You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

4
-1

[–] AlphaWookie 4 points -1 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.

0
7

[–] refugee610 0 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.

0
4

[–] E-werd 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'm with you. Clearance or not, she has no reason to be given anything because she doesn't hold a position.

This is the whole reason she can't be stuck with a crime or discipline, can't pin a crime because of intent and no discipline because she doesn't work in the departments in question.

3
-1

[–] AlphaWookie 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

Again you are wrong. Here this book is for you: http://www.booksamillion.com/p/Presidents-Book-Secrets/David-Priess/9781610395953 It is a historical run down on this issue about who gets this information and why.

If you choose to stay ignorant that is on you at this point. Willful ignorance is not a nice trait to embrace. I hope you choose not to keep acting like a mouth breather.