Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: bigdaddy45

I didn’t spell it out, but part of my ire is base don the “security clearance” aspect of the Ali incident.

“Mr. Ali, we can’t let those people in, because they don’t have security clearances.”
“Is that important?”
“Not really — go on in.”

“Mrs. Clinton, you’ve sent and received top secret emails through non-secure channels which is a serious violation and could result in significant jail time.”
“Are you going to do anything about it?”
“Not really — enjoy your presidential campaign.”


15 posted on 06/04/2016 10:25:46 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Nation States seem to be ending. The follow-on should not be Globalism, but Localism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: ClearCase_guy

Yeah right. Because letting someone who has gotten checked for weapons, etc., yet hasn’t undergone the anal probe of a background check shake the Presidents hand is the same as putting classified documents on an unprotected server.

Oh yes, those sound EXACTLY the same.

You’re equating kidnapping with a speeding ticket.


16 posted on 06/04/2016 10:32:25 AM PDT by bigdaddy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson