Politics

Blue&White
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:25 am

psu_dad wrote:OK. That makes more sense. Giving someone access to classified information when they have no clearance (temporary or otherwise) is suicide.


It's a felony. But, the access was temporary and at the request of the White House, presumably so they had time to replace him. The FBI had closed the file in January and in February the WH tells the public the investigation is still underway and not to presume judgment. But judgment had been rendered already. And, Trump's comment about a "mere allegation" was made after it was known not to be a mere allegation. Per what has been made public, the FBI concluded that he abused his 2 ex-wives. And, his defense to the charges are ludicrous. When confronted with pictures of his one ex-wife with a black eye, he apparently said that they were in a hotel, had an argument, she picked up a glass vase and was going to throw it on the ground, he went to grab it from her and in the ensuring scuffle "accidentally" hit her a few times and left her with a black eye and facial bruises. I'm paraphrasing but that is his story spoken from his mouth.

His explanation to his other wife's charges about how he smashed a window and broke into their house is even more ridiculous. See, he was "tapping" on the window when suddenly his knuckle just broke the glass! That can happen to anyone! And, of course, once that happened, it was only natural that he would reach through the knuckle size hole he made and open the door as he simply wanted to collect his belongings and had no intention of terrorizing his ex wife.

Sounds completely legit, right? And, this is the explanations that Trump uses to defend his "he denied" comments. Please. They have protected, and lied for, a guy who beats up women. Period. And, they continue to lie to the public about it. But, it seems members of the WH staff are getting anxious about it. I was reading Huckabees comments from yesterday to the press and she has clearly stepped back and made comments along the lines of "as far as I was told". That is a far cry from her normal "everything we say is true/everything you report is a lie" demeanor. She's probably not happy having to defend this or try to sell it to the public. I suspect she knows she's been had by Kelly.

The whole thing is just amazing. And, it may be that Trump didn't know. But, as usual, he has to be right and will defend the position while the ground caves in around him. Like I said earlier - his fellow Republicans must be loving all this attention.
Is it baseball season yet?

sameoldlama
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Politics

Postby sameoldlama » Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:32 am

Nat@PSU wrote:His job places him in a position to see information that require the highest levels of clearance in our government (i.e. the PDB). He had access to this info without having passed the clearance process.

For a group of people who went apoplectic over Hillary and her server under the premise that mismanaging state secrets is essentially treasonous, the hypocrisy here is pretty incredible.


1. Show me the post of any board member defending the administration in regards to this matter - defending their actions while criticizing Hillary would constitute hypocrisy. Lack of attention to detail and government protocol is a legitimate criticism of this administration that prevents them from moving actual policy / agenda forward. If DT is going to brag about "getting the best people" then Emmert like this can't happen.

2. Hillary - in my estimation - knowingly violated the law and subsequently destroyed evidence in order to obstruct an investigation - I haven't read much in regards to the Porter matter or security clearances in general for DT administration but is the allegation they haven't complied with protocol because they are ignorant of what they should be doing, lazy / procrastinating or willfully not complying as method of concealing illegal activity? Maybe they should just ask someone like Comey to say they didn't intend to do anything wrong so let's just move on.

Hillary's handling of documents / private servers was a criminal act - likely in order to cover up her treasonous acts of accepting bribes from foreign agents seeking influence of US governmental policy.
Wendall : That's very linear Sheriff
Ed Tom : Age will flatten a man Wendall

Blue&White
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:41 am

I'm pretty sure Nat was not talking about people on this board. But, there are people out there who condemn the one and defend the other. There are always those people, though.
Is it baseball season yet?

psu_dad
Posts: 1589
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:43 am

OK. Now I'm confused again.

A temporary (AKA interim) security clearance is not issued with no background check whatsoever. A quick check is done to make sure the person in question has no criminal history. They just don't do the "deep dive" into the personal life of the applicant. So it takes days to get an interim clearance (vs weeks/months for a "permanent" clearance).

How did he qualify for an interim clearance with that record?
Klaatu barada nikto

Blue&White
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:51 am

Good question. I don't know. It may be that he had it while they were doing the checks and it was due to expire. I thought it was done after he was rejected, but that may be a mistake. I think the point is, though, that he had been rejected, he was no longer a realistic option for that position, and rather than move on from him they looked to promote him and whitewash the whole thing.

But, you ask a very valid question. It really does sound like they were heading in a direction where this guy was going to have access to confidential information not only without having the proper clearance but after being specifically rejected from having that clearance. That is why I think the Democrats asked Wray about the timelines - it wasn't just to see if the WH was lying (although I'm sure that was a great bonus), but to see if validate if they were handing over confidential information to someone who should not have had it. And, that is a big part of this story that really is being underreported. Probably because it's not salacious enough.
Is it baseball season yet?

psu_dad
Posts: 1589
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:55 am

Until his interim clearance was formally revoked, granting him access to classified information was not a problem. When in the timeline did that happen?
Klaatu barada nikto

Crowbar
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Politics

Postby Crowbar » Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:57 am

LioninVa wrote:
As a comparison, I got a secret clearance about 7 years ago when I was working on ships. It took me about a week to completely and accurately fill out the paperwork and another six or eight weeks before an investigator visited me to answer some questions. After that, I was cleared within a month.


I currently hold a security clearance.

You are correct about the paperwork to apply for one (I think it's an SF-86). Holy Jesus. They literally want an encyclopedia about your life. They want to know about your criminal history, foreign trips, foreign contacts, address history, credit history, what you had for dinner two weeks ago, etc. They want to know the same information about your family members too.

It took my supervisor at my Guard unit almost two years to get a clearance because his parents are from Ireland.

It probably took me about a week to fill it all out too. It probably took 4-5 months to get the clearance once the paperwork and my fingerprints were submitted.
National Champions 1911, 1912, 1969, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1994

Crowbar
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Politics

Postby Crowbar » Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:59 am

psu_dad wrote:OK. Now I'm confused again.

A temporary (AKA interim) security clearance is not issued with no background check whatsoever. A quick check is done to make sure the person in question has no criminal history. They just don't do the "deep dive" into the personal life of the applicant. So it takes days to get an interim clearance (vs weeks/months for a "permanent" clearance).

How did he qualify for an interim clearance with that record?


It has to be political connections. There is no other logical reason it could be.
National Champions 1911, 1912, 1969, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1994

Blue&White
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:00 pm

psu_dad wrote:Until his interim clearance was formally revoked, granting him access to classified information was not a problem. When in the timeline did that happen?


Don't know that it was. I think he had it as the time he quit. But, they were keeping him in that role, were looking to promote him, and he had been formally rejected for clearance. At some point, it becomes a serious legal issue. How could it not become a serious legal issue? And, how do they justify trying to maintain ongoing temporary clearance for someone who had been rejected?

I'm not suggesting a crime was committed. I'm suggesting that they either were a) quickly heading in that direction or b) were looking for ways to circumvent the legal process (and my money is on B). Either way, an explanation is in order.
Is it baseball season yet?

psu_dad
Posts: 1589
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: Politics

Postby psu_dad » Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:19 pm

And, how do they justify trying to maintain ongoing temporary clearance for someone who had been rejected?

They have no control over the temporary clearance. Only the issuing authority does. Dd they try to "pressure" the FBI into not revoking it? That's a dangerous play just to keep an "empty suit" employed. I would think Washington is crawling with empty suits that could have replaced Porter. He's Rob Porter, not Benjamin Friggin Franklin.
Klaatu barada nikto