House Speaker Paul Ryan wants to bar Hillary Clinton from receiving classified briefings on the campaign trail after the director of the FBI announced Tuesday that the former secretary of state and her staff had been “extremely careless” in handling classified information via her private e-mail server.
“The DNI Clapper should deny Hillary Clinton access to classified information during this campaign given how she so recklessly handled classified information,” Ryan said at a press conference on the Hill with GOP House leadership. Ryan was referring to the classified briefings that candidates begin receiving after the conventions.
Ryan – who was on the GOP ticket in 2012 himself – said that there were still questions to be answered and that the House would continue to press further for information about why the FBI declined to recommend criminal charges against Clinton in the matter. The FBI director was invited to testify before the House Thursday.
Ryan said he was still looking to see if Congress could do anything to keep Clinton from classified information.
“I think that is something that the administration should do on its own,” Ryan said. “But we’ll look into seeing if that is something we can do as well.”
This might be a little smarter move, politically – put the focus on the “untrustworthy” thing. Of course, coming from a Congressman when Congress has such a dismal record of leaking classified stuff, it’s kind of rich. And it could also be seen as unwarranted and politically motivated.
The more one digs into the email controversy, I suspect, the less sympathetic one would be to Ryan’s move, here. It’s just too easy for people to remember their own email foibles.
So you’re alright with Donald Trump getting classified briefings but you want to bar Hillary Clinton from getting them. Wow
Nope. Her clearance would have to be revoked and she gets administrative and judicial reviews first. Congress has no control over it. It’s an Executive decision.
http://fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12968.html
Sec. 5.2. Review Proceedings for Denials or Revocations of Eligibility for Access.
(a) Applicants and employees who are determined to not meet the standards for access to classified information established in section 3.1 of this order shall be:
(1) provided as comprehensive and detailed a written explanation of the basis for that conclusion as the national security interests of the United States and other applicable law permit;
(2) provided within 30 days, upon request and to the extent the documents would be provided if requested under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) or the Privacy Act (3 U.S.C. 552a), as applicable, any documents, records, and reports upon which a denial or revocation is based;
(3) informed of their right to be represented by counsel or other representative at their own expense; to request any documents, records, and reports as described in section 5.2(a)(2) upon which a denial or revocation is based; and to request the entire investigative file, as permitted by the national security and other applicable law, which, if requested, shall be promptly provided prior to the time set for a written reply;
(4) provided a reasonable opportunity to reply in writing to, and to request a review of, the determination;
(5) provided written notice of and reasons for the results of the review, the identity of the deciding authority, and written notice of the right to appeal;
(6) provided an opportunity to appeal in writing to a high level panel, appointed by the agency head, which shall be comprised of at least three members, two of whom shall be selected from outside the security field. Decisions of the panel shall be in writing, and final except as provided in subsection (b) of this section; and
(7) provided an opportunity to appear personally and to present relevant documents, materials, and information at some point in the process before an adjudicative or other authority, other than the investigating entity, as determined by the agency head. A written summary or recording of such appearance shall be made part of the applicant’s or employee’s security record, unless such appearance occurs in the presence of the appeals panel described in subsection (a)(6) of this section.
Ryan said he was still looking to see if Congress could do anything to keep Clinton from classified information.
Good point - that comparison will inevitably be drawn.
I would also bet that, if they do hold hearings, in public, and Comey has to provide more details, it might really undermine the implication that Clinton was “careless” from a reasonable person point of view.
He says they found classified markings in “a few” email chains–which could mean one. How many of us have been added to a long email chain and responded without reading every email buried in the chain?
And he says Clinton “should have known” some of the material would be considered classified (possibly by other agencies). But he doesn’t say how she should have known – and if he really felt strongly about it, he would have made the case for culpable negligence, which, of course, he did not do.
Ryan may also be miscalculating, here: “untrustworthy” covers a lot of ground, and while some people may see her as a cold, calculating politician who doesn’t handle email well, they may still see her as trustworthy when it comes to keeping secrets. After all, if $200 million in investigations couldn’t uncover anything, she ought to be pretty good at not disclosing things she shouldn’t, no?