Seems like this topic should get a little more attention here. After all, according to some here, mishandling of classified information is a major, major crime (if Hillary does it). Here we have 130 people w/o security clearances in the White House, many of them without because they can't qualify for a clearance, and yet our super-duper-top-secret secrets are routinely shared with them. Ho-hum? barfo
I haven't read enough up about this to comment on these specifics, but in general... A Secret Clearance takes about 6 months and 50k or so to investigate and grant. It's usually run through FBI or DIA or one of its contracted agencies (at least, my last one was). A Top Secret one (due to the backlog) is currently taking 18 months and up to 200k. Many times, people in unique or time-sensitive situations can be granted "interim" clearances, where they go through an abbreviated interview form and quick background check so that they can do their job while the investigation is ongoing. This takes someone allowing the waiver request, which normally doesn't happen for junior military personnel but may happen for new White House employees. It cannot be used for special caveat classifications, crypto and other cases (I don't think you can get a NATO interim clearance, now that I think about it). Hillary's criminal gross negligence extreme carelessness was based on the following US Code. With her lawful access to classified information she allegedly: the consequences of which were that people who shouldn't have access to it (like Wikileaks, Russians, whoever) have access to it. The difference (again, with only cursory knowledge) that I see is that the White House employees may be (mis?)utilizing the "interim" loophole. "No, no, it's ok, Mr. Johnson has an Interim secret clearance while the investigation is underway. If something pops up that disqualifies him, we'll remove the interim clearance." It's not mishandling of classified information if you transmit it to someone who has a clearance for it, interim or not.
I'd suggest that that's too long, we should hire more people to process them. Apparently you can get the very highest level of clearance on an interim at the white house, e.g. Kushner, and the wife-beater whose name I've already forgotten. As far as I know there is no evidence that Hillary's email was actually hacked. If they had been, they presumably would have been leaked. Isn't it mishandling of classified information if you give it to someone who you know shouldn't have a clearance? Maybe not, but it should be. In any case, the issue here is the investigation was complete and Mr. Johnson was disqualified, and they extended the interim clearance anyway. Why have clearance checks at all if you are going to ignore them? barfo
I'd suggest these reforms: 1) Hire more people to process security checks quicker 2) Put DOJ in charge of deciding who gets a security clearance, not the White House 3) Make it a requirement that the President must pass a security clearance check. Make that a prerequisite to having your name on the ballot. barfo
I don't have a problem with any of those 3. Although for 2) it may get weird, b/c C-in-C presumably has the ability to order any of his subordinates to be cleared for whatever he tells them, in a DoD or DHS scenario? I don't know.
Do you expect this to pass the amendment process? As it stand now; the person only must be 35 years of age, and a Natural Born Citizen, and Become elected by a majority of the electoral votes. Do we want to spend the money on every want a be candidate running?
Why not? It seems like it would be money well spent, and would discourage criminals from running. But it would also be fine to charge the candidates for the check. That would also cut down on the number of bs candidates. Do I expect it to pass? Not based on my post, no. Maybe if someone with much more influence has the same idea, it might pass. I think there is likely to be some changes to various laws to prevent another Trump disaster. barfo
