[–] refugee610 0 points 15 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago
Sounds sensible seeing as she's proven that she can't be trusted to keep it safe.
[–] AlphaWookie 4 points -1 points 3 points (+3|-4) ago
That is not how the statutes are written. You have to ignore the bulk of history post WWII to come to that conclusion.
[–] refugee610 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
She ain't president yet so there's no reason for her to be given any insight into classified material. If she were still Sec. of State she'd have had her clearance administratively removed (as the FBI director said) but since she's not technically in government right now there wasn't anything they could do to her - that doesn't mean she needs to be read in.
[–] nomenimion 4 points 0 points 4 points (+4|-4) ago
This is silly. You either prosecute her, or you don't.
[–] EarthGleaner 1 point 9 points 10 points (+10|-1) ago (edited ago)
Exactly. Ryan is basically saying, " Ok, we will let all of your past crimes slide, but you can't do it again.."
Which in itself is an admission of her guilt!
[–] SpaceLizard 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
It's not silly. You don't need to be prosecuted to lose access to classified material. When obtaining or holding a security clearance you have to go through security reviews, where small things like being in debt can cause you to fail. What Clinton has done should cause her to lose her clearance.