Fournier, in what must be the nine millionth column he has written emailBenghaziVinceFosterPaulaJonesWhoKilledRogerRabbitGate, gives up the game:
Know this: Government officials have been convicted of mishandling unmarked classified material. And this: The fact is, any chain of events or excuses that led to the disclosure of these documents begins with Clinton’s decision to go rogue with government email.
This is her fault, all of it.
Including her no-win situation. If the FBI is able to recover deleted email from her server, it’s almost certain that more classified documents will be discovered (given what has already been found in the tiny sample size). That would raise more questions about her judgment.
Furthermore, a thorough autopsy of the deleted email might lead to details about other embarrassing topics, such as Benghazi (a GOP fetish), or the intersection of Clinton Foundation donors and State Department business (“Follow the money,” a Democrat close to Clinton told me in March). Though this is pure speculation, her closest allies worry about what might be found.
And that is what this is all about.
JPL
I report you decide….
Though this is pure speculation.
Our media at work.
In the olden days we had what was called news media. That is no longer the case.
debbie
@JPL:
Exactly!
By the way, where’s Issa been?
SRW1
If the FBI is able to recover deleted email from her server, it’s almost certain that more classified documents will be discovered (given what has already been found in the tiny sample size). That would raise more questions about her judgment.
Furthermore, a thorough autopsy of the deleted email might lead to details about other embarrassing topics, such as Benghazi (a GOP fetish), or the intersection of Clinton Foundation donors and State Department business (“Follow the money,” a Democrat close to Clinton told me in March). Though this is pure speculation, her closest allies worry about what might be found.
Without further comment.
rea
Government officials have been convicted of mishandling unmarked classified material.
I don’t think that’s true in connection with Benghazi. It’s true in the abstract, but requires a lot more misconduct than just mishandling material that later was classified. And of course, the material on HRC’s server was not classified at the time, but later, investigators concluded that some of it should have been classified. And also, of course, HRC’s only real sin was not changing the policies about use of personal e-mail followed by her predecessors.
WaterGirl
Be still, my beating heart. I saw the title “Fournier Gives Up the Game” and for just a second I thought you meant that Fournier was quitting. Hallelujah!!!
Then I realized that was not what you meant. :: sigh ::
japa21
The mere fact he talked about going rogue gives up the game. Clinton did what every SOS before her did. She hardly went rogue. Of course, if he had actually been a journalist, he would have brought that up.
Now, if in fact some of the things he is speculating about does come to the fore, it will not look good and probably bring Biden into the primaries if he hasn’t already decided to run by that time.
debbie
@rea:
Tell that to Scooter.
Jack the Second
Oh no. If only there were other qualified, sane, electable Democrats who could run in the off case something does crop up.
rea
@debbie: where’s Issa been?
Probably off stealing cars and shooting up watermellons.
japa21
Btw, Fournier is what might be called a hack’s hack. He makes others actually look semi-professional.
Ruckus
And angels might fly out my ass. It could happen!
Uncle Cosmo
Ron “This is pure speculation” Fumier. Says it all.
japa21
@debbie: IIRC, Scooter was convicted of perjury, not mishandling of classified material.
Karl Rove
Dear Ron,
Keep up the good fight!
-Karl
redshirt
This is a surprise?
GASP! A major media figure has it out for Hillary Clinton?!?!?
Shocker.
WJS
I’m loving this. As Secretary of State, Clinton was the classification authority for everything she handled. This is why the Clinton camp is not losing their mud over this. She was not some underling who took her work home with her in her socks. She was responsible for handling classified material and then telling people what was, and what was not, classifiable. That material was on a server guarded and protected by the Secret Service.
The fact that Fournier doesn’t understand this makes it yet another example as to how the Clinton camp is letting these people string themselves out over nothing.
Does anyone think that, finally, at long last, a Clinton will be frog-marched off to jail for something a conservative hack thinks is a scandal?
Jeffro
I love this part:
Isn’t that nice of him, to be concerned about HRC “win[ning] this ugly”? Hoping she would “…be an aspirational, transformational leader”? What a guy.
JMG
Over at The Upshot, Nate Cohn just posted a piece explaining that Bernie and Joe still pose little danger to Clinton, but that she could lose the general election. Final paragraph includes the phrases, “the possibility that the investigations will take a new turn cannot be ruled out. That’s the real danger for Ms. Clinton.”
I suppose it wouldn’t have been prudent for Cohn to write, “the possibility that this newspaper will make up another story about Hillary cannot be ruled out.”
stardus614
Same quality of “journalism” as:
If we can uncover Fournier’s “missing” photos, we might learn the truth about his rumored close (and some say loving) relationships with barn animals. “Though this is pure speculation, [his] closest allies worry about what might be found.”
boatboy_srq
… so, we should expect our diligent Congresscritters to dive into the forged and fraudulent intelligence material that supported Gulf War 2? Because that’s at least as extralegal as the current tempest-in-a-teapot.
Not holding my breath.
schrodinger's cat
I did not even know that Ron Fournier existed before I started reading Balloon Juice. Ignorance truly is blissful in some cases.
schrodinger's cat
@JMG: Is Nate Cohn, NYT’s new low rent Nate Silver?
Jeffro
I can’t decide: red or blue megaphones in all my family members’ stockings this year?
shop.donaldjtrump.com/category-s/114.htm
CONGRATULATIONS!
At least for the last week, the NYT and WaPo have been running non-stop Hillary hit pieces. Even my wife, who is normally absolutely oblivious to national politics, asked me “what is up with all these stories about Hillary?”
Rodent copulation is what’s up, honey.
Another Holocene Human
@schrodinger’s cat: Indeed.
BruceFromOhio
What an asshole.
@SRW1: When I re-read it after the ‘pure speculation’ quip, those just jumped off the page. Using those rules, I can paint quite the portrait of any of the candidates, and publish it as news! Profit!
BR
@WJS:
Interesting point.
I do wonder why the Clintons don’t mind or sometimes even encourage these sorts of stories. I wonder if they just like being in a political fight?
boatboy_srq
@Jeffro: Y’know, that’s the best endorsement of Sanders that Fournier could have written. (We don’t seriously expect that he’ll find “an aspirational, transformational leader” who’s not b#ths!t-crazy amongst the GOTea, do we?)
kindness
There is an excellent reason National Journal doesn’t allow comments.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Such lofty rhetoric for “cut Social Security, raise the Medicare eligibility age and turn foreign policy over to my Daddy I mean Senator McCain”
Another Holocene Human
@Jeffro: I had to read that a couple of times. Not inspirational. Aspirational. Not “ask what you can do for your country” but “I wonder who tailors her suits.”
BruceFromOhio
Almost forgot about this one, courtesy of bspencer at LGM:
Jeffro
@boatboy_srq:
I’m sure that’s exactly the 2-birds, 1-stone that was intended here: knock Hillary and leave “[in]spirational, transformational…” hanging there. As if he cares about the Democratic Party having someone ‘transformational’ on the ticket!
WJS
@BR: It keeps people from looking at the real scandal, which is the fact that Hillary Clinton wasn’t EVEN BORN IN AMERICA!!! OMG!!!
Jeffro
This is also classic misdirection posing as thoughtful criticism: “Millenials…we know you lean Dem…and you know, not to pull you away from them (it’s your choice) but how could you support a campaign that’s so last century, so lacking in purpose?”
As if, even if it were true, that has anything to do with her email habits??
Matt McIrvin
@Jeffro: (quoting Fournier)
I thought we were supposed to be upset about how that hopey-changey thing worked out for us.
boatboy_srq
@Jeffro: Not so sure of that. Fournier doesn’t seem sufficiently aware that “aspirational, transformational” does not explicitly translate to “taking Ahmurrca back”. Although if he DID intend to sotto voce endorse Sanders that line does work.
@Matt McIrvin: “Hope” and “change” are for Libruls. The GOTea aspires to transform Ahmurrca into what they believe is the Great and Powerful
OzNation thatonly exists in their fever dreamsThis Great Nation used to be. So no, not really, no.Davis X. Machina
@schrodinger’s cat: You mean “Former McCain White House press secretary Ron Fournier…”
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Davis X. Machina: that was only aspirational
Marmot
@JPL:
Haha! Ha.
It was never the case. The media just find innovative new ways to disappoint.
Ian
@Jeffro:
No millenials are reading him other than through here and other blogs that mock.
dedc79
John, you left out the best part: “Even people like me who have known and respected Clinton for years will walk into the voting booth asking ourselves, “What is she hiding?”
Frankensteinbeck
Well, yeah. Conservatives think Obama deliberately let the diplomats die, but that was long ago. Now it’s just spiteful digging through trash cans, like Whitewater.
@BR:
They know it can’t be stopped. The press has been howling for Clinton blood for nearly 24 years, and nobody gives a fuck but the press.
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
No, no. That’s what Leadership means when you’re already in power. The important phrase here is ‘But why win this ugly?’ What he means is ‘Let us win.’ Democrats are supposed to be wimpy idealists who always lose.
J R in WV
So when Fournier says in his first sentence is quasi true: “Know this: Government officials have been convicted of mishandling unmarked classified material. ” But he doesn’t leave the small truth there at all. He goes on to create a colossal untruth.
He turns the whole story into an open obvious lie with his very next sentence:
Because no one has been accused of mishandling classified information related to Libya at all, must less convicted. As discussed above, Hillary Clinton herself was head of the State Department, and would decide herself what was secret, how secret, and when.
No doubt this fact makes Ron Fourflusher Fournier feefees throb
with agony, as it means it would be difficult to even accuse Ms Clinton of wrong doing with regard to the Secret Service-protected servers in her home office, or the mail processed by the servers. Seeing criminal accusations or convictions doesn’t seem to me to be in the cards, no matter what the helpless Fourflusher Fournier has to say about it.
He pretended to be a journalist at one point in his career, but has obviously given that up to take up writing absurd opinion columns much like historical creatures like Father Coughlin, who used the radio in the 1930s. The good Father opposed FDR and thought Hitler was a blessed God-send to Europe.
Fournier thinks President Obama is anti-American, no doubt because of his mixed race and his identification as a Democratic leader. How one can accuse a man risking his life whenever he appears in public to lead the nation of hating America I don’t know. It is crazy on the face.
People call the President a “gutless coward” although he is obviously the bravest man to ever hold the presidency in the face of extreme hatred for his person, his race and his politics. Those who hide behind ‘nyms to call President Obama such vile names don’t have a shred as much honesty and bravery as the President does, which seems obvious to me.
I guess when Fournier picks a Republican to back for the presidency we’ll automatically go Godwin, given his emulation of the good Father Coughlin and Coughlin’s fawning over the dictators on Europe in the 1930s.
Tom Q
It’s clear the GOP and all its lackeys in the press think Hillary Clinton is an existential threat to their chances of winning the White House next year, and they feel their best hope is to con Dem primary voters into not choosing her. The Sanders campaign — the campaign itself, not his most rabid supporters — has so far admirably resisted making common cause with this “slime her daily with unproven accusations” strategy (unlike Bill Bradley in 2000, who did enough “Al, you’re a big fat liar” to lay groundwork for the Fall Republican/press campaign). But they’re going to keep it up until the nomination is settled, hoping to freak out enough Dems — getting them thinking “all this smoke, maybe there’s fire” — that it makes Hillary less a consensus party candidate even if she does carry the day.
Fortunately, anyone named Clinton is very familiar with this “try to embarrass them out of the race” — it was pulled on Bill at various points in ’92, and of course during the Starr inquisition — so we know they have the fortitude to hold on, even while some supporters go wobbly.
Kay
Democrats are nervous about it in this county, though, I must say and this county could rightly be described as VERY pro-Clinton. It’s actual “Party people”- county chair, precinct people. It kind of gets in the air and rattles them a little, I think, because they’ve been Democrats a long time and they remember the investigations. They’re older, don’t read blogs, and they get all their political news from newspapers or cable tv. I haven’t said anything in response to what is general skittishness because I don’t understand this whole thing and frankly, classified/unclassified/email/servers bores the hell out of me.
Adam L Silverman
@WJS: WJS,
While you’re correct that as Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton was the ultimate adjudicator of classification at the State Department, this is actually about something else.The issue, once you actually get into the media reports, is that one of the intelligence agencies believes that emails that were unclassified at the time Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State should now be marked classified. They are now in a dispute with the State Department as to whether that should happen and the Department of Justice has been caught in the middle in this fight between two different agencies. This is not really news – classification can change over time for a variety of reasons. The baseline rule of thumb is: does taking one or more pieces of otherwise unclassified information and combining them or explaining them in such a way create a need to protect the results of that combination and/or explanation from dissemination. Another constant problem is people taking other people’s finished products and deciding they should be either classified, without contacting the original producers, thereby creating a technical infraction or simply hanging someone else’s unclassified work on a classified server because there’s more bandwidth and more people at that agency, command, unit, etc will be able to access it. I’ve had this happen to my unclassified work. In Iraq my teammates and I were able to get, from an Iraqi official, the lists of everyone getting the government offered public distribution packages. Since the information contains family name, tribal designator, place of origin, etc, it was very helpful in trying to figure out if there were specific patterns to the internally displaced person problem that had arisen in Iraq, as well as identifying which families and tribes were in which areas that we couldn’t get to. We worked with our translators, got everything in English, and then put everything into spreadsheets. We tried, several times, to send these back to our reach back support folks so they could do more intensive analysis than we had time to do while deployed and so they could do a simple blast email back to every other team so that the Corps HQ, each Division HQ, and each BCT or RCT in Iraq had the info. There was so little unclassified bandwidth that it was impossible to transmit the stuff. So we moved it, via CD ROM, to the classified side and sent it back – it still took 20 consecutive emails. Once received back in the US, despite an accompanying email explaining what this information was, where we got it, and that we’d been unable to get it across because of limited unclassified bandwidth, the security officer decided that it was all classified because we hadn’t labeled each spreadsheet and each scanned in page of the original Iraqi data that was in Arabic as UNCLASSIFIED. From that point on, after discussing it with my BCT’s officer in charge of intel, I started marking, unless I had a specific operational reason not to, as UNCLASSIFIED.
patrick II
If the FBI is actually pulling emails that Hillary had meant to delete — that does give me worry about her server’s security. I would guess half of the people who read this post know how to run “clean” programs that write over unused data area multiple times to make it unreadable.
geg6
The really crazy thing is that, if Fournier’s motive (as I suspect it is) is to make lightly attached Hillary supporters go wobbly enough that whatever crazed GOPer is nominated might have a slightly better chance of beating her, he’s doing the exact opposite.
I, for one, have no significant ties to Hillary. I supported Obama from before Day 1 of his first campaign for president, so I even have some residual resentment of the primary campaign she ran back in 2008. Bernie’s policy positions tickle more of my own policy preference fancies (though I’m just not that taken with him as a candidate). But every time I hear or read the bullshit being thrown at her, I feel that much more attached to her as a candidate and want to fiercely defend her.
They really aren’t good at this ratfucking stuff any more, are they?
D58826
While Clinton’s decision to use her private server for State Dept business was not the smartest thing in the world, I’m a little amused about this concern for security on the server and top secret documents on it. Given the number of hacks of government servers over the past couple of months I don’t see whee the e-mails would have been any more secure on a state department server than on her private server. And the folks who are yelling the loudest are also the ones cutting money from agency budgets so that they can’t upgrade their computer systems.
Roger Moore
@geg6:
You aren’t their target. You may not like Hillary very much, but you’re a solid Democrat and you’re going to vote no matter what. The people they’re aiming at are people who are already kind of disenchanted with politics and inclined to think they’re all a bunch of crooks. People like that may come out to vote if there’s a candidate who seems different and likely to exceed their normal low expectations, but they’ll probably stay at home if they think it’s another election between two crooks. Making Hillary seem like just another crook will take away some of her vote, and that’s good enough for the Republicans.
Myiq2xu
The FBI is investigating. Last time I checked, the FBI answers to the President. The Attorney General is Loretta Lynch. She works for Obama too.
Can someone explain how this is all just a GOP plot against Hillary?
Kay
@Myiq2xu:
I don’t think that’s what they’re saying. They’re saying the fake-journalist is driving the narrative because he’s way ahead of what has actually transpired. He’s making a story. “What happened?” is pretty important in that line of work, or it’s supposed to be. He could wait until they have some facts, but that would hinder the opportunity he sees to have this be damaging to Clinton no matter the facts. They can then do a month on how she showed poor judgment whatever is or is not revealed.
Elizabelle
Fournier’s not quitting? Damn.
Bobby Thomson
Speaking of ratfuckers, myiq2/u is back.
Cacti
The former basics of journalism: who, what, when, where, and why…
Have been replaced with the new pillars of: if, maybe, might, perhaps, and possibly
redshirt
@Cacti: It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
misterpuff
@WaterGirl: It’s all in The Game, yo!
Myiq2xu
@Kay: The facts we do know are pretty ugly. Hillary DID show poor judgment.
RaflW
So Fournier is just a straight up lying sack of crap and his Republican hackitude is crystal clear.
Clinton did not go rogue. What she did was permitted at the time. It was not the best choice, but he can f*k himself for this characterization.
Villago Delenda Est
I think I smell smoke, said Fournier, therefore there must be a raging fire around here somewhere!
Turgidson
@BruceFromOhio:
Yeah, geez, talk about projection. Ron “Severe Dementia” Fournier thinks he’s the one true arbiter of non-partisan, Very Serious truth and wisdom and anyone who points out that he writes the same bullshit over and over again without respect to context, facts, or recent history (Obama can’t leeeeeead; Hillary isn’t hooonnnneeesst) is just some blind partisan lemming who is too simple to understand his brilliance.
Fournier plays his assigned part in the RW wurlitzer of faux centrist concern troll. He’s gotten himself jobs at purportedly non-partisan publications and used that as a shield against those who call him out for being a badly-disguised GOP shill. Just like his comrade David fn Brooks, he expresses exaggeration at “both sides” but invariably lands on a position that assigns most, if not all, of the blame for [today’s drama du jour] on something a Democrat, usually Obama, did wrong.
Too many liberal pundits and analysts who want to attain or retain good standing in the Village give him the benefit of the doubt that his idiocy is sincere. And all that does is catapult his propaganda and encourage him to keep up his “if you don’t see that I’m right, you’re a partisan poopyhead” condescension.
If I could make a list of Villagers I’d like to see targeted for deportation to Siberia, Brooks would far and away be #1. He’s the biggest and most influential snake and outright fraud in the political media world right now IMO. Fournier might be #2 – the actual audience reading his columns is probably tiny, but his influence in the Village and therefore on the “conversation” is toxic and seems indestructible.
Hoosier X
@Myiq2xu:
You have to say it twenty more times before it becomes true. You stand in front of a mirror in the dark, light a candle and say it over and over.
But it only works for conservatives.
boatboy_srq
@Villago Delenda Est: That was just Fournier’s trousers.
piratedan
@redshirt: all we need now is access to Fornier’s email archive and we can then find the tangible links between him Congressman Gowdy and the NY Times…… I’d bet my odds on finding those are better than anything showing that there was a Benghazi coverup
crosspalms
It’s speculation alright, but it ain’t pure. Not from that guy.
BENJI
Don’t forget burning down garages for the insurance money.
Applejinx
Pfff. Either Bernie or Hillary would be just fine.
Hillary Clinton is about the best the previous system could come up with. She is solidly in the same tank with Bush, Walker, etc etc etc, taking the same money, and she is the Democrat option out of that system. She is absolutely the best possible option out of THAT crowd and she would beat any of them like a rented mule.
Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump represent something else, and both are unequivocally not part of the system in that way.
Bernie’s being utterly locked out of media coverage and laughing about it as he goes to another rally that draws more than every other candidate combined.
The Donald is being told not to wreck the whole GOP field and call them whores who dance to the tune of millionaires, and he too is laughing as he says, it’s true! I pay them, and they do what I want! And he’s all OVER the media as he says it.
Everybody’s super tired of the status quo and normal politics and media. It’s going to come down to Trump Versus Sanders, I really think.
Unlike Hillary, Bernie can take away some of Trump’s votes. Trump, by contrast, can take away some of Hillary’s votes, but can’t do much against Bernie, the one guy who’s not been for sale because he’s been too smalltime and too stubborn to bother with. You can’t buy a person unless they’re a little crooked, and the whole entire government and media are at least a little crooked.
Gonna be interesting. Mark my words, it will be Trump vs. Bernie. Interestingly, Trump will lose and go on to make SO MUCH MONEY it’s unbelievable, as the new standard bearer for the rebel forces. Do you have any idea how well all this supports his personal brand? The Republicans now have to represent him, not vice versa. He doesn’t have to do a damn thing they want him to do. Every time he goes against the Republican messaging, he gets more popular as a truthteller… meanwhile, Bernie determinedly stays out of the mid and sticks to boring issues and policy, only they are wildly popular crucial issues.
Amazing to be here for :)
Applejinx
@Applejinx: stays out of the MUD, sorry. Can’t edit, but you know what I mean :)
Adam L Silverman
@Myiq2xu: actually we don’t know that and are unlikely too. Again, the reason that the DOJ is involved is to arbitrate a dispute over classification as of 2015 between State and one of the Intel agencies dealing with whether material that was not previously classified should now be classified. This stuff happens all the time as events and circumstances change views on what does and does not need to be classified.
sm*t cl*de
So the whole professed concern is really an excuse for a fishing expedition? I am SHOCKED by Fournier’s admission.
A cynic would suspect that Fournier is laying the ground for accusing Clinton of
good security practicea MASSIVE COVER-UP when examination of the server finds nothing.wjs
@Adam L Silverman: Granted, but that “something else” is usually what we hear second hand from an unnamed source. I am highly skeptical that we have the actual makings of what counts as a scandal here because this seems more like a case of her handling work materials in a less than ideal method.
Whether that rises to the level of criminality depends on who you’re going to vote for next year. In the context of her term as Secretary of State, she was doing what Rice and Powell had already done and what was the technological standard at the time. And if you really want to get fancy about it, Executive Privilege and all that comes into play. Are we really going to enter an era when the Sec of State cannot talk to people in the capacity of chief diplomat of the United States?
If they’re going to go after Clinton for this, they have to go after everyone else and they’re not going to do that. These are the Clinton Rules and no matter what they do, they’re hiding something criminal and people like Ron Fournier are out there trying to get to the truth.
wjs
@Adam L Silverman: Yes, and it’s not a scandal. It’s an attempt to get a handle on the technology of E-mail and the preservation of public records. It’s a scandal when Hillary Clinton hands over an E-mail server that was under secret service protection. It’s not a scandal when an E-mail server used by the Bush Administration comes up erased and missing thousands of E-mails.
It’s all a double standard, and it’s about making sure they can have everyone talking about something other than expanding and improving Obamacare, giving people free college, and putting people in this country back to work.
Turgidson
@wjs:
Fixt.
Howlin Wolfe
@japa21: That’s right, that or interfering with an investigation. And Scooter or somebody (Rove, Cheney) mishandled information that was already classified at the time of mishandling, not after the fact.
Howlin Wolfe
@redshirt: The content might not be surprising, but the brazenness of Fournier’s presentation is somewhat breathtaking. Reminds me of the Godfather’s Pizza guy who ran for president Herman Caine, who prefaced some remark with, “Now, I don’t have facts to back this up, but . . . .”
Scott Mercer
OH! “Gives up the game,” meaning “inadvertently revealed the unspoken truth,” not, as I assumed “stopped acting like a five year old playing a silly game.” Gotcha.
Myiq2xu
@Hoosier X: I’m not a conservative.
Myiq2xu
@Adam L Silverman: What a load of crap.
wjs
@Myiq2xu: Of course it’s a load of crap. We can’t have peace, prosperity and a Democrat in the White House. It’s bad for business.
Steve
“Follow the money”??? Fournier is a modern day Woodward or Bernstien? Whoculdanode?
Adam L Silverman
@wjs: I have no disagreement with either of your replies.
Adam L Silverman
@Myiq2xu: if you’re talking about the reporting of what is going on versus what’s actually going on – then yes. If you’re referring to the accuracy of my response – then no, what I described as the situation is what is actually happening. Different agencies classify things in different ways. Usually this comes to light during FOIA requests, where additional vetting is done. This seems to be the case here. It is for this reason that if you have a clearance with one agency, but apply for a better or equivalent job with a different one, the hiring agency may not recognize the clearance, because different agencies understand classification differently. Even within DOD and the services, some security offices/officers are much, much stricter than others. I experienced this first hand in my last two assignments. I know both the classification and clearance differences for a fact, because in addition to recent experiences, I’ve also seen it articulated in job postings at usajobs, that if I were to apply for a job with one of the civilian Intel agencies for instance, that they would require a full reinvestigation and polygraph as they don’t consider my current clearances, through the DOD, adequate – even though my current clearance is what’s required for the job. Some of this is bureaucratic rivalry, some legit concern over different and potential lax standards in different agencies, but it’s pretty normal and routine.