Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Security Clearance

A security clearance is a status granted to individuals allowing them access to classified information. Those trying to get a clearance may have questions such as how does one go about attaining a clearance? And, what are the different levels? As well as other questions. This area will allow those that have clearances offer advice and suggestions to those inquiring about clearances or upgrading their clearances.

To read today's top news stories on federal employee pay, benefits, retirement, job rights and other workplace issues visit FederalDaily.com.

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
GWPDA  
#1 Posted : Monday, April 1, 2019 6:04:22 AM(UTC)
GWPDA

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/26/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,350

Thanks: 239 times
Was thanked: 496 time(s) in 414 post(s)
For all feds and contractors, for all who have followed the rules for clearances, for all federal employees who have had to whistleblow, who have been retaliated - this story has everything.

WaPo, 1 April 2019
"A White House whistleblower told lawmakers that more than two-dozen denials for security clearances have been overturned during the Trump administration, calling Congress her “last hope” for addressing what she considers improper conduct that has left the nation’s secrets exposed.

Tricia Newbold, a longtime White House security adviser, told the House Oversight and Reform Committee that she and her colleagues issued “dozens” of denials for security clearance applications that were later approved despite their concerns about blackmail, foreign influence, or other red flags, according to panel documents released Monday.

Newbold, an 18-year veteran of the security clearance process who has served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, said she warned her superiors that clearances “were not always adjudicated in the best interest of national security” — and was retaliated against for doing so.

“I would not be doing a service to myself, my country, or my children if I sat back knowing that the issues that we have could impact national security,” Newbold told the committee, according to a panel document summarizing her allegations.

Newbold added: “I feel that right now this is my last hope to really bring the integrity back into our office.”

The allegation comes during an escalating fight over the issue between House Democrats and the White House. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), the committee chairman, said in a letter to the White House Counsel’s Office that his panel would vote on Tuesday to subpoena at least one individual who overruled Newbold — the committee’s first compulsory move aimed at the White House.

Cummings vowed more subpoenas would follow if the White House didn’t cooperate with his panel’s investigation.

The White House did not immediately respond to an email and a phone call seeking comment.

White House officials whose security clearances are being scrutinized by the House Oversight Committee include the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump, her husband Jared Kushner and national security adviser John Bolton, according to the panel’s letter.

The Trump administration has refused to comply with numerous document requests and inquiries Cummings has made on the topic over the past two years. Cummings identified the security clearance process as one of his top priorities after Democrats took the majority in the House last fall, but his panel has yet to receive a single document from the White House on the issue.

“The Committee has given the White House every possible opportunity to cooperate with this investigation, but you have declined,” Cummings wrote in the Monday letter to White House counsel Pat Cipollone. “Your actions are now preventing the committee from obtaining the information it needs to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.”

Cummings later argued: “In light of the grave reports from this whistleblower — and the ongoing refusal of the White House to provide the information we need to conduct our investigation — the committee now plans to proceed with compulsory process and begin authorizing subpoenas, starting at tomorrow’s business meeting.”
Exit7A  
#2 Posted : Monday, April 1, 2019 12:32:10 PM(UTC)
Exit7A

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/27/2015(UTC)
Posts: 680
United States
Location: Area 51

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 156 time(s) in 135 post(s)
Originally Posted by: GWPDA Go to Quoted Post
For all feds and contractors, for all who have followed the rules for clearances, for all federal employees who have had to whistleblow, who have been retaliated - this story has everything.

WaPo, 1 April 2019
"A White House whistleblower told lawmakers that more than two-dozen denials for security clearances have been overturned during the Trump administration, calling Congress her “last hope” for addressing what she considers improper conduct that has left the nation’s secrets exposed.

Tricia Newbold, a longtime White House security adviser, told the House Oversight and Reform Committee that she and her colleagues issued “dozens” of denials for security clearance applications that were later approved despite their concerns about blackmail, foreign influence, or other red flags, according to panel documents released Monday.

Newbold, an 18-year veteran of the security clearance process who has served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, said she warned her superiors that clearances “were not always adjudicated in the best interest of national security” — and was retaliated against for doing so.

“I would not be doing a service to myself, my country, or my children if I sat back knowing that the issues that we have could impact national security,” Newbold told the committee, according to a panel document summarizing her allegations.

Newbold added: “I feel that right now this is my last hope to really bring the integrity back into our office.”

The allegation comes during an escalating fight over the issue between House Democrats and the White House. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), the committee chairman, said in a letter to the White House Counsel’s Office that his panel would vote on Tuesday to subpoena at least one individual who overruled Newbold — the committee’s first compulsory move aimed at the White House.

Cummings vowed more subpoenas would follow if the White House didn’t cooperate with his panel’s investigation.

The White House did not immediately respond to an email and a phone call seeking comment.

White House officials whose security clearances are being scrutinized by the House Oversight Committee include the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump, her husband Jared Kushner and national security adviser John Bolton, according to the panel’s letter.

The Trump administration has refused to comply with numerous document requests and inquiries Cummings has made on the topic over the past two years. Cummings identified the security clearance process as one of his top priorities after Democrats took the majority in the House last fall, but his panel has yet to receive a single document from the White House on the issue.

“The Committee has given the White House every possible opportunity to cooperate with this investigation, but you have declined,” Cummings wrote in the Monday letter to White House counsel Pat Cipollone. “Your actions are now preventing the committee from obtaining the information it needs to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.”

Cummings later argued: “In light of the grave reports from this whistleblower — and the ongoing refusal of the White House to provide the information we need to conduct our investigation — the committee now plans to proceed with compulsory process and begin authorizing subpoenas, starting at tomorrow’s business meeting.”


So...what's your point?

https://news.clearancejo...clearance-president-get/

That's all I got to say about that.
GSBS  
#3 Posted : Monday, April 1, 2019 12:48:15 PM(UTC)
GSBS

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,651

Thanks: 276 times
Was thanked: 301 time(s) in 262 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Exit7A Go to Quoted Post


So...what's your point?





Probably that 25 or more Federal Workers have been granted Top Secret clearances under this current administration and shouldn't have received them?

thanks 2 users thanked GSBS for this useful post.
FS0201 on 4/1/2019(UTC), SD Analyst on 4/8/2019(UTC)
GWPDA  
#4 Posted : Monday, April 1, 2019 1:30:19 PM(UTC)
GWPDA

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/26/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,350

Thanks: 239 times
Was thanked: 496 time(s) in 414 post(s)
That 25 or more political appointees have been improperly given security clearances in violation of every security rule and regulation? That the relevant security officer has been over-ruled by political appointees? That the relevant security officer, trying to execute her responsibilities has been attacked, retaliated against and improperly downgraded to the point where her obligation required her to report the security violations to the Congress because her management is preventing her from fulfilling her responsibilities?

Is that enough for you to be interested? Think this might have some long term ramifications for federal civilians and the security apparatus?
thanks 1 user thanked GWPDA for this useful post.
SD Analyst on 4/8/2019(UTC)
Exit7A  
#5 Posted : Monday, April 1, 2019 4:33:19 PM(UTC)
Exit7A

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/27/2015(UTC)
Posts: 680
United States
Location: Area 51

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 156 time(s) in 135 post(s)
Originally Posted by: GSBS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Exit7A Go to Quoted Post


So...what's your point?





Probably that 25 or more Federal Workers have been granted Top Secret clearances under this current administration and shouldn't have received them?



Security clearance is an executive branch function of which the US President has ultimate authority. The President may grant a clearance to anyone. The President could also declassify documents if he so chooses. So what if 25 (or more) people have been granted access. These people have a need to know as they work for the President. Also, don't give me any crap about they don't deserve because how many people have acquired TS clearances that have given away our secrets....Snowden ring a bell...hmmm.
That's all I got to say about that.
frankgonzalez  
#6 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2019 3:42:53 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 5,289

Thanks: 75 times
Was thanked: 993 time(s) in 790 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Exit7A Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: GSBS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Exit7A Go to Quoted Post


So...what's your point?





Probably that 25 or more Federal Workers have been granted Top Secret clearances under this current administration and shouldn't have received them?



Security clearance is an executive branch function of which the US President has ultimate authority. The President may grant a clearance to anyone. The President could also declassify documents if he so chooses. So what if 25 (or more) people have been granted access. These people have a need to know as they work for the President. Also, don't give me any crap about they don't deserve because how many people have acquired TS clearances that have given away our secrets....Snowden ring a bell...hmmm.
And he was fully vetted....imagine someone NOT fully vetted with many financial obligations to foreign entities (such as loans) being given a top clearance...and access to information useful to those foreign governments. And if that person is also using WhatsApp to communicate with foreign leaders bypassing US government systems? Well, the annual security training I've had since 1986 has stated those people are a huge security risk.

And when the person reporting these issues to their leadership is then retaliated against? (often in very petty ways)....well, makes me wonder why they are so adamant in ensuring this person who would never otherwise be able to get a clearance keeps it.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
thanks 2 users thanked frankgonzalez for this useful post.
GWPDA on 4/8/2019(UTC), SD Analyst on 4/8/2019(UTC)
Exit7A  
#7 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2019 12:49:26 PM(UTC)
Exit7A

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/27/2015(UTC)
Posts: 680
United States
Location: Area 51

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 156 time(s) in 135 post(s)
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Exit7A Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: GSBS Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Exit7A Go to Quoted Post


So...what's your point?





Probably that 25 or more Federal Workers have been granted Top Secret clearances under this current administration and shouldn't have received them?



Security clearance is an executive branch function of which the US President has ultimate authority. The President may grant a clearance to anyone. The President could also declassify documents if he so chooses. So what if 25 (or more) people have been granted access. These people have a need to know as they work for the President. Also, don't give me any crap about they don't deserve because how many people have acquired TS clearances that have given away our secrets....Snowden ring a bell...hmmm.
And he was fully vetted....imagine someone NOT fully vetted with many financial obligations to foreign entities (such as loans) being given a top clearance...and access to information useful to those foreign governments. And if that person is also using WhatsApp to communicate with foreign leaders bypassing US government systems? Well, the annual security training I've had since 1986 has stated those people are a huge security risk.

And when the person reporting these issues to their leadership is then retaliated against? (often in very petty ways)....well, makes me wonder why they are so adamant in ensuring this person who would never otherwise be able to get a clearance keeps it.



How are they not fully vetted? Didn't they go through the whole thing? The security office said "No" then it was overruled by the executive office. So let's petition that they not use WhatsApp...maybe they can setup their own email server....
That's all I got to say about that.
GWPDA  
#8 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2019 2:31:11 PM(UTC)
GWPDA

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/26/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,350

Thanks: 239 times
Was thanked: 496 time(s) in 414 post(s)
"Didn't they go through the whole thing?"

They failed 'going thru the whole thing." Merely completing the paperwork - altho evidently quite a number didn't manage to do that - is not equivalent to qualification.
waitingOutSequester  
#9 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2019 3:44:46 PM(UTC)

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/8/2013(UTC)
Posts: 106

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 14 time(s) in 12 post(s)
Originally Posted by: GWPDA Go to Quoted Post
"Didn't they go through the whole thing?"

They failed 'going thru the whole thing." Merely completing the paperwork - altho evidently quite a number didn't manage to do that - is not equivalent to qualification.


They didn't fail going through the whole thing. Newbold was one step in the process.

Edited by user Monday, April 8, 2019 3:47:48 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Exit7A  
#10 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2019 5:12:51 PM(UTC)
Exit7A

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/27/2015(UTC)
Posts: 680
United States
Location: Area 51

Thanks: 13 times
Was thanked: 156 time(s) in 135 post(s)
Tricia Newbold is/was a “second-level adjudicator”...isn't adjudication the LAST step?
That's all I got to say about that.
Endless Summer  
#11 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2019 10:19:58 PM(UTC)
Endless Summer

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 863

Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 169 post(s)
The obvious omission here is where does this land on the spectrum of what is normal for WH clearances? How unusual is this?

It is assumed that the current administration is the only one to have done this, or that there numbers are outside the normal range of WH over ruling the adjudicators' findings. How accurate is this statement? How many times did previous administrations do this? The silence is telling.

Also, if you are going to be a whistleblower, do so before you suffer some kind of negative personnel action. If she was genuinely appalled by this and thought the security of the nation was at risk, she would have had no problem finding media outlets and elected officials willing to take up her banner.

But she didn't do any of that, she waited until after she'd been disciplined and then this became a major issue for her.
thanks 1 user thanked Endless Summer for this useful post.
habu987 on 4/10/2019(UTC)
frankgonzalez  
#12 Posted : Thursday, April 11, 2019 4:15:10 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 5,289

Thanks: 75 times
Was thanked: 993 time(s) in 790 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Endless Summer Go to Quoted Post
The obvious omission here is where does this land on the spectrum of what is normal for WH clearances? How unusual is this?

It is assumed that the current administration is the only one to have done this, or that there numbers are outside the normal range of WH over ruling the adjudicators' findings. How accurate is this statement? How many times did previous administrations do this? The silence is telling.

Also, if you are going to be a whistleblower, do so before you suffer some kind of negative personnel action. If she was genuinely appalled by this and thought the security of the nation was at risk, she would have had no problem finding media outlets and elected officials willing to take up her banner.

But she didn't do any of that, she waited until after she'd been disciplined and then this became a major issue for her.
I do believe she filed an EEO complaint of harassment and failure to accommodate first, and then was disciplined (which added to her complaint) and then became a whistle blower.

As for filling out the paperwork...how many times do most people get to correct their errors (meeting with and having business relationships with foreign nationals, financial obligations, etc) before the agency declares no clearance? How many errors to clear up? 10? 100? And how many times AFTER the agency (and the press) find out about a serious omission do you let someone update their paperwork?

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
Endless Summer  
#13 Posted : Thursday, April 11, 2019 11:56:35 AM(UTC)
Endless Summer

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 863

Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 169 post(s)
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
… I do believe she filed an EEO complaint of harassment and failure to accommodate first, and then was disciplined (which added to her complaint) and then became a whistle blower.

As for filling out the paperwork...how many times do most people get to correct their errors (meeting with and having business relationships with foreign nationals, financial obligations, etc) before the agency declares no clearance? How many errors to clear up? 10? 100? And how many times AFTER the agency (and the press) find out about a serious omission do you let someone update their paperwork?



The reporting I saw was that she registered her disagreement with the situation in letters to her supervisors, but no EEO complaint until after the fact.

Regardless, I keep coming back to the question of what is the norm for WH clearances. Certainly they are not handled the same as some schmuck GS-7 applying for a clearance?

In order for me to accurately calibrate my Outrage-O-Meter I need to know where on the bell curve this administration falls. I've also got to factor in the hysteria surrounding everything associated with this President. You had a senior Secret Service Administrator saying he didn't deserve to be shielded from an assassin, FBI executive leadership embracing foreign intelligence data of hilariously dubious nature. This whole thing makes Dan Rather's magical time-traveling typewriter seem like a Boy Scout prank.

The only thing that could have made the "dossier" more of a joke would have been the inclusion of midgets and a donkey.
waitingOutSequester  
#14 Posted : Thursday, April 11, 2019 6:06:39 PM(UTC)

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/8/2013(UTC)
Posts: 106

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 14 time(s) in 12 post(s)
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post


I do believe she filed an EEO complaint of harassment and failure to accommodate first, and then was disciplined (which added to her complaint) and then became a whistle blower.

As for filling out the paperwork...how many times do most people get to correct their errors (meeting with and having business relationships with foreign nationals, financial obligations, etc) before the agency declares no clearance? How many errors to clear up? 10? 100? And how many times AFTER the agency (and the press) find out about a serious omission do you let someone update their paperwork?



Background investigations are supposed to be private. Whoever appears to be leaking information about the background investigations of particular individuals to the media should be criminally investigated. The violation of the privacy of the security clearance process is what should concern us most. Real whistle blowers don't disclose Privacy Act protected information to the media. Whoever leaked information about the security clearance of specific individuals to the media, including about Kushner, Ivanka, and John Bolton, should go to prison.

Edited by user Thursday, April 11, 2019 6:19:44 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

FatHappyCat  
#15 Posted : Thursday, April 11, 2019 10:29:30 PM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 711

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 106 time(s) in 91 post(s)
Originally Posted by: waitingOutSequester Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post


I do believe she filed an EEO complaint of harassment and failure to accommodate first, and then was disciplined (which added to her complaint) and then became a whistle blower.

As for filling out the paperwork...how many times do most people get to correct their errors (meeting with and having business relationships with foreign nationals, financial obligations, etc) before the agency declares no clearance? How many errors to clear up? 10? 100? And how many times AFTER the agency (and the press) find out about a serious omission do you let someone update their paperwork?



Background investigations are supposed to be private. Whoever appears to be leaking information about the background investigations of particular individuals to the media should be criminally investigated. The violation of the privacy of the security clearance process is what should concern us most. Real whistle blowers don't disclose Privacy Act protected information to the media. Whoever leaked information about the security clearance of specific individuals to the media, including about Kushner, Ivanka, and John Bolton, should go to prison.


Specific information pertaining to the background information is private and in the current case, they remain so. Had their SF86 or the investigator's notes suddenly found themselves on the internet, I'd consider your position. However the fact that the media is now aware that the President is overriding his advisors in the granting of clearances via a whistleblower is not criminal in nature nor do I believe that the whistleblower herself went straight to the media over this as whistleblowing involves specific reporting procedures.
FatHappyCat  
#16 Posted : Thursday, April 11, 2019 10:50:21 PM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 711

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 106 time(s) in 91 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Endless Summer Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
… I do believe she filed an EEO complaint of harassment and failure to accommodate first, and then was disciplined (which added to her complaint) and then became a whistle blower.

As for filling out the paperwork...how many times do most people get to correct their errors (meeting with and having business relationships with foreign nationals, financial obligations, etc) before the agency declares no clearance? How many errors to clear up? 10? 100? And how many times AFTER the agency (and the press) find out about a serious omission do you let someone update their paperwork?



The reporting I saw was that she registered her disagreement with the situation in letters to her supervisors, but no EEO complaint until after the fact.

Regardless, I keep coming back to the question of what is the norm for WH clearances. Certainly they are not handled the same as some schmuck GS-7 applying for a clearance?

In order for me to accurately calibrate my Outrage-O-Meter I need to know where on the bell curve this administration falls. I've also got to factor in the hysteria surrounding everything associated with this President. You had a senior Secret Service Administrator saying he didn't deserve to be shielded from an assassin, FBI executive leadership embracing foreign intelligence data of hilariously dubious nature. This whole thing makes Dan Rather's magical time-traveling typewriter seem like a Boy Scout prank.

The only thing that could have made the "dossier" more of a joke would have been the inclusion of midgets and a donkey.


I don't think any of us would know exactly what the White House procedures are for vetting people for security clearances. I'd only speculate that they more closely scrutinize the current OPM policy given the increased resources and amount of actual investigation that needs to be completed. I'm fairly certain some previous administration at sometime must have authorized a clearance for someone who was not recommended. What I'm also fairly certain is no administration since probably Kennedy, has any President did this for family members. The passing of Nepotism laws shortly afterwards clearly shows Congress intent on what their position is on this matter.

Originally Posted by: Endless Summer Go to Quoted Post
In order for me to accurately calibrate my Outrage-O-Meter I need to know where on the bell curve this administration falls. I've also got to factor in the hysteria surrounding everything associated with this President. You had a senior Secret Service Administrator saying he didn't deserve to be shielded from an assassin, FBI executive leadership embracing foreign intelligence data of hilariously dubious nature. This whole thing makes Dan Rather's magical time-traveling typewriter seem like a Boy Scout prank.

The only thing that could have made the "dossier" more of a joke would have been the inclusion of midgets and a donkey.


And on another note, statements like these are a problem - both for the left and the right, in politics and otherwise - They do nothing but detract but the issue at hand. Strong positions or opinions need not deflect the issue and lay blame on unrelated matters. I frankly don't see the correlation between "FBI executive leadership embracing foreign intelligence data of hilariously dubious nature" and the President granting clearances to family members over the objection of career feds. One outrageous behavior doesn't excuse another.
Endless Summer  
#17 Posted : Thursday, April 11, 2019 11:51:24 PM(UTC)
Endless Summer

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 863

Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 169 post(s)
Originally Posted by: FatHappyCat Go to Quoted Post
...
Originally Posted by: Endless Summer Go to Quoted Post
In order for me to accurately calibrate my Outrage-O-Meter I need to know where on the bell curve this administration falls. I've also got to factor in the hysteria surrounding everything associated with this President. You had a senior Secret Service Administrator saying he didn't deserve to be shielded from an assassin, FBI executive leadership embracing foreign intelligence data of hilariously dubious nature. This whole thing makes Dan Rather's magical time-traveling typewriter seem like a Boy Scout prank.

The only thing that could have made the "dossier" more of a joke would have been the inclusion of midgets and a donkey.


And on another note, statements like these are a problem - both for the left and the right, in politics and otherwise - They do nothing but detract but the issue at hand. Strong positions or opinions need not deflect the issue and lay blame on unrelated matters. I frankly don't see the correlation between "FBI executive leadership embracing foreign intelligence data of hilariously dubious nature" and the President granting clearances to family members over the objection of career feds. One outrageous behavior doesn't excuse another.


I'll clarify. With all of the extremist behavior targeting the current administration it isn't too far out of the realm of possibility that this person's actions were not "noble". In the light of other actions, it's entirely possible, even likely, that this woman was on her own crusade. That's why I want to know what the norm is.
frankgonzalez  
#18 Posted : Friday, April 12, 2019 3:22:44 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 5,289

Thanks: 75 times
Was thanked: 993 time(s) in 790 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Endless Summer Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: FatHappyCat Go to Quoted Post
...
Originally Posted by: Endless Summer Go to Quoted Post
In order for me to accurately calibrate my Outrage-O-Meter I need to know where on the bell curve this administration falls. I've also got to factor in the hysteria surrounding everything associated with this President. You had a senior Secret Service Administrator saying he didn't deserve to be shielded from an assassin, FBI executive leadership embracing foreign intelligence data of hilariously dubious nature. This whole thing makes Dan Rather's magical time-traveling typewriter seem like a Boy Scout prank.

The only thing that could have made the "dossier" more of a joke would have been the inclusion of midgets and a donkey.


And on another note, statements like these are a problem - both for the left and the right, in politics and otherwise - They do nothing but detract but the issue at hand. Strong positions or opinions need not deflect the issue and lay blame on unrelated matters. I frankly don't see the correlation between "FBI executive leadership embracing foreign intelligence data of hilariously dubious nature" and the President granting clearances to family members over the objection of career feds. One outrageous behavior doesn't excuse another.


I'll clarify. With all of the extremist behavior targeting the current administration it isn't too far out of the realm of possibility that this person's actions were not "noble". In the light of other actions, it's entirely possible, even likely, that this woman was on her own crusade. That's why I want to know what the norm is.
The report I saw said 1 was overridden in the 3 years prior to this administration.

So...1 vs 25 (that we are aware of)

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
waitingOutSequester  
#19 Posted : Friday, April 12, 2019 4:50:06 AM(UTC)

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/8/2013(UTC)
Posts: 106

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 14 time(s) in 12 post(s)
Originally Posted by: FatHappyCat Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: waitingOutSequester Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post


I do believe she filed an EEO complaint of harassment and failure to accommodate first, and then was disciplined (which added to her complaint) and then became a whistle blower.

As for filling out the paperwork...how many times do most people get to correct their errors (meeting with and having business relationships with foreign nationals, financial obligations, etc) before the agency declares no clearance? How many errors to clear up? 10? 100? And how many times AFTER the agency (and the press) find out about a serious omission do you let someone update their paperwork?



Background investigations are supposed to be private. Whoever appears to be leaking information about the background investigations of particular individuals to the media should be criminally investigated. The violation of the privacy of the security clearance process is what should concern us most. Real whistle blowers don't disclose Privacy Act protected information to the media. Whoever leaked information about the security clearance of specific individuals to the media, including about Kushner, Ivanka, and John Bolton, should go to prison.


Specific information pertaining to the background information is private and in the current case, they remain so. Had their SF86 or the investigator's notes suddenly found themselves on the internet, I'd consider your position. However the fact that the media is now aware that the President is overriding his advisors in the granting of clearances via a whistleblower is not criminal in nature nor do I believe that the whistleblower herself went straight to the media over this as whistleblowing involves specific reporting procedures.


I suggest you look at the NYtimes reporting again. Specific information, legally protected by the Privacy Act, pertaining to the background investigations of Kushner, Ivanka, and John Bolton were leaked to the media. It may not have been Newbold. I could believe that was done by the Democratic Congressmen and their staff, in which case this fake outrage over security clearances is a political witch hunt and the Democratic Congressmen and their staff should be investigated.

Edited by user Friday, April 12, 2019 4:52:45 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Endless Summer  
#20 Posted : Friday, April 12, 2019 12:10:52 PM(UTC)
Endless Summer

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 863

Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 196 time(s) in 169 post(s)
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
...The report I saw said 1 was overridden in the 3 years prior to this administration.

So...1 vs 25 (that we are aware of)



You are comparing apples to bowling balls, let's see if we can come up with some criteria that will let us make an unbiased observation...

For this administration and the past three administrations, let's examine the first 24 months of the respective President's first term. We want to capture:

The total number of applications for the appropriate clearance level.
The total number of applications that were denied, along with the reasons for denial.
The total number of denials that were overturned.

Even this will not give us a true picture since the process seems to be open to the whim of the adjudicator to a certain extent.

If I told you I'd only gotten one speeding ticket in the past ten years it would not be accurate for you to assume that I rarely drive, rarely speed, or that I have only been pulled over once for speeding in that timeframe. Likewise, it would be inaccurate to assume that I am a very safe and conscientious driver when the fact may be that I've only been behind the wheel twice in that timeframe and my ticket to driving episodes is 50%.
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 0.419 seconds.