https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...ndal.html#newcomment

About time.

There is NOTHING Honorable about Diane Feinstein....

About fuckin' time.

Not very reassuring that something so obvious and necessary took this long.

It says, "At her request" the clearance was removed.

My question is, why did she request it. There must be some benefit. No more investigations? Just struck me as odd.

Winning.



Again.

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:
It says, "At her request" the clearance was removed.

My question is, why did she request it. There must be some benefit. No more investigations? Just struck me as odd.

My guess is it was similar to: "Either you can resign or we will fire you"

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:
...

My guess is it was similar to: "Either you can resign or we will fire you"

Fired from what?

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:
...

My guess is it was similar to: "Either you can resign or we will fire you"

Fired from what?

I said it was similar to that phrase or it could have been turn it in or we will take it. Sorry for the confusion and it is just a wag on my part.

I guess I’m wondering why she would be making such a request. Maybe, more importantly, what is it she doing that it would be to her advantage to be able to say “I don’t have access!”? There a lot we don’t know about what she’s up to other than lately she’s making a lot of “resistance” noise. I don’t trust her.

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
My guess is it was similar to: "Either you can resign or we will fire you"

Fired from what?

From a very large canon, it is to be hoped.

I am guessing if you ask for it to be withdrawn it is much easier to get back later than if it was taken away.

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:
It says, "At her request" the clearance was removed.

My question is, why did she request it. There must be some benefit. No more investigations? Just struck me as odd.

Some good discussion around that in the 'comment' section of this article in The Conservative Treehouse.

Here's one of the 'comments' -

"Ok, here is what I think happened.

She pulled it herself before the Security Incident was initiated so it wouldn’t LOOK detrimental to her and her subordinates. Once a Security Incident is initiated (of which Obama held off on), a Security Review has to take place and ALL associated Security Clearances are suspended or revoked pending the investigation. She pulled it first so it doesn’t go on her file and (technically) she wouldn’t be able to get it back and would keep her from running for federal office again.

However, this way, if she runs for president and wins, there is not a Security Violation on her record of it being REVOKED as a security threat. Its a weasel move and also is telling about her future presidential aspirations.

She pulled it herself so they couldn’t REVOKE it permanently.

I have a little knowledge about TS/SCI, SF86’s, Security Incidents and Background Investigations.

Although this explanation is not exact, I think it gets the point across.
Hillary, Bill and the Obama’s all did something similar with their law licenses."
__________

There are other letters that need to be considered in an attempt to understand what is going on.

Sen Grassley sent the State Dept a letter in 30 Mar 2017. He asked multiple questions which the State Dept responded to in a letter dated 23 May 2017.

That letter is found here:

https://www.judiciary.senate.g...gation)_Redacted.pdf

From the 23 May 2017 letter we can see the Grassley questions and the State Dept answers:







A few surprises in the State Dept responses. They didn’t have any reaction to Comey’s testimony about Clinton being careless. They didn’t even start their review as a result of the FBI investigation. They say their review was part of the State Dept ongoing oversight efforts.

Also in the 23 May letter, the State Dept says that a “security infraction” is an incident where it is not reasonably expected to result in unauthorized disclosure, while a “security violation” is an incident judged to be reasonably expected to result in unauthorized disclosure.

Now consider the OP 21 Sep 2018 letter from State Dept.

There is an ongoing administrative review of Clinton and “current and former” State Dept officials.

They have received tens of thousands of documents to review. A subset of those contained classified information. Those incidents were forwarded to the Diplomatic Security Office (DS/PSS). Valid incidents are considered about eligibility for access to classified info.

The State Dept Bureau of Administration will determine if there are valid security incidents.

During this process, the people who may have committed violations are given an opportunity to provide feedback.

Now with all that as background, one can speculate on what “administratively withdrawn” means. I would guess there are some concerns that are considered serious and this is an interim step. The letter clearly states the ongoing administrative review is not complete yet.

There is nothing more “Deep State”, than our State Department. That agency should be cleaned out, deep and wide.

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
I guess I’m wondering why she would be making such a request. Maybe, more importantly, what is it she doing that it would be to her advantage to be able to say “I don’t have access!”? There a lot we don’t know about what she’s up to other than lately she’s making a lot of “resistance” noise. I don’t trust her.

Probably because she has enough stooges in place to do the dirty work for her. And if there is a slip up she can point the finger at them and claim her hands to be clean.