Hillary Clinton's Security Clearance Withdrawn At Her Request Amid Email Investigation

[Frank Underwood]

WASHINGTON - The State Department has withdrawn Hillary Clinton's security clearance at her request amid an ongoing review at the agency of the former secretary of state and her private email server.

A letter dated Sept. 21 to the leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and published Friday by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, states that Clinton's clearance was withdrawn on Aug. 30. It doesn't explain why Clinton requested the measure, but her clearance was pulled just days after President Donald Trump revoked the clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.

Trump also publicly threatened to revoke the clearances of other Obama-era officials, though Clinton was not on his list.

The letter also lists five Clinton aides whose security clearances were withdrawn in September. The names of the aides were redacted, except for Cheryl Mills, who served as Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department.

The State Department noted to Grassley and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the judiciary committee, that it was still examining all of the documents it received from the FBI after the bureau's investigation was completed.

After its review is complete the State Department said it will begin investigating whether there were any "valid security incidents" and whether Clinton or her staff broke any rules.

Clinton was investigated over her use of a private email server during her run for president against Trump. She used the email for business while she was secretary and handled classified information. The FBI closed its investigation and did not charge Clinton.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nton-security-clearance-withdrawn/1620250002/

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Fake news.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Fake news.

What's fake about it? I thought you said anything reported by the mainstream media was simply news. Other news outlets have reported on it as well.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

#witchhunt

 

[Frank Underwood]

#witchhunt

Fake News? witch hunt? This is Trump lingo, and we all know how pure and innocent he is.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

http://soapchat.net/search/25501011/?q=Hillary&t=post&o=date&g=1&c[title_only]=1&c[node]=26&c[user][0]=35

http://soapchat.net/search/25501128/?q=Clinton&o=date&c[title_only]=1&c[node]=26&c[user][0]=35

 

[Frank Underwood]

http://soapchat.net/search/25501011/?q=Hillary&t=post&o=date&g=1&c[title_only]=1&c[node]=26&c[user][0]=35

http://soapchat.net/search/25501128/?q=Clinton&o=date&c[title_only]=1&c[node]=26&c[user][0]=35

So I'm not supposed to post articles about her even when she's making headlines?

I'm reminded of this quote of your's in the Pence thread:

It's the news. What exactly is there to have a 'different opinion' about? Facts are facts. Unless, of course, you dispute the facts from reputable, mainstream sources. I, for one, don't subscribe to the Trump administration's alternative facts.

So tell me... Are you disputing the facts from alleged reputable, mainstream sources? Alternative facts indeed!

 

[SueEllenRules!]

But Hillary.

 

[Frank Underwood]

But Hillary.

And yet I've created far more threads recently criticizing Trump. But by all means, seize on all of the times I posted articles about Hillary that were published by the mainstream media!

I didn't even give an opinion or commentary, I just posted the article. I also recall posting about Trump's budget, only for you to make a "But Hillary" post of your own.

When people constantly tell you how horrible you are because you didn't vote for their chosen candidate, and that candidate was awful in her own right, you're going to point that out.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

That rotten b!tch Hillary.

 

[Frank Underwood]

That rotten b!tch Hillary.

I see. You're just going to overlook everything I say to keep your narrative going.

I supported Sanders and Stein, yet it's okay for you to hate them.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

Support Trump in 2020: Vote Third Party (Again)!

 

[Frank Underwood]

Support Trump in 2020: Vote Third Party (Again)!

Or how about the Dems not rig an election in favor of corrupt corporatist war monger instead of a progressive? That would keep me and many others from voting third party again.

It seemed to work out okay in 2008 and 2012. Not that it mattered, since he became one of them after he was elected. But I digress.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

The Green Party's 2 Biggest Achievements: 4 Years of Dubya & 4 Years of Trump. But At Least Gore and Clinton Got Screwed Over!

 

[Frank Underwood]

The Green Party's 2 Biggest Achievements: 4 Years of Dubya & 4 Years of Trump. But At Least Gore and Clinton Got Screwed Over!

If you value democracy like you say you do, then you wouldn't be against third parties. You may not like the outcome, but who said elections aren't messy?

If the two mainstream parties want our vote, they have to earn them. It's not about screwing over politicians, it's about those politicians screwing us.

And as for Dubya, many on the left who hated him are now embracing him. I find that pretty telling myself.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

blath·er
[ˈblaT͟Hər]
NOUN

1. long-winded talk with no real substance.
   synonyms: prattle · chatter · twitter · babble · talk · prating · gabble · jabber · blether · rambling · nonsense · rubbish · balderdash · gibberish · claptrap · yackety-yak · yabbering · yatter · rot · tripe · twaddle · hogwash · baloney · drivel · bilge · bosh · bull · bunk · guff · eyewash · piffle · poppycock · phooey · hooey · malarkey · dribble · wittering · nattering · chuntering · cobblers · codswallop · stuff and nonsense · tosh · cack · havers · garbage · flapdoodle · blathers · wack · bushwa · applesauce · bunkum · tommyrot · cod · gammon · toffee · clack · twattle

 

[Frank Underwood]

Let's face it; you're just looking for a fight. I upheld my promise to keep things civil, but I knew it was a matter of time before you resorted to your old tactic of hurling baseless insults.

I guess that means you have nothing of substance to say. God knows how triggered you get when I disagree with you and present an opposing view.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

I profoundly apologize to everyone who finds my pragmatism uncivil, insulting, and without substance. With the exception of Underwood, of course. As I've stated before, he earns no more and no less than everything he gets from me.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I profoundly apologize to everyone who finds my pragmatism uncivil, insulting, and without substance. With the exception of Underwood, of course, who as I've stated before, earns no more and no less than everything he gets from me.

Your lack of civility has nothing to do with your sense of pragmatism, as you well know. I was referring to you citing the definition of blather as opposed to responding with a valid argument. Apparently, all anybody has to do to "earn" what they get from you is refuse to be shamed for their vote, to challenge views they don't agree with, and to stand on principle.

I've chosen to take the high road this time and let you make the ad hominem attacks. I prefer to get my point across by making an actual counter argument.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Here's a video to brighten your day: