Nope. Just asking if such a public disclosure of a weakness would be wise, or politically advantageous. If you want to suggest that’s what I’m suggesting, that’s entirely your business, but I much prefer the words that come out of my mouth to originate there.
That said, I fully endorse the clarifications you have offered. I intend to work towards changing my mind to align with them. Ah! Well, that was easy, didn’t take any time at all!
You like words coming out of your mouth so much, I am surprised you’re picky about the origin at all.
OK…but after all the teeth-pulling to get you to finally read the article, you have no comment on it? Your previous posts suggested you would be quite troubled if she sent insecure emails concerning imminent drone strikes. Is that not what you meant to suggest?
You don’t have to read any of them. I’ll get over it.
Actually, I do. I was assigned 40 hours of Community Service. 
My suspicion, well founded or not, is that she afoul of that technicality mentioned in the article I cited.
To oversimplify, questioning and/or discussing the wisdom of the drone strike program is a far cry from “Maybe we should reconsider our scheduled attack on Ahmed Camelbugger, now set for next Tuesday morning at 9:30 am, Kabul time…”.
Oh, you poor dear! Lethal injection was not an option?
Yes, I realized that was your position three posts ago, which is why I expressly explained why you’d be wrong to think that.
Please.
You throw out something untrue to dismiss the letter. When exactly was William Binney “appointed”? Do some research.
Your reply proves you have never had a security clearance. Easy to throw that out here, but no way to prove it, is there? But since you claim you know the system “inside and out”, we all need to take your word.
Give me a break.
I have already clearly stated, more than once, that my opinions on this are not authoritative. Nor are they based on any exceptional level of expertise. Are yours? With all due awe, of course.
You’ll have to excuse him, he much prefers the words that go into his ears originate from his own mouth.
Ooh. Snap.
I’m not asking you to be an expert, or trying to appeal to my own expertise, elucidator. I’m asking you to read my posts before replying to them.
Obviously, whether you want to address my take on things is entirely your call. But if you’re going to address it, please take the time to read what I’ve written. I addressed your comments about the NBC News “diverging” narrative in Post #258.
I’m pretty mixed on this to be honest. On the one hand, having had a security clearance myself and having seen co-workers and peers who have screwed up on security get hammered, it’s a bit infuriating to see someone like Hillary get away with flaunting the rules. On the other hand, top officials, regardless of who they are, often do just that with little or no consequence, so the fact that Hillary did it too just shows the dual standards between the run of the mill grunts like me and my peers and co-workers and the upper echelons of our government wrt elected or appointed officials (or even very high level government workers). It sucks…but it’s the way things are.
This isn’t another manufactured scandal such as the wolf crying the Republicans have done over and over in the past decade or so, especially since Obama became president (but really since Clinton’s baby daddy war president)…it’s a real issue and it definitely shows that Hillary considers herself entitled and immune from the the rules that the ordinary grunts have to abide by (or lose their clearances and, usually, their jobs too). But there really is something to the ‘everyone does it’ meme wrt high level officials, so if we are going to hold her accountable we need to do so with everyone else as well (and I think we should).
That said, it hasn’t changed my own mind about voting for her in November. She is still, even despite this, the least bad choice and I decided to vote for her knowing full well that she had done this and knowing what the real world implications of what she did actually are, unfiltered by partisan politics I see so many in this thread displaying, one way or the other.
I think it’s pretty ridiculous to ask people if they have a security clearance, and then when someone says they do, but don’t share your opinion, you don’t believe them. I’m sure you could come up with a few simple questions to test someone’s knowledge of the security clearance system… like I might ask you: Describe what type of information would be classified above Top Secret?
You should be aware that at least three or four of the people who signed that letter have been convicted of mishandling classified information during the Obama Administration. Several have been very active in the anti-war movement. More than a couple are just outright loons, having made claims along the lines that the 9/11 attacks were a “false flag” operation. These aren’t impartial intelligence professionals sharing an unbiased view of national security; they are advocates for their own agendas. Which is totally fine, as long as people don’t mistake them for people without an agenda.
And this group doesn’t really have a terribly impressive record. In August 2010, they warned that an Israeli attack on Iran was only weeks away unless Obama publicly condemned such an attack, and accused Obama of being too trusting of Netanyahu. Considering the state of Obama-Netanyahu relations, the accusation that they are too close to either other is a real belly-laugher.
And a few years earlier, this group opined that a “cornered” George Bush had psychological problems that would cause him to attack Iran unless impeached. So, there’s that.
Please, since my reply has ‘proven’ that I’ve never had a clearance, do so. Prove it. Bring all your deep knowledge to bear.
It’s against the rules to accuse another poster of lying. Warning issued. Please don’t do it again.
A couple of points.
Regardless of whether or not Hillary broke the law, General Patraeus intentionally gave classified material to a woman he was having an affair with. He did not go to jail. So why should Hillary?
The FBI director is on record saying that he would resign rather than let anyone pressure him on this matter and everyone on both sides of the aisle seem to believe him (he has an impeccable reputation for professional integrity). The white house can no more hurry him than they can slow him down without causing severe damage to themselves. There are few things more damning than high level officials resigning in protest over the politicization of their agency.
I agree that this is Bernie’s only hope.
I don’t know where you live but security clearances are not really that hard to come by if you live in some parts of the country. Almost every IT professional in the greater DC area seems to have some sort of security clearance. A lot of the stuff is entirely uninteresting to anyone but is classified because its easier to explain an overabundance of caution than missing something that ought to have been classified.
I hear stories about publicly available information being stamped classified because its in a file where there are one or two items that should be classified.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
I don’t know where you live but security clearances are not really that hard to come by if you live in some parts of the country.
[/QUOTE]
Or served in the military.
crypto seems to be laboring under the assumption that the mere fact of claiming a clearance is by definition disclosing classified information. He is wrong, of course, but he thinks he ‘got me.’
Makes me wonder why he asked the question in the first place, if that is what he thinks.