Posted on 07/05/2016 10:14:51 AM PDT by GilGil
“To be clear this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions but that’s not what we’re deciding here. “
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
IMHO as a country we are no longer at that awkward stage.
Presidents are not vetted for being security risks. Their election is considered the will of the people.
Presidents deal with national security every day starting with morning briefings, and going to bed with the latest current info and maybe being awakened during the night for actions like maybe scrambling jets to support embassies like Benghazi which was not done. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and falls under both military and DoD regulations concerning troop actions and logistics. He/she is responsible for all his/her actions concerning military matters to include sensitive information. This is why the president can be tried, found guilty, and sentenced for high crimes like murder and treason even though the president is still in office. He/she cannot use presidential privilege for crimes like this. It falls under COMSEC, and is a crime to knowingly violate security parameters established for protection of life and limb.
All persons working for the government that have access to the world wide, therefore, matters of security can be found guilty of breach, including the president. The only difference from being hired or elected to do a job for the government is who decides. Same animal, same laws/regulations.
red
“This begs the question since Clinton and Obama are serial liars, how can anyone believe what they are saying?”
And this is a surprise? I can’t trust him any further than I can throw him. And Hilary has a worse history than he does.
red
Sanctions my aching bottom. They’d face serious jail time is not execution for treason.
Hillary had better hope Obama pardons her cuz I don’t think a Trump AG will give her the pass LL and the Fan Belt Inspector Comey has. It won’t be too late and given the admitted damning evidence she won’t skate again.
It is so blatantly obvious now that Obama/Clinton are serial liars. there is no doubt. Even their supporters must be wondering how they know they are telling the truth or planning on delivering on their promises.
Try the 1776 reset button
Catherine Herridge on Fox is an excellent correspondent in my opinion, and here I sit watching Greta on my DVR and Catherine said something interesting— that in all of the time she’s reported on Directer Comey he seemed to not be acting like himself today and that he always takes questions,even after the worst things have happened. She seemed to think that was very odd and out of character.I’m posting this to all because so many of you commented on his demeanor and how he acted like he was in duress. I’m with the group that thinks he will resign soon.
___________________
If you watched when Mike Pence endorsed Cruz for president, he made a speech leading up to it that sounded like he was about to endorse Trump and then at the very end he said he would endorse Cruz. In other words his heart was in endorsing Trump.
This Comey presser reminded of the Pence endorsement. He sounded like he wanted to indict Clinton. He sounded like his heart was to indict Clinton but for whatever reason he did not. His presser was saying that she is guilty as hell, but for some murky reason they are not pursuing the indictment.
I agree that a president can be tried for treason or malfeasance.
I recall when Hussein was elected the conversation was whether he could pass a security check, and the answer was that he did not have to because he was an elected official.
People forget on our forum just how many tens of millions adore and idolize this woman.
Agreed, but will they still see it in November.
That’s what team Hillary is hoping.
A Person Who Engaged in Similar Circumstances “Would Face Sanctions”...No shit Sherlock? But rules are for the little people!
Like I mentioned before, the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces which includes all of the mentioned components of the below section taken from the pertinent instruction.
DoD Instruction 5200.02 applies to OSD, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the DoD, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”).
Sections G and H under policy standards reviewed and re-affirmed in 2014 read as follows:
g. No person shall be deemed to be eligible for a national security position merely by reason of Federal service or contracting, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee status, or as a matter of right or privilege, or as a result of any particular title, rank, position, or affiliation.
h. No person shall be appointed or assigned to a national security position when an unfavorable personnel security determination has been rendered.
Being elected president would fall under the title, rank, position part of the entries or as commander of all of the components. Besides, what good does it do to have a need for COMSEC and implement it if the person in charge is not required to stay within its boundaries ?
You didn’t mention where you got the information about his lack of a security clearance, but I can promise you he got one and it was completed before he got elected. We don’t crown kings or queens, we “hire” people to become government officials either by election or appointment. And they must fit the guidelines established with the job requirement. And meeting top secret or higher is one of them for his position.
red
Might be fun. We didn't need any technology to recognize the obvious stress in his voice. BUT then again, he still does run an agency that may react to it vindictively.
I got the info here at FR. So you are saying that Hussein had to pass a security clearance prior to becoming president?
All presidents have limitations on what they can view. One of the requirements for a president, just like a person with a security clearance, is the “need to know.” So his clearance is still based upon the same information that a person who has been investigated. Without a need to know, he cannot view certain information. So his background check is given, but controlled.
Obama is a perfect example of the failure of the system to disqualify a person running for president for security reasons. He was a great friend of Bill Ayers, a known and un-repented terrorist. He can be elected president but he could not be hired by the FBI or be his own body guard as part of the CIA. This is why the president’s position comes with a security protocol.
But he can, without the approval from congress, drop all the clearance requirements for everyone thus making all documents view-able by everyone.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/07/06/meet-the-man-james-comey-indicted-over-a-21-word-email-361224
*snip*Well, we did. Here is the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charging one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did (h/t @DavidSirota):
Deals were made for Hillary to skate.U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.
According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.
Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.
This case was the product of an investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Jean M. Hobler prosecuted the case
3. We know from ongoing litigation brought by Judicial Watch that Clinton instructed her staff to destroy public records, including burning her daily schedules. The FBI has an obligation to investigate that destruction, doesn’t it?4. Since “intent” is not part of the relevant statute, why did you decide it was critical? And even it were, given ample circumstantial evidence — including false statements under oath — the standard of intent has been reached, hasn’t it?
5. You said “we cannot find a [similar] case” that led to prosecution. There are several, such as the conviction of Bryan Nishimura, and the discharge of Marine Jason Brezler. The difference is Clinton is a presidential candidate, correct?
6. You have personally prosecuted ordinary people for much smaller offenses, including a man who sent a 23-word email encouraging staff to save subpoenaed documents. You’re applying a different standard to Clinton, aren’t you?
7. You said that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring an indictment against Clinton or her associates. Yet several reasonable federal prosecutors — including a former Attorney General — disagree. That was premature, was it not?
8. The FBI does not decide prosecutions, but presents findings to the Attorney General. Yet you precluded any other decision by stating publicly “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict. You overstepped your authority, didn’t you?
What an amazing sham!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.