Posted on 07/07/2016 11:47:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
The president of the United States is the quintessential keeper of the nation’s top secrets. He or she must have constant access to the most sensitive and classified information gathered by the country’s intelligence resources in order to carry out the primary duty of any president: To protect the nation.
But what if the government determines that the new president is untrustworthy and, therefore, unsuitable to safeguard the nation’s most closely guarded secrets? What if the commander-in-chief has a proven record of being “extremely careless” in mishandling classified information? And lied about it repeatedly? Would the government be justified in revoking or denying the president’s access to any and all classified data?
If this were to happen, the president would be unable to function. Critical decisions on national security could not be made without access to vital information. In short, American lives would be placed in jeopardy.
So, is this is a reasonable or remote scenario if Hillary Clinton is elected president? Let’s consider the evidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Presidents grant security clearances, therefore the question is nonsensical.
I think the President has executive power and can circumvent security clearances
Stop with the teasing. The fix is in, just as before. Are we tired of being played yet?
Considered the evidence. She should NEVER be elected to any gov’t. office.
Yes you are correct hence all those rappers and rapist that hang with the current potus
Kabuki. This is all being done to help hillary. See those evil republicans all they want to do is attack hillary. She did nothing wrong the dems will say.
What an idiotic question. Like anyone who is president, let alone Hillary, would maintain a revoked clearance.
Could Barack Obama get a security clearance if he wasn’t president?
That is to say, the present office holder would not pass muster under that same microscope.
Seems like American lives were placed in jeopardy because she had access to "vital information."
Stupid question. President automatically gets clearances, whichever ones he or she wants. Abdullabama has clearances, so getting clearances means NOTHING anymore.
Could she? I don’t know. Should she? HELL no!
That is a CLEAR violation of law, with FELONY penalties.
But Comey FAILED to recommend indictment. PR*CK!!
As president she can grant herself absolute immunity from all crimes or violations of law or the constitution.
What a bunch of Bologna who are the most security risks Obama or the Clinton’s, I’d say equal treasonous insane dipshi*s.
Just her hiring and keeping close by her side the Muslim Brotherhood employee, Huma Abedin, the daugher of high ranking Muslim Brotherhood parents and a Muslim Brotherhood brother, all of whom have spent their lives strategizing the long term ways to insinuate the Muslim Brotherhood into the seat of power in order to reestablish a worldwide Islamic Caliphate is reason enough to disqualify Hillary Clinton from any and all government service ever again. This outrageous fact should be an entirely different avenue of federal legal investigation. Huma answers Hillary’s phone calls, so knows them all and influences them all, and oversees her emails. Twenty years of this!
Yes, the whole thing is political show, and nothing more. There is no one scintilla worth of seriousness in the whole charade.
The “government” can’t deny a president a security clearance. He is the executive.
For example, Obama as a doper and with his terror and subversive connections and Chicago homosexuality and trips to Pakistan could have never qualified for one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.