1. It’s safe to say that there were things on that server which could cause Hillary tremendous harm politically – which is why she destroyed the evidence that would have been exculpatory if you believed her explanation. In my mind, it’s also why she used a private server to begin with....Read the whole thing. My reaction: Once you're actually President, you can use your I-am-the-President tools. What's anyone going to do about it? Impeach you? That's been-there-done-that for Hillary. She could welcome the opportunity to survive a second impeachment crisis in her family. Bring it on!
4. Hillary Clinton, as both a future Presidential candidate and a sitting Sec. of State would have been one of the Top 100 intelligence targets in the world and probably one of the top 10.
5. It’s thus certain that the Chinese and Russians would each have had a team focused on accessing her communications....
Why is this journalist unnamed? Is he ashamed of his theory or just not impressive enough for his name to work in promotion of it?
ADDED: Instapundit asks why I'm assuming it's a "he," but he's assuming my use of the male pronoun signifies that I think it's a "he." In fact, I follow the tradition of using "he" when it could be either sex.
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
You can't really blackmail someone who has no soul.
You assume Hillary won't pay off the blackmailer. I assume the blackmailer is a foreign and hostile government, and Hillary pays them off with whatever they want. That could have a real downside.
Why is this journalist unnamed? Is he ashamed of his theory or just not impressive enough for his name to work in promotion of it?
Perhaps he or she is afraid of getting kneecapped by the Clinton cabal?
Right. The Chinese or Russians aren't interested in impeaching her; they *want* her in office so as to use the leverage gained by the blackmailable material.
For decades, Hillary's penchant for secrecy has led rightwing nuts like me down various rabbit holes (Vince Foster was murdered! Cattle futures! Was Vince Foster Hillary's secret lover! Paula Jones! Susan McDougal! Bill left DNA on a White House intern's blue dress! Juanita Broadrick! Are Hillary and Huma Abedin lovers? Rose Law Firm documents! Marc Rich! 9/11 documents in Sandy Berger's pants! What WAS Bill doing on Teenage Prostitute Island anyway.) etc.
It's possible that, given the lengths HIllary goes to to conceal information, there is information that Hillary wants concealed. (Also possible that it's just a control issue, that there's nothing in the box worth knowing.)
"Hillary pays them off with whatever they want."
Like Uranium ? Ask Putin.
I like how Lanny Davis beclowns himself every time he had defend our national yenta.
Ann Althouse said...Why is this journalist unnamed?
Why would anyone whose job might involve relying on contacts in the Gov. for information want to keep their name off speculation about a potential major weakness the current Dem frontrunner might have? Why would anyone distrust the impartiality and fair-mindedness of Gov. officials, given the multitude of examples of abuse of power (small and large, Lois Lerner to Harry Reid and beyond) we've seen in just the last few years?
Is that a serious question, Professor? What is your actual objection to the grant of anonymity here? It doesn't seem to me like the assertions in any way rely on inside knowledge of the type that you'd want to evaluate based on your opinion of the source--these seem more like deductive assertions of potential liabilities, the evaluation of which should be possible independent of the source of the argument, no?
My more prosaic explanation is that Hillary emailed a bunch of selfies to Anthony Weiner.
Why would anyone go to all the trouble and expense of blackmailing Hillary when it's so much cheaper to just bribe her? The fee schedule for bribes is clearly listed at the Clinton Foundation website, and it's within the reach of even mid sized governments. For private individuals, it has the added allure of being tax deductible. You can't deduct blackmail as a business expense. This is just another attempt to besmirch Hillary's fine name.
Can you blackmail someone with no shame or fear of reprisal?
Eric the Fruit Bat channels Titus channeling Laslo.
F.T.W.
Ann Althouse said...Once you're actually President, you can use your I-am-the-President tools. What's anyone going to do about it? Impeach you?
I'm afraid this is evidence of a lack of creative thinking (of the criminal bent) on your part, Professor--although that's not necessarily a bad thing generally!
There's no reason to think H. Clinton has to be the one directly threatened. Let's say she discussed a shady deal between some corporation and the Clinton Global Initiative. The blackmailer could threaten to expose the CGI, its employees, and the people they worked with at the corporation. Being the President wouldn't prevent the loss of reputation nor potential legal problems someone on the other end of a deal/immoral act related to H. Clinton. A threat to expose the CGI's business partners (or their practices generally) wouldn't necessarily be something even a President could prevent--she could surely use the FBI, etc, to help protect herself but if a foreign gov. wants to expose the CFO of Corporation X (and incidentally tarnish the CGI) is that something a President can have the gov. police intervene (with the press, say) to prevent?
Impeachment isn't the only, nor even the most likely to be faced, danger from blackmail for Hillary Clinton.
My reaction: Once you're actually President, you can use your I-am-the-President tools. That moment when Ann first telegraphed her 2016 POTUS vote... :)
"You assume Hillary won't pay off the blackmailer. I assume the blackmailer is a foreign and hostile government, and Hillary pays them off with whatever they want. That could have a real downside."
-- Getting paid off is the point of blackmail.
Coupe said, "You can't really blackmail someone who has no soul."
Matthew Sablan, "Can you blackmail someone with no shame or fear of reprisal?"
This is what's hard for most people to understand. Most of us have a sense of morality. Hillary has none, and Obama has none, and Bill has none. In their minds, once they're dead, it's all over. They don't care.
That's why the Iran deal is so puzzling. Obama figures Iran will get a bomb one way or another. It's inevitable.
Hillary doesn't care about what's right and wrong. She's here on this planet, trying to be the biggest thing she can be. Who knows why?
Hillary Clinton is a person without morals.
Soul or no soul, how can you blackmail Hillary when everyone already knows she's a crook??
I'm not sure why we're supposed to think that she is more blackmailable than literally any politician who has ever used a free email service (gmail, yahoo, hotmail, whatever). Or for that matter, any common-or-garden federal employee. The "blackmail" ship has sailed for basically anyone who had to get security clearance since 2000 -- all of that information is in the hand of foreign powers thanks to the OPM hack. And of course, wikileaks opens up the blackmail possibilities for anyone foolish enough to have used supposedly "secure" government email. They've still held material back, right? I'm sure there's shameful tidbits in there.
All just a long way of saying, sure -- she's exposed to blackmail. But so is everyone else. It's really just a question of how embarrassing the information is. And there, it's a problem of her capacity for embarrassment. After all, if Russia or China or whoever comes out with supposed authenticating documents for this scandal or that, she can always just say they were forged.
I think that the place you have to start here is that the most likely parties to have hacked her email are the Ruskies and the ChiComs. My money is on both of them, but if only one, I would expect the latter. They have probably already seen most of the benefits of their hacks, in the form of American capabilities and plans. For most Americans, anything else is pretty minor - sexual trysts with Huma, quid pro quo with her family foundations, etc. Maybe those hackers revealing her near traitorship at a critical time. But they aren't going to ask for money, but rather favors - e.g. Putin getting the US (and thus NATO) to back off the next time he tries to reannex one of their former states. Would she put her own welfare above that of the country? Duh - this is the woman who compromised our nation's security by using her personal email server to avoid FOIA, etc, making this potential blackmail plausible. I think it silly to think that she wouldn't.
@Scott M.
Exactly, as soon as I read that I thought, "the professor is a Hillary supporter."
If ability to pass an FBI background check for the necessary security clearance isn't a qualifier for running for President, let alone being President, perhaps it ought to be.
I wonder whether anything the Chinese and Russian hackers hoovered off her private server betrayed American sources & methods and got any of said sources killed. I'm sure the Obama Dee-Oh-Jay will run that down forthwith.
Mr. Morell went on national TV and stated he was sure every competent intelligence agency in the world had hacked Hillary!'s server.
I am sure Mr. Morell as former assistant director of the CIA(?) considers the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. to be "competent" intelligence agencies.
I don't think impeachment is the issue. The blackmail scenario and her (and Bill's) need to avoid dealing honestly as their first instinct, is the concern. Of course they don't really care, but they don't just start off by saying that. That's the problem.
They rely on the guise of innocence.
Why is this journalist unnamed?
I assumed because he or she feared retaliation. The Clinton crew are a pretty nasty bunch -- you can confirm my assertion by checking in with Kathleen Willey or Juanita Broaddrick or Linda Tripp or the White House travel office of any of a number of people who have crossed Hillary Clinton in some fashion large or small.
Why is this journalist unnamed? Have you not heard about the sleazy Clinton War Machine built to suppress any opposition and "take out" any criticism by any means whether ethical or not?
This is indeed the $64 million uranium encrusted question with a person who has been actively trading influence and access and arbitraging the charity/government nexus to enrich herself off the books.
We now know Bill Clinton went to the effort to set up obscure shell charities in Sweden and other places to funnel contributions in a non-transparent way to the Clinton Foundation to hide the full extent of their influence peddling. We also know that Hillary and Bill are using the Foundation to support their personal lifestyles in a tax-free way via the provision of 5 star accommodations and private jet travel. You can count on Obama using this as a blueprint for his own arbitrage of the tax code and his own influence selling.
If the Clinton's influence selling was especially blatant and egregious, or if her emails show things that were never made public in the investigation of her Benghazi behavior, them yes she would be compromised. Any analysis of Bill's travels versus his paid speeches and Hillary's decisions already show some patterns that are suspect. Furthermore Huma's control of her schedule and the way Hilllay's appearances line up with the requests of her consulting client (a Clinton patron) in her unusual job accommodation also create suspicion about whether either Huma or Hillary or both were selling access.
These are all legitimate questions and concerns any voter should weigh. Given what we know about Bill Clinton's giant fundraising in places like Haiti and then his lead-balloon execution of followthrough (which also implicates Hillary's brother) we can see that vast sums are raised in the name of charity but nothing ever gets to the needy while the Clinton's all continue to live like Kings and fly private jets.
Remember, Hillary CHOSE to handle her email this way. The only explanation would be to give her control over it. If everything she was doing was fully above board why wold she have needed control or feared transparency? The conclusion is that she was doing some stuff that she feared would be harmful if it came to light.
Some of what she said to explain herself has already been disproven as lies. She was shown to have withheld some emails (which Sid Blumenthal did hand in) and she was also shown to have EDITED THE CONTENT of other emails before handing them in, which is clearly unethical. There is also a very suspicious 2 month gap in her emails just before Benghazi.
Sending classified info outside secure government systems is an unforgivable and disqualifying breech. Furthemore it is just plain stupid. To find out she sent Top Secret is a violation, period. The responsibility rests with her to know better, Even if her tam removed security markings and headers, that is still on her and it is a felony.
She is now in political and legal peril. Is she even smart enough to be President?
Wow.
1. We shouldn't worry about Hillary being black-mailed because she'll have all kinds of powers she can abuse to intimidate the would be black-mailer.
2. Why is this journalist keeping his identity secret from Hillary anyway?
I don't think Hillary! needs to worry too much about the Russians and the Chinese. That is kind of like the gentlemen's agreement not to use poison gas or assassinate each other. They can all retaliate if any one starts that.
(Of course ISIS is not a member of the club, but then they probably do not have a "competent" intelligence agency either.)
I think Mr. Morell besides warning the Clintonistas to mind their manners, was also warning other governments that if Hillary! needs to be brought down, the CIA, etc., would prefer to do it themselves without interference from busybodies elsewhere.
Hillary Clinton is the Eleanor Iselin of our time, without the plan for her post-inaugural first day in office.
"Hillary Clinton is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. And even now I feel that way, this minute. And yet, somewhere in the back of my mind, something tells me it's not true. It's just not true. It isn't as if Hillary's hard to like. She's impossible to like! In fact, she's probably one of the most repulsive human beings I've ever known in my whole-- all of my life."
Remember Richard Nixon and "Deep Throat"?
furious_a said...
I wonder whether anything the Chinese and Russian hackers hoovered off her private server betrayed American sources & methods and got any of said sources killed. I'm sure the Obama Dee-Oh-Jay will run that down forthwith.
What you have to understand, furious a, and what I've had a hard time really believing myself, is that no one gives a shit--not when a D is the President. No one cares! Remember the MONTHS of shit we had to listen to about how bad exposing V. Plame was, even though her exposure was really her husband's fault and it turns out she wasn't in danger and wasn't taking many steps to actually remain covert anyway? It was wall-to-wall. They were in magazines, there's a movie! It was the greatest crime to have ever been crimed, and the Media howled for blood.
The OPM and Defense Dept hacks, though? Sure, they're orders of magnitudes worse, expose hundreds of thousands of individuals, many of whom may actually be in real physical harm as a result...and the response is nothing. No outrange, no front page, nothing. No one gives a shit, not in the Media, not with a Dem President, and it sure looks like no one in power is going to be hurt as a result of these colossal fuck ups (fucks ups?). I know it's Fen's law, but it's hard to grasp just how bad it is...even when the consequence is plainly dangerous to individuals and the country at large. It's not even a partisan issue! Because it might hurt the D's, though, it's page D17 for this story.
BHO is in that position. The Ruskies and Chins do it now. His foreign policy has been emasculated
I suspect the reason why the journalist stayed anonymous is this: to stay off Hillary's hit list. If you look at all the mysterious deaths during the Clinton years in the White House, you can see a pattern of the Clinton's enemies being assassinated and/or being on a death threat list. Look at what happened to Vince Foster. He had something Hillary wanted hidden and paid the price for it. Drug snitch Sharlene Wilson is another example of a person who had a death threat issued against her while she was in an Arkansas prison. Wilson had witnessed a murder on a railroad track involving some of Clinton's aides dumping an unconcious person on the tracks. Had Wilson not been arrested, Bill and Hillary Clinton would be in Federal prisons today.
Why is this journalist unnamed?
Because the journalist doesn’t want to destroy his career with the MSM? Sort of like - in a metaphorical way - what happens to anyone in Iran who ditches Islam for Christianity. It’s not pretty what the MSM does to apostates.
One thing I forgot to mention: if Hillary gets voted into office, all death threats issued against the Clintons' political enemies will be issued again.
Will said... 8/14/15, 12:05 PM
Any analysis of Bill's travels versus his paid speeches and Hillary's decisions already show some patterns that are suspect.
But because they are Democrats it must be proven beyond areasonable doubt that there was a quid pro quo before this is used in politics.
In the case of Republicans, utterly unfounded allegation made be made, and the burden of proof is on the person attacked.
Example: Richard Cheney and Haliburton.
1) He had divested himself to avoid a conflict of interest (prhaps the company oowed him money, but only a bankruptcy would be of interest to him)
2) Halliburton didn't stand to profit greatly from the Iraq war.
3) Cheney wasn't making the decisions.
But never mind - they'll say it anyway, but don't you dare say anything you can't prove against a Democrat.
1: Hillary is going to want to get re-elected. So she's blackmailable at least for the first 4 years.
2: Seriously? Why would someone working in a dishonest left-wing cesspit like the "news" not want to be "outed" as anything other than a toe the line Democrat partisan?
Hmm, why don't you try thinking about that for a bit? I bet an answer will come to you
"FBI said to examine whether Hillary's emails were backed up."
And, gee! Well whaddya know! They were! And we found them!
She was shown to have withheld some emails (which Sid Blumenthal did hand in)
This is a misunderstanding. Sidney Blumenthal handed in e-mail he sent TO Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton handed in e-mail she sent FROM her secret e-mail account to state.gov addresses, but never pretended to send e-mail that outsiders had sent her!
So, for example, suppose someone had openly offered her a bribe, she wouldn't have supplied it, since it was not work-related.
Not all of the Sidney Blumenthal e-mails were forwarded to Jake Sullivan at the State Department and not all of thse he got, I think, were circulated throughout the government. Hi
llary issued instructions to tell her what was the reaction
(And then, maybe told Sidney Blumenthal, who told his patrons, which might have bene a foreign intelligence agency. Sidney Blumenthal testified he didn't write those emails but Tyler Drumheller did. Tyler Drumheller died early this week or late last week of pancreatic cancer.)
and she was also shown to have EDITED THE CONTENT of other emails before handing them in,
Is that correct, or is this a reference to the differences between what Blumenthal sent to her and what she sent to Jake Sullivan? These e-mails were edited by Hillary Clinton, and maybe later, if the contents were forwarded, to eliminate the name Sidney Blumenthal.
There is also a very suspicious 2 month gap in her emails just before Benghazi.
I think that's a year before, in 2011, and is a gap in emails that contain the word "Libya" or some other (probably reverse-engineered) search terms, in the body of the text.
The Trey Committee never received any e-mails from or to Hillary for that period in response to their subpoena. They were only asking for Benghazi or Libya related e-mail.
ChiComs
Chinese? Or Chicago?
I think it is very possible that the blackmail already took place (by Pakistani intelligence) and made the September 11th attacks possible. President Clinton passed up several opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden, one of them at the last minute.
The people most in a position to blackmail somone are partners in crime because by virtue of that fact, they are in possession of facts, and maybe the ability to prove it, ththat can bring someone down.
As for what they can blackmail them about, they can blackmail someone into not doing anything that could endanger their position or safety by threatening to take the blackmailee down with them.
"4. Hillary Clinton, as both a future Presidential candidate and a sitting Sec. of State would have been one of the Top 100 intelligence targets in the world and probably one of the top 10.
5. It’s thus certain that the Chinese and Russians would each have had a team focused on accessing her communications."
If US intelligence is competent, they would have 1. known that Hillary! was using a private server 2. picked up Hillary-related info from monitoring Russian/Chinese hacks.
Question that hasn't been asked as far as I know: when did O, DNI, and DCIA find out about Hill's shenanigans? If they didn't know prior to Congress/the public, that would reflect amazing incompetence. If they did know, but didn't shut it down and/or secure all of Hill's material, that raises a whole different set of issues.
"Once you're actually President, you can use your I-am-the-President tools."
I doubt you voted for Nixon.
Sebastian said... If they did know, but didn't shut it down and/or secure all of Hill's material, that raises a whole different set of issues.
That occurred to me, as well, but think about the problems of being in a position where you could be accused of spying on your own SecState--even accidentally. That might be something that'd get filed away with a CYA memo instead of kicked upstairs for immediate action, you know?
SomeoneHasToSayIt: If ability to pass an FBI background check for the necessary security clearance isn't a qualifier for running for President, let alone being President, perhaps it ought to be.
Yes, let's give government bureaucrats veto power over the people's choice of who should be Chief Executive. Great idea.
Maybe, just maybe, she's a long-time double agent. Blackmailing the blackmailers or some such thing.
I mean, what has she really done with a good chunk of her life, other than be the political wife? How do they, and now her, hold such power?
It woud explain the delay in the seizure of the server--other side blackmails US into waiting so they can scrub their Intel.
Maybe all the people thinking she is doing it for or owned by the Democrat/Progressive party are thinking too narrowly.
The first thing you want to do, damage control-wise, in a security breach situation, is determine: "OK, what specifically did the enemy see (and thus, what did they NOT yet see).
By wiping the server clean, we are unable to do even that.
And that alone should be 'rest of life in prison' stuff. If we still had a country, it would be.
Ann Althouse said...Why is this journalist unnamed?
Likely the same reason you signed on with 100 esteemed law professors to support the talking point that perjury was not an impeachable offense.
Else, you wouldn't have tenure now....
SeanF said...
SomeoneHasToSayIt: If ability to pass an FBI background check for the necessary security clearance isn't a qualifier for running for President, let alone being President, perhaps it ought to be.
Yes, let's give government bureaucrats veto power over the people's choice of who should be Chief Executive. Great idea.
There are no perfect solutions in life. Only "which set of problems would you rather deal with". And you don't score debate points by simply pointing out the mote in the other guys eye, without looking at the log in your own.
So, I'll put you down for preferring that serious security risks like Hillary Clinton are welcome to the keys to the White House.
Why is this journalist unnamed? Is he ashamed of his theory or just not impressive enough for his name to work in promotion of it?
*cough*IRS*cough*
I can hack up a few more if you like.
IRS? Ann has effectively said, admiringly and supportively, that Hillary will have him killed. Was there an unspoken implication that she would then be impeached and you would be okay with that, professor, or does she get away clean in your little jill-off fantasy there?
Interesting question on a radio show today: Did the Benghazi perps learn about Chris Stevens presence in Benghazi by reading Hillary's email?
The tools of the Presidency only go so far. For one, I don't think she'd have any effective retaliation against any of the foreign leaks. What's she going to do, break diplomatic relations or go to war over being embarrassed?
Second, even if she has the press in the tank for her, if there is something out there that is a direct link between her and a scandal that resonates with the public, there's not much she can do to keep up her poll numbers. She'll likely serve out her term, but she would have reduced effectiveness if the public turns decisively against her. I doubt Democrats would consider voting her out of office unless her approval dips into the 20s and they see widespread collateral damage in their polling.
As for why the reporter is unnamed, the reporter might like to keep their job and isn't working for an outlet where voicing such theories is acceptable. See Sheryl Atkinson.
The bigger danger to Hillary right now though is domestic. Obama and company currently have an effective blackmail on her in the form of a potential indictment. That can be leveraged from as simple a thing as making her refrain from criticism of Obama all the way to forcing her out of the race should they choose to do so. If the latter is intended, I expect it to be timed such that it comes once Hillary thinks she's won the nomination, as a final twist of the knife.
"5. It’s thus certain that the Chinese and Russians would each have had a team focused on accessing her communications."
Hillary knew that this was true when she got the SoS job. She had to, we (meaning the US), doubtless has intelligence teams that do this to high-profile foreign leaders. So she got an email server under her direct technical and physical control because she is a control freak, and she treats it like she is a college student running a BBS on their laptop? What is wrong with this woman? In what area of life has she ever demonstrated simple competence?
Mark Warner. You heard it here first.
@Jeff, Mark barely got reelected running against a political unknown who ran an adequate but not inspiring campaign. Not at all clear he'd win his home state of Virginia if he goes for President in 2016
Apologists for he regime are so boring, Ann. Get a new schitck.
In answer to your question, "Why is this journalist unnamed?"
Possibly this journalist does not want his livelihood forfeit--or life turned upside down--over this article.
There are times to remain pseudonymous or anonymous under an oppressive government, or when one is in prospect.
Why assume impeachment is the only thing that could hurt her? I can imagine all sorts of embarrassing things that would cripple her as a president (thus achieving the goals of a foreign adversary) but that do not lead to impeachment or the threat of impeachment.
For example:
* Huma and Hillary are lovers and have some sappy, sapphic email exchanges. This makes her a laughingstock among some important Democratic coalition members, such as blacks and hispanics.
* There are more or less explicit pay-for-play favor discussions relating to the Clinton foundation leading to long legal battles.
* There are some exchanges that show her preparing explicit lies about, say, Benghazi.
From the standpoint of a foreign state adversary crippling a president would preferably not result in a quick impeachment. It's better to have an ineffectual president.
And, by the way, there doesn't have to be a threat by the adversary along the lines of "Do this or I publish." If they want her effectiveness as a president reduced while they're in the midst of doing something nefarious they can just do a document dump.
"Eric the Fruit Bat said...
My more prosaic explanation is that Hillary emailed a bunch of selfies to Anthony Weiner."
Since they haven't found Anthony huddling in the fetal position in the corner after gouging out his own eyes, or serving as a new statue in the backyard, I think we can discount that one.
SomeoneHasToSayIt: And you don't score debate points by simply pointing out the mote in the other guys eye, without looking at the log in your own.
Seems to me that's what you did - making a complaint about the existing system while while ignoring the problems with your proposed solution. All I did was point out the problems with your proposal, but I did not in any way deny the problem you had already pointed out with the current situation.
SomeoneHasToSayIt: So, I'll put you down for preferring that serious security risks like Hillary Clinton are welcome to the keys to the White House.
Not at all. I'd just prefer the people choose the president rather than the bureaucrats. And believe me, I've reached that preference after careful consideration of both sides.
Oh, and Ann - use "they" for your gender-nonspecific singular pronoun. It has a long tradition, as well.
I don't question why you assume it's a "he," I question why you stoop to ad hominem. The anonymity of the journalist is irrelevant to the value of the observations, which I find far more persuasive than your objections.
Is it really blackmail when the foreign government paying Hillary (through the "Foundation")?
There are some exchanges that show her preparing explicit lies about, say, Benghazi.
There could be video of Hillary! leading the assault on the Consulate and ranging the mortar fire on the Annex and she'd still start the general election with 40% of the vote.
I'd just prefer the people choose the president rather than the bureaucrats.
(word order pet peeve) The People choose the bureaucrats?
"Why is this journalist unnamed? "
This is why college professors shouldn't get tenure. You don't understand what it's like to lose your job by speaking your mind.
SeanF said...
SomeoneHasToSayIt: And you don't score debate points by simply pointing out the mote in the other guys eye, without looking at the log in your own.
Seems to me that's what you did - making a complaint about the existing system while while ignoring the problems with your proposed solution. All I did was point out the problems with your proposal, but I did not in any way deny the problem you had already pointed out with the current situation.
Just saw this. Let me extend my remarks and bring in the "let the people choose" thing, too.
I'm saying that IF the people continue to choose candidates that could not pass a security clearance, SOMETHING has to be done. The Fourth Estate is supposed to be making sure that the people are AWARE of when a candidate has those shortcomings. Since they are now completely in bed with the Liberals, this is not happening. So The People are choosing in ignorance. What do we do? Just cede the field to them? I'll say it again, if you cannot pass a Security Clearance background check, you ought to be enjoined from running for President. There has to be a way to enforce that.
SomeoneHasToSayIt: So, I'll put you down for preferring that serious security risks like Hillary Clinton are welcome to the keys to the White House.
Not at all. I'd just prefer the people choose the president rather than the bureaucrats. And believe me, I've reached that preference after careful consideration of both sides.
Pretty sure it not the typical "bureaucrats" that are in charge of Security Clearance. We haven't fallen THAT far. Yet.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा