Friday, August 5, 2016

Will the Inspector General Have the Courage and Integrity to Revoke Clinton's Clearances?

Anyone looking at Section K of State Department guidelines listing offenses regarding the handling of protected State Department information will come to the same inescapable conclusion -- Hillary Clinton blatantly and intentionally and willfully for the sake of her own convenience and to keep hidden from public view things she was doing she did not want the public to see, violated 5 specific guidelines that would lead to the revocation of any State Department employee's security clearances. Any one of them would have an employee's security clearances revoked. Clinton violated five.

There is  also  a separate section called "The Adjudication Process" which lays out guidelines for what the adjudicator can take into consideration when determining whether an individual who violated any of the guidelines should have their clearances revoked.

Included in the guidelines are three "mitigating circumstances" that an adjudicator can apply to a case. Hillary Clinton would not qualify for any of those mitigating circumstances. In fact her conduct and behavior could be concluded to be not mitigating, but aggravating circumstances and behavior.

The guidelines and violations committed by Clinton are so specific to her own conduct someone reading them would think they were written by Trey Gowdy the Republican Chair of the Benghazi Committee yesterday just to nail her. But they weren't. They have been in place since 2006 and Clinton was briefed on all of them when she became Secretary of State and even signed a pledge to uphold them and to see that others do too.

Clinton's violations are so egregious and specific they are beyond debate. And while Clinton once again was caught lying in an interview with Fox's Chris Wallace trying to claim that James Comey said she had told the truth to the American people when he said no such thing and it had already been concluded by the Inspector General that she had lied repeatedly to the American people about her server, what Comey did say was that anyone who did the things Clinton did, while he didn't believe was enough to send her to prison, was enough to face serious sanctions regarding her security clearances.

So the FBI Director is on record after a yearlong investigation as saying that Clinton did enough to warrant sanctions levied against her on her security clearances.

But that is not in Comey's hands as FBI Director. Its in the hands of the State Department Inspector General. And as a Democratic appointee one can only imagine the pressure being put on him now and how he is being told by almost everyone around him that he just cant do it -- he cant revoke her clearances no matter how clear and serious her violations are and be responsible for throwing the presidential election into unprecedented chaos. Not to mention becoming persona non grata in the Democratic party (as if given their unprecedented fraud, rigging, lying and fixing the nomination for Clinton that would matter to anyone with integrity).

One can almost hear the people around him telling him he just cant do it, to look the other way,how it will ruin his career, how he will turn the entire election and presidential campaign on its head, how it would change history and he'd be responsible because Clinton could no longer run because, you know, you cant have a president who is barred from looking at classified and Top Secret intelligence. Though to hear and read the justifications and rationalizations of some of her supporters despite her serial lying, rigging of the nomination process and violating national security guidelines,there are Clinton supporters who would vote for her even if it meant her having to wear an ankle monitor in the White House.

But as Secretary of State,which makes her top management, her violations are that much more egregious.It was her responsibility to make sure others adhered to security guidelines yet she was the worst and most willful offender.So much so that had she not been a presidential candidate or nominee her clearances would have been revoked by now.

There is also little doubt that someone connected to the Clinton campaign or a congressional Democrat has gotten a message through to the Inspector General that if he keeps his mouth shut and Clinton wins there is a nice big fat job in her administration waiting for him. Its called a bribe and thats how Washington works. And there is little doubt the bribe offer has been made because there is no doubt Clinton deserves to have her clearances revoked.

All anyone has to do is look at Section K, and look at items b,c,g,h,i and see that Clinton's violations are open and shut. Even Bill Clinton couldn't argue that she didn't violate every one of them.  Then read the "mitigating circumstances" below the itemized list and its clear there are no mitigating factors that apply to Hillary Clinton. To further understand the adjudication process one can scroll to the top of the guideline section and read them.

As for item "i:, no its not piling on as any one of Clinton's violations would be enough to disqualify her from keeping her security clearances and even four are more than bad enough. But "i" still applies. Comey could not say whether she was hacked or not, only that there were two attempts. He couldn't confirm one way or the other whether any documents were stolen or seen by hackers. So why does that make Clinton subject to violating item "i" along with the four others? Because the guidelines for the Adjudication Process has a sentence that makes clear that if there is any doubt regarding a person's fitness or any doubt as to whether a violation has been committed "the doubt is to be resolved in favor of National Security".The person does not get the benefit of the doubt, national security does.

It is for people to read Section K themselves with attention to items b,c,g,h,i, and then the 3 mitigating circumstances listed under, to decide for themselves if Clinton's violations were so clear, irrefutable, and indefensible that if it had been even a slightly lower but still high level State Department  employee their security clearances would have been revoked before now.

Add the aggravating circumstances related to Clinton's lack of character as per the guidelines, her personal responses, her  repeated and continued public lying and her high position  as head of the department, all factors in the evaluation process with the Inspector General already on the record pointing out that Clinton lied repeatedly to the public when she said that her private server had been approved, and there are no mitigating circumstances to save Clinton.

Clinton's server was not only never approved Clinton never even sought approval and had she the Inspector General said it would have been denied. Which is exactly why Clinton did not seek approval and went ahead and violated State Department and National Security guidelines anyway. Because she wanted to. And knew her server would not be approved. And thought she could get away with it.

Then add her refusal to cooperate with the Inspector General investigation and it makes clear no mitigating circumstances apply and all her character evaluations mitigate against Clinton and in fact are aggravating circumstances that would lead to anyone's national security clearances being revoked.

FBI Director Comey thought they should be. It will be up to the Inspector General and how much integrity and backbone he has as to stand up to an already exposed corrupt Democratic party as to whether he will do what is right and live up to his commitment to State Department rules and regulations on national security and do what James Comey said to Congress he would do if Comey was in his shoes.


Grung_e_Gene said...

Maybe the 2nd Amendment People can do it?

Anonymous said...

Read the fine print: intention. If you "misuse" classified information (read: with the intent to embarrass the Corporation), then they will throw the book at you. The country's interests are usually not the Corporation's.