No, Connies - Hillary is not going to have her security clearance revoked

But the ever over-reaching GOPpers are going to try.

They introduced a bill, called the TRUST Act:

"Today U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) joined Senator Core Gardner (R-CO) and Senator Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) to introduce legislation aimed at revoking the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security clearance."
Sen. Tim Scott joins group aimed at revoking Clinton's security clearance | WCIV

“If the FBI won’t recommend action based on its findings, Congress will. At the very least, Secretary Clinton should not have access to classified information and our bill makes sure of it,” Gardner said in a statement.

Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance | TheHill

Now, five points to the first person who can tell us why this bill

1) will never pass
2) wouldn't affect Hillary
3) is unconstitutional

 

Shills are gonna shill.^^^^

 

Republicans are such a disgrace. Of course this is going to fail. Just like everything else they do.

 

they take away clearances from people who fail those polygraph tests due to general anxiety, this is hypocritical.

 

Well of course they can't revoke Hillary Clinton's security clearance. Otherwise she couldn't do her job as President.

If her security clearance was revoked there would be no use in voting for Hillary.

 

Hillary has proven to be high risk with national security.

You can say she shouldn't have gone to jail because other people (underlings) wouldn't have gone to jail for what she did. That is a legitimate debate. But it's universally accepted that if anyone else had done what she did, they would have been fired or (at a minimum) lost their security clearance.

 

Sorry...that's just stupid

 

Chaffetz: "Did Hillary Clinton break the law?"

Comey: In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not."

 

Technically at this time she shouldn't have a security clearance anyway. She's not in the government employ.
She's just a housewife.

 

Like every other former Secretary of State - she has a security clearance.

You lose.

 

Listening to Comey she cant do it anyway. Shes not sophisticated enough. Plus she is sloppy with top secret materials.

 

Were she anyone else other than Hillary Clinton she would already be under indictment. Were she anyone under Hillary Clinton the Bill would have been unecessary because such clearance would already have been revoked.

 

A Bill of Attainder is unConstitutional.

 

Attainder? I hardly even knew her!

 

Do I get my 5 points?

 

Mind telling me why people who have been extremely careless with classified material should keep their clearance?

- - - Updated - - -

No its a general law. Hillary is not more will she ever be the only person found your have been extremely careless with classified material.

 

No we all lose.

 

Perhaps another translation?

This one didn't work.

 

Yes libbies, the proposed bill that Paul Ryan was discussing the other day is legal. It was to prevent Clinton from security briefings during the election campaign season, NOT after she possibly would become president. As others have said and FBI director said, her actions were "extremely careless" and would result in administrative action at minimum but she's no longer employed by the government. And shouldn't be IMO.

It won't pass BECAUSE neither party has the required 60 votes for cloture in the Senate. That means to stop debate and vote for or against the bill for you libbies. Frankly, no one in their right mind would vote her after her lies, coverups, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Steve

 

It is a violation of the Constitution.

Why are these elected officials not being impeached for violating their oath to uphold the constitution?

- - - Updated - - -

BZZZZT Wrong!

She is the Dem party Candidate for POTUS and is entitled to presidential briefings hence the security clearance.

- - - Updated - - -

A bill of this nature is unconstitutional.

 

That's obvious. Hilary will never have her security clearance revoked or denied. She is in the Ruling Class, the laws do not apply to her.

 

So technically is about half the stuff the government does today but that doesn't seem to bother you. By the way it isn't, ex presidents lose much of their security clearance why should an ex secretary of state not lose her especially when she has shown utter incompetence at the very least in dealing with confidential material and complete disregard for a whole host of transparency rules..

 

It's such a transparant gesture too.

This sort of things is one of the reasons why they're stuck with Donald Trump as a Presidential candidate. Pandering to knuckle draggers will get you to the bottom of teh barrel eventually.

 

I feel that it would be unconstitutional but your point about cloture only goes to show the pointlessness of Paul RINO and his feckless and useless leadership as speaker. The guy is ineffective. Stupid empty gestures by the GOP are no substitute for actual leadership.

 

Easy on Ryan. He's going to be the 2020 GOP candidate for Prez.