Image 01 Image 03

Harold Ford, Jr.—Sure, Hillary Could Still Get a Security Clearance

Harold Ford, Jr.—Sure, Hillary Could Still Get a Security Clearance

If I Were Attorney General, I’d Hire Her for a National Security Job, Says Ford

Trump surrogates have been accused of debasing themselves by supporting The Donald. But have any sunk so low as poor Harold Ford, Jr., the Hillary surrogate who humiliated himself today on national TV?

Appearing on With All Due Respect, former Dem congressman Ford, disagreed with Rudy Giuliani’s statement made earlier in the day that Hillary Clinton could not get a security clearance given FBI Director Comey’s conclusion that she acted “extremely carelessly” in the handling of classified material. When Ford claimed that if he were Attorney General, he would hire Hillary for a sensitive position involving national security, it seemed that host Mark Halperin could be heard, off camera, literally laughing in his face. Remind us never to hire Ford as Attorney General.

Harold Ford, Jr.- Hillary Could Still Get a Security Clearance from Mark Finkelstein on Vimeo.

So complete was Ford’s self-humiliation that he could not even keep a straight face. Ford came close to chuckling as he said that although he would hire Hillary for a sensitive security position, he would first have a “real serious conversation” with her. High standards, Harold! Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway stated the indisputable truth: “it is disqualifying; it’s poor judgement and it’s a deal-breaker and it will be for many voters.”

MARK HALPERIN: Harold, if someone who did what Hillary Clinton is said to have done by James Comey applied for a job at the State Department or the Justice Department that required a security clearance, could they get it?

HAROLD FORD, JR.: I would imagine so. I heard Mayor Giuliani, or heard that he made that comment. I’d have to take a look at the application in full but I don’t believe, under the standard that Mr. Comey laid out, she didn’t break, she didn’t violate any statute. He recommended to the FBI, the FBI recommended to the Justice Department that no action be taken. He made the point that in terms of administrative steps that might be taken, sure. But the answer to your question is no, I —

HALPERINk: Harold, we’ve got to go to break, but I just want to clarify. If you were Attorney General and someone applied for a job, a senior position that involved national security, that would not disqualify them in your judgment?

FORDL We’d have to have a very, we’d have a real serious conversation beforehand, but, no, it wouldn’t disqualify [Ford barely suppresses a smirk, Halperin can be heard laughing off camera.]

KELLYANNE CONWAY: It is disqualifying; it’s poor judgement and it’s a deal-breaker and it will be for many voters.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


DieJustAsHappy | July 6, 2016 at 8:42 am

I wonder if Ford thinks she could pass a lie detector test …

    Ragspierre in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | July 6, 2016 at 9:42 am

    Probably any Clinton can ace a lie detector test. Really pathological liars can tell a lie such that even they believe it, and they expect everyone else to believe it, too.

      DieJustAsHappy in reply to Ragspierre. | July 6, 2016 at 11:52 am

      The post was rather tongue-in-cheek. Your correct, though. She’s got millions flim-flammed with what appears to be little challenge, now, to her noxious narrative.

    david7134 in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | July 6, 2016 at 9:52 am

    A lie detector is a joke. There is no such device that can tell if a human is lying. The device is totally subjective to the human that administers the exam and the fact that the person receiving the exam does not know that the device is not able to detect a lie.

      TX-rifraph in reply to david7134. | July 6, 2016 at 12:19 pm

      A polygraph/lie detector is worse than that. Based on experience, I have seen lying psychopaths pass and honest people fail.

    Has a democrat ever told the truth? I’d bet Ford couldn’t pass a polygraph.

Humphrey's Executor | July 6, 2016 at 8:44 am

Some needs to ask Hillary: “If you becomes president, what will be your policy toward government employees found to have been careless with classified info?”

“Remind us never to hire Ford as Attorney General.”
I think Ford is now a lobbyist. So, no problem with him taking an AG job. Unless it it leads to bigger opportunities to profit from his insider status. Another great “public servant”.

Roger Simon has a good take on the Comey decision at Pj media I pretty much agree with.

I’d hire Hillary for a variation position. Treat her with deference, get her to believe it was a serious position, then feed her disinformation with the belief it was real Tell her you put her in the sensitive position on the understanding she’s learned her lesson & so would be hypersensitive over security.

It would all be hog crap of course but being as stupid as she is she’d buy it.

Turn her into the agency joke. With everyone in on it but her. A fitting fade out from life for a lifelong sociopath.

    Clinton is not a sociopath. A sociopath simply has no emotional connection with other people, but many sociopaths are perfectly capable of functioning within society. A psychopath, on the other hand, actively despises other people, and acts on that emotion. Clinton, by her actions and statements, has proven to be a major psychopath.

I have had a nagging thought. Did the lack of security by Hillary result in the deaths in Libya? Was this the real reason for the cover up of the incident and the lack of armed response, thus assuring that the lack of security was not seen?

So, quick check to see if I have everything straight.
She had access to classified material by way of a security clearance.
She had received training on how to handle classified materials many times over her career (a requirement for her security clearance).
She then placed that classified material onto an unclassified network to send to people who did NOT have the classification to access it, which is a double-violation of procedure and a violation of law UNLESS the transfer is inadvertent/accidental, i.e. she thought she was sending the information to somebody qualified to receive it by what she thought was a secured method, which is plainly not the case. (Said inadvertent leakage is not a crime, but still grounds for immediately revoking a security clearance)

The FBI director plainly laid out every single element of the above, and yet still says there is no basis for prosecution.

Conclusion: The rule of law is dead.

Is that about right?

Greg Toombs | July 6, 2016 at 11:08 am

Every Democrat speaking about Hillary in the MSM is interviewing for their next job in her administration. What else would they say?

buckeyeminuteman | July 6, 2016 at 11:57 am

Please review the State Department’s own guidelines for vetting individuals for a security clearance:


Guideline M: Use of Information Technology Systems

This is what we should be talking about. This is the the government’s own requirements for gaining a security clearance and also how to lose one.

If a possibly gay Muslim Democrat kills people in a night club, but we don’t know why, would a reasonable prosecutor file charges?

After all, can we really know if there was intent in that situation?

Lived in Memphis for 3 years. Ford and his whole family are crooks, I would not trust him to buy me a lottery ticket.