2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCan A Person Be ELECTED President
If they are stripped of security clearances because of negligence?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Segami
(14,923 posts)For losing one's security clearance?
lmbradford
(517 posts)Actually the statute even states that a person who is negligent with classified info is no longer eligible to hold office or work for the govt.
She disqualified herself ironically.
dchill
(40,988 posts)security clearances are.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Nothing but snark answers so far.
How do you get a security clearance after doing what Hillary has done? So far no answers.
they will never give the security apparatus veto power over elections. It is the people's choice, not the bureaucracy's choice.
hack89
(39,180 posts)The President has no security clearance, in the sense that other employees of the federal government do. Simply put, there is no document held by the United States government that the President is restricted from viewing for reasons of national security. It's also impossible for the President to violate a security classification; the President has the absolute authority to decide who is and is not entitled to know what is in a classified document, and may reveal any classified fact he or she deems appropriate to any person at any time for any reason (except possibly for a few narrow cases where specific statutes make such releases illegal).
There are documents that the President is not permitted to see (individual Census returns, for example) and information the President may know but legally cannot share, but these restrictions flow from statutory rules that are intended to protect personal privacy. Such documents are not considered "classified" for the purpose of national security law.
Segami
(14,923 posts)"intentionally false" testimony in the Jones v. Clinton case.
So if an employee, who holds a security clearance to handle sensitive material is found to be guilty of negligence, would he/she still be allowed to maintain their security clearance status under their contract?
The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton’s Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)or military information that he requests if there is a proper "need to know", even if he would not otherwise be able to normally obtain a security clearance were he not the President.
hack89
(39,180 posts)They have access to all national security secrets as part of their presidential powers.
onenote
(44,890 posts)Not that I think it will have any effect.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And the 1947 National Security Act is all but clear on how presidents are granted those. So I suppose we might find out
hack89
(39,180 posts)The FBI or any other security agency does not get a veto over an election. For obvious reasons.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And you might have heard that we have privatized quite a bit of that.
As I said. We shall fnd out. Since it is not strictly spelled out. Of course, scandals have a rythm to them. They include the bunker behavior we are seeing here already. I do not think we will get to test this.
Oh and before you go but Sanders, or fucking purity, this has nada to do with those two
hack89
(39,180 posts)They do not go through the same process as everyone else. For obvious reasons .
Blue_Adept
(6,439 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)How very fucking Clinton of you.
Blue_Adept
(6,439 posts)
MineralMan
(148,263 posts)becomes the chief executive of this country, and has a de facto clearance for everything.
In practice, of course, Presidents see summaries of classified information. They rarely, if ever, see what underlies that summary.
I'll give you an example of how that works:
While serving in the USAF, my last duty assignment was in the NSA headquarters at Ft. George Meade, MD. What I was doing there is still classified. In February of 1969, however, the NSA was visited by the then occupant of the White House, Richard Nixon. He was there for a tour, a briefing, and a simulation exercise. For three days before his visit, the NSA building underwent a sanitizing operation. It totally disrupted daily work, as everything classified above a certain level was put away out of sight. Nixon came, got briefed and observed the simulation exercise. I had the extreme displeasure of being in the exercise room and was introduced to Nixon. I said, "Good morning, Mr. President," and then returned to what I was doing. He saw only the information he came to see, and nothing else.
Presidents are briefed, but do not have the "need-to-know" to have access to the details of what lies behind those briefings, unless they specifically request such information. Presidents, however, don't make such requests. They get briefed by high-level intelligence officials, who also often don't have access to the underlying information and are briefed themselves with analyses of what is known.
The same is true of Secretaries of State. They have clearance to see things, but never see anything but summaries. They don't ask for underlying information, because they don't need that information. Sometimes, that leads to misunderstandings and even misinformation, as happened in GWB's first term. But that's how it works.
Presidents have clearance. It comes with the office. Presidents, however, do not have total access to intelligence information. Nobody does, really. It's all compartmentalized.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)simply by dint of being President.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)So I have no idea.
Tarc
(10,583 posts)