

Submitted by enhydra lutris on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 3:47pm

Bwahahahaha. Excellent!

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Submitted by lunachickie on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 10:44pm

Yeah, exactly

they say that like it doesn't already happen.

I did mention irony upthread, didn't I? smh....

Submitted by Hillbilly Dem on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 1:46pm

Meh. You're aces, duckpin. So say we all,

with the exception of the uninformed.

—

"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey

Submitted by duckpin on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 2:58pm

Thanks HD. With Hasil as my role model, I try my best!

—

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 3:46pm

The security STATE isn't in the Constitution either.

I don't think the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) would recognize this country, and if they were able to make out the outlines of what they had designed, they would certainly say "This is not what we planned or intended".

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by Ellen North on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 1:35am

Originally, weren't the US

Originally, weren't the US Founders against having a standing army at all? That being why States were to keep a supply of arms for locals they were to train as a militia, (something which got turned into gun-mania by manufacturing interests and those wishing to destroy faith in government and in law and order in favour of 'might makes right', themselves being the wealthiest and mightiest, of course, and thinking in terms of themselves as having no need for democracy/civilization to limit their profitable abuses,) and going by their writings, they'd never have wanted a military empire-building, world-consuming government. Just a free democratic republic capable of defending itself while the people pursued happiness as they pleased, with their rights guaranteed as being protected everywhere in the US.

They did their best to protect your rights in the Constitution and they did a darned good job, even if it never was properly applied. This needs to start happening.

Obviously, having greedy and destructive corporate/billionaire-funding-dependent incompetents in public office would not have been the plan of the more enlightened of the Founders, going by anything I've read in the past, and neither was corporate influence in public policy, that being what some of them most feared.

They'd be horrified at the nightmare being made of their American Dream.

And they'd be damned proud of those rising in peaceful protest against the militarized police and the psychopaths in and seeking public office.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by fugwb on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 5:25pm

I uprated

you Duck to offset the donuts ... oh wait....

Submitted by Ellen North on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 1:36am

Hey, the pie splatter here

Hey, the pie splatter here just wipes right off - cool, huh?

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 9:55am

I watched the segment of the video clip

you highlighted, and unless I watched the wrong portion, that is not what Comey said. In response to a question by Rep. Chabot of Ohio, Comey said was if Clinton had worked at the FBI and did what she did, she would not be prosecuted, but would be disciplined. That is not to say I agree with his assessment, but what he said was different than what you have posted.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by the_poorly_educated on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 11:42am

What Comey said was she would be in BIG trouble at FBI

I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say she could not be hired by the FBI HENCE, how could she be fit for POTUS? If the electorate wants to elect a person who wouldn't even qualify for a job at the FBI then we haven't done our job in getting the word out. Comey gave us the info, if we choose to not use it, then we are the fools.

—

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho

Submitted by enhydra lutris on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 3:53pm

The Feebs? They're the gold standard or something? People

like that jackass Jedger and the current gutless wonders? MLK, Malcolm, and probably Bernie couldn't get jobs there either, that is a measure of nothing.

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 1:11am

Your misleading title should be changed

not because I disagree with your thesis that Medusa should not be given security clearance, but because of your inference of what Comey meant. He certainly did NOT say what your title says he stated.

Anybody voting for either the Mad Bomber or the Hairball is non compis mentis (I'll probably get some flack for that statement--I am not telling anyone for whom to vote nor even to vote at all). How we got so fucked is as much a mystery as Schroedinger's cat.

Submitted by PriceRip on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 10:48am

What?

The need for a security clearance for president would be a requirement that is not in the Constitution.

Why do you think the president should be required to have a security clearance. As a particle physicist, without a security clearance, I have never found it difficult to be fully informed. I think you do not understand the function of a security clearance.

Submitted by lunachickie on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 12:21pm

I don't think it's a Constitutional question at all

What I do believe is that if the Commander-in-Chief can't get a security clearance on their own, then they are not fit to govern. Otherwise, clearances are pointless, not to mention worthless.

A generic definition of "the function of a security clearance", as put forth by the Wiki. Not gospel, but pretty damned basic:

A security clearance is a status granted to individuals allowing them access to classified information (state or organizational secrets) or to restricted areas, after completion of a thorough background check.

The term "security clearance" is also sometimes used in private organizations that have a formal process to vet employees for access to sensitive information. A clearance by itself is normally not sufficient to gain access; the organization must also determine that the cleared individual needs to know specific information. No one is supposed to be granted automatic access to classified information solely because of rank, position, or a security clearance.[

There is clearly an argument to be made that if the person at the top can't get a security clearance that everyone underneath them has to have, on condition of employment, that person should not be at the top. Ever.

Submitted by the_poorly_educated on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 11:46am

Lots of people here protecting Clinton.

She isn't quailfied to be able to look at classified info. She CAN'T be POTUS. Well she could but she's be absolutely useless. Imagine Clinton Pres and Wiki leaks releasing all the classified info sent to her email account ? I guess we may have learned nothing from waht happened which is basically Einstein's definition of insanity.

—

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 11:55am

I'm sure you did not mean to imply

that people here, on this site, are protecting her? I think the point that's being made is that once again, SHE is an exception to most of the "rules" others must play by. While you or I would have to have clearance, and her subordinates would have to, I'm betting there is some kind of loophole she squirms through as POTUS. While that isn't what should happen, we all know that what should and what does are two completely different things. And as we've all seen now, some lame "excuse" will be given and we will be expected to just accept that or be called loony CT freaks, willfully naïve children that we are, the rest of the "adults" who'll vote for her will just accept it.

And no, we have learned absolutely nothing about Einstein's definition of insanity.

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

Submitted by the_poorly_educated on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 12:10pm

Jill Stein garnering 3% of the vote is indicative of Bernie

supporters switching to Clinton. Why, I have no freakin idea but not on board with any dumbing down of electorate to get HRC elected. Sorry Bernie.

—

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho

Submitted by lunachickie on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 12:25pm

You're basing that assumption on the notion

that you've been told the truth about who is polling how. IMO, polls can be manipulated nine ways from Sunday, so why take them into any kind of consideration at all?

Submitted by the_poorly_educated on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 12:55pm

Yes, Caught me disobeying rule #1. MSM is lying.

Good point.

—

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho

Submitted by elenacarlena on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 2:05am

I have read that the pollsters are ignoring both millennials

and independents. Also that about 40% of millennials refuse to vote for either mainstream candidate. So yes, the polls are probably rigged. Although I haven't fact checked these points.

Then again, I don't feel I need to. I'm an oldish lady, decades-long Dem, and I'm for Jill and ticked off about the nomination stolen from Bern. I can't imagine millennials suddenly agreeing to toe the party line more than I am.

—

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

Submitted by neoconned on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 8:18am

An Interesting Conversation I Had

I was out early this morning, and while getting gas today, the young black man working there greeted me with "An other day, another dollar, eh?" to which I replied, "Yeah - before taxes". "But Trump says he's going to eliminate taxes" he countered. "I hope people can live with what he cuts," I responded. "Trump won't make it!" he declared. "But then we'd have Hillary, and no one trusts her!" I said, "We'll see. It isn't certain yet who will win. I don't want Trump, but there is still a chance he could take it."

This is where the surprise arose. He concluded our discussion with "We'd have been better off with Bernie".

Take THAT, Your Heinous!

—

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

Submitted by lunachickie on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 12:07pm

If she can't get a security clearance, then

how can she look at classified information?

If she can't get one, she's not fit to govern.

Truly, that's all that really needs to be said.

Submitted by the_poorly_educated on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 12:14pm

Not one Congressmen followed up on Comey's statement.

Not ONE MSM outlet showed a clip of it which leads me to believe that Hillary is the corporatocrat's choice. It's totally rigged. HRC is going to be Pres and Fox News and the Repubs are going to help her. That statement is GOLD for anyone making a case against HRC and NO ONE has used it or reported on it. We are just sheeple.

—

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho

Submitted by lunachickie on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 12:38pm

Then we have nothing to lose by voting Green or Libertarian

I don't pay any attention to what "The News" has to say anymore, they're either lying flat out or being a shill for someone or something.

That's not to say I disagree with the notion that Hillary has been chosen. All I'm saying is that any POTUS that can't get a security clearance themselves shouldn't be POTUS....

Submitted by Centaurea on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 10:50pm

The red button

I want the person whose finger is on the red button to have as much information as possible. Presumably that would include a lot of highly sensitive, top secret material vital to the national security, access to which would require a high-level security clearance.

Maybe POTUS automatically gets that kind of information, regardless of whether they would qualify for a security clearance or not. Somehow I don't find that reassuring.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 1:22am

It doesn't matter which Devil has her/his finger

on the red button. What matters is judgement and experience. Both clowns leading their respective parades will get us to disaster regardless of differences of the parade routes. Years of experience combined with bad judgement is no better than zero years experience and bad judgement.

I don't know whether the vote for an alternate party's candidate would give our glowing in the dark bodies the momentary satisfaction of gasping "I told you so" before we vaporize from nuclear destruction.

Submitted by Ellen North on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 1:42am

At least you wouldn't have

At least you wouldn't have voted for becoming a glow-stick. And for everyone else to do so as well.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by elenacarlena on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 2:08am

I believe that by dint of her being President, they have to

show her classified information. At that level, it doesn't matter that they think she's unqualified. She has to have the info to make the big decisions.

I agree she's not fit to govern. But her cavalier way with a secret won't stop her.

—

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

Submitted by riverlover on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 3:54pm

Now that TheOtherMaven has brought this up-----------

what id the point of speaking about a segment of the job responsibility ---CinC---that has no daily importance to the majority of everyday US citizens or folks being here? I have noted being wincing around that usage before, as I have always been with the use of the word 'homeland'. Too much hearkening to military for what I would like to keep of my mindseye view of USA, still more America, the Beautiful.

—

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

Submitted by FuturePassed on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 9:30pm

Careful

Your argument goes to a very dangerous place. Do you really want some committee vetting potential presidential candidates? Lots of people I would prefer over the present candidates could not get a security clearance. Are you sure Bernie could get one?

Voters can take this information into account as they see fit.

Submitted by lunachickie on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 10:20pm

It does no such thing

Your argument goes to a very dangerous place.

If everyone under a President has to have a security clearance to be privy to classified information, the President should have that same type of clearance. There is nothing dangerous about such a notion. Your example is absurd:

Do you really want some committee vetting potential presidential candidates?

What's dangerous is misusing descriptive language to create a sense of doom that doesn't exist.

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 1:39am

You seem to be overlooking the fact that

as the Chief Executive, it is ultimately the President who is responsible for deciding who needs to have security clearances, what the qualifications for a security clearance are, and what information is to be withheld from those who lack those clearances. It simply does not make sense to say that the President should qualify for the clearance a priori, because once elected the President has full authority to make public pretty much anything the President wishes to make public. The only possible recourse Congress would have might be impeachment for treason, if they could sell themselves the argument that President had indeed aided and abetted our enemies by releasing some particular little bit of data.

It must be this way. You cannot give the security state -- including whoever happens to be occupying the White House during an election year -- the authority to veto any given candidate on some bogus notion of sufficient concern for keeping state secrets. It's up to us to decide whether that matters, and for me, it matters not a jot.

—

Submitted by elenacarlena on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 2:10am

It would be nice if voters would take information into account

Just sayin. It still seems like most voters are most interested in personalities over policies.

—

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

Submitted by riverlover on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 11:05am

Still post-concussion and I am being overloaded today

what I have gleaned from the hearings are a bunch of mixed messages to the point of total confusion. There are two systems of justice (or more) quite visible now and that in itself is hard to forget. We are seeing a total collapse of governing in the US. At least I am, loss of confidence in governing would be cause for a relatively immediate vote to change the organizers, something omitted from the Constitutional underlayment. Am I delusional? Really--am I? I take bad news fine.

—

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

Submitted by the_poorly_educated on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 11:48am

Comey hasn't been sending mixed messages.

He has been consistent in his opinion that Clinton cannot be prosecuted but she would be in big trouble if she was still employyed by the gov't. It will be interesting to see what happenes if she becomes re-employed.

—

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho

Submitted by elenacarlena on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 2:12am

I think you're not actually confused.

There are two systems of justice: One for regular people, and one for the elite. As an elite, Clintons get away with everything.

And yes, I think there are governments that allow recall votes for loss of confidence, but ours is not one of them.

—

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

Submitted by Timmethy2.0 on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 12:21pm

The national disgust is rising to epic levels

By the time election day comes round there is going to be a serious vomit flooding problem. It may just put Jill over the top.

—

Beware the bullshit factories.

Submitted by bygorry on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 12:28pm

if the president

"if the president does it, it is not illegal"

where have we heard that before?

—

bygorry

Submitted by Ellen North on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 1:45am

In a democracy, nobody is

In a democracy, nobody is above the law - unless you're a Bush or a Clinton, of course.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by riverlover on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 3:16pm

I have never been in a position to require a security clearance

From what I have learned background of one's life is looked at, boring stuff like roommates and teachers and club memberships. Of course church membership and probably attendance records, unless One was Away on a Mission. No clue how 21st century efforts are made, is not a security check: guilty until proof of innocence? And then golden keys to the executive toilet room. Ahhh.

—

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

Submitted by Ellen North on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 1:50am

Well, stuff like leaking top

Well, stuff like leaking top secret State info on unsecured systems and to people without security clearances who seemingly would sell their their mother's ears for a nickle a pair and the promise of a lucrative position later on and placing a hedge manager on a nuclear board so that he can profit from the info doesn't sound promising...

But I'll bet you'd know better than to do that!

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by GusBecause on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 4:36pm

They send out very nice young FBI agents

Who probably hand in their notice the second they get back to the office. My mother lived in a DC suburb, and once when I went to visit her, I found a nicely suited young man perched on the edge of a chair in the living room, looking like he'd been hit hard on the head. My sainted mother, deaf as a post and gaga, was describing some neighborhood picnic that took place 30 years earlier. While she blithered on about the cookies "with chocolate mints baked inside! " I asked the man what was going on. He showed me his credentials and said he was doing a background check on someone who claimed to have lived next door at some time. John Smith . I grabbed my mothers arm and screamed "DO YOU KNOW JOHN SMITH?" "huh? What are you talking about? There's Ginny Smith who married..." The poor guy bolted for the door. I know he was rethinking his career choice on his trip back downtown.

Submitted by lunachickie on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 10:27pm

Then clearly,

the whole thing is bogus. Let's just abolish the damned things for everybody! They're useless! Who needs 'em?

Since we're doing that, I can think of half a dozen whistleblowers prosecuted by the United States government in the last 16 years, who "violated security clearances" because whistleblowing said info breached "classified" information--who are fucking in jail for a long time. They need to have their sentences commuted immediately.

Good grief... Who the hell does anyone think they're kidding, here?

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 1:34am

L.C., abolishing security clearances will take away keys

to the executive bathrooms. If you're a Clinton, you don't need no fuckin' keys anyway. Mr. Transparency (O'bummer) doesn't seemed too alarmed at security preservation as much as he is of cover-up and self-justification.

I had to revoke my goldfish's security clearance because it pissed in its bowl. That'll teach it!

Submitted by UntimelyRippd on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 1:41am

Yes, they do.

Finally, we are in agreement on one aspect of this issue.

—

Submitted by elenacarlena on Fri, 09/30/2016 - 2:15am

Uprated for half a dozen whistleblowers who need to have

their sentences commuted immediately.

—

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.