Letter: Security clearance should be taken seriously

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 22, 2018 1:11 p.m.

    To "silo" can you name all 100 people without completed security clearances?

    Also, not having a finalized clearance is not a security violation. According to the Federal Government, an interim clearance can grant you access to whatever information you need for your job.

    So, not having a completed clearance is NOT a security violation. So that means I have 4 specific examples and you have 0.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Feb. 22, 2018 11:29 a.m.


    After 14 months in office, Trump has more than 100 white house aides, staff, and cabinet who do not yet have security clearance, yet are actively accessing secure data and intel.

    You listed 4 examples from Obama's 8 years.

    You only have 96 more examples from Obama before your previous claim that Obama had 'just as many security issues' as Trump.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    Feb. 22, 2018 7:27 a.m.

    To "silo" how about the whole Hillary Clinton was found putting classified information on a private email server. The FBI found THOUSANDS of pieces of classified data on her server.

    In 2014 the GSA found that a special unit set up to track security leaks was in violation of all sorts of illegal software, and exposed sensitive data to hackers.

    Lets not forget that under Obama we had the hack of the OPM systems.

    Then there are the lost laptops that contained sensitive information that occurred multiple times during the Obama administration.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Feb. 21, 2018 7:19 p.m.

    "Obama's administration had just as many security issues"

    Cite a single source that supports your claim.

  • Fact Check Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 20, 2018 11:54 a.m.

    @TeachyMcTeacherPants "However, when the same flaws exist in the current White House, everyone just looks away."

    I see a lot of people here patiently explaining the difference between the two: Kushner has interim clearance and is awaiting final clearance; Hillary has exposed classified information to people who have no clearance. They are not "the same."

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 20, 2018 11:07 a.m.

    Teachy: You need to explain the parallels. How exactly are Hillary's egregious security violations comparable to Trump operating within standard security guidelines? Hillary broke the law. Trump has not even broken policy.

    Please explain your comparison.

  • Dmorgan Herriman, UT
    Feb. 20, 2018 11:06 a.m.

    @ Fact Check - As someone who once held a security clearance, I can state unequivocally that, if he weren't President, Mr Trump would not qualify for a security clearance. Yes, the President can grant security clearances, but there is good reason that Jared and others can't pass the FBI background check and shouldn't receive a full security clearance. A background check is essential in determining if there is something in a persons history that could result in them being compromised. That involves a number of conditions. It is ignorant to think having as many as 130 persons having access to classified material in the White House without a proper clearance is not dangerous to our national security. I only hope that the new security provisions outlined in John Kelly's memo are carried out, and those lacking a full security clearance are excused from the White House this coming Friday.

  • TeachyMcTeacherPants Sandy, UT
    Feb. 20, 2018 9:40 a.m.

    I agree.

    I feel like during the campaign Hillary and Obama's flaws were exposed and ripped apart - and rightfully so. However, when the same flaws exist in the current White House, everyone just looks away.

    If it's wrong for Obama and Hillary, it should be wrong for Trump.
    The country's security is at stake here.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Feb. 20, 2018 9:02 a.m.

    To "Impartial7" Obama's administration had just as many security issues. The problem is that your ilk missed out on them because you only listen to the liberal biased news sources.

    You were even trying to get the biggest security risk elected President.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 20, 2018 8:18 a.m.

    Obviously there is a lot of ignorance out there about security clearances.

    First, a security clearance by itself is not sufficient to be given access to classified information. There are two requirements, an appropriate level of clearance and a need to know. My clearance gives me access to certain information that I need to perform my job but I cannot access information not related to my duties even if it is classified below my clearance level.

    Second, an interim clearance is treated exactly the same as a full clearance with respect to accessing information related to my need to know. An interim clearance is granted for that express purpose, to give someone access to information needed to execute his/her duties.

    Third, Hillary's issue was not sharing classified information with people who were cleared but putting into the public arena instead of protecting it with standard security guidelines and practices. It was accessible to people without a clearance and without a need to know.

    I know there are a lot of people eager to jump on Trump for any perceived misstep but there is nothing to see here folks. Only the ignorant are criticizing.

  • Zabilde Riverdale, UT
    Feb. 20, 2018 8:16 a.m.

    I wish people who have zero understanding of the Clearance process and handling of classified information wouldn't try and speak or write about it.

    First: Porter did have a legal clearance. He was awarded an interim Clearance by the Whitehouse Security Office. They had not issued the final clearance yet but he had the appropriate clearance. The FBI had finished their investigative work, but they don't adjudicate the results of the investigation, the Whitehouse Security office does that.

    Second: Working with an interim clearance is a far different thing than intentionally putting classified information onto the unclassified internet. Working with an interim is legal and many do it some times for a couple years when clearances get backed up. Putting classified information onto unclassified data systems is a felony. Even if negligent it is still a felony.

    There is zero evidence or claim that Porter mishandled any classified information during his time in that job. The same cannot be said for Hillary as Dir Comey clearly explained over 100 email conversations where classified info was mishandled. That is a crime and she needs to be prosecuted.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 20, 2018 8:14 a.m.

    The President decides who has clearance. The FBI can present findings, but the decision is his. Now let's discuss the huge breach of security that Hillary caused when she asked her maid to help her sort through emails on the illegal email server stashed away in a unsecured bathroom. Unlike the President, Hillary had no authority to decide security clearance. Hillary gave her maid access to State Department secrets.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 20, 2018 7:23 a.m.

    This is the same President who invited two high level Russian officials into the Oval Office, along with Russian media and excluded US media. I doubt Rob Porter is much of a problem. Kushner, not so sure. In any case, the process is messed up. I really think Russia knows most of our secrets now under the Trump regime.

  • Fact Check Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 19, 2018 10:30 p.m.

    US Code Secton 793(f) states:

    "Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

    A home-grown, private email server is not a proper place of custody, nor is Anthony Weiner's laptop.

  • Fact Check Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 19, 2018 10:22 p.m.

    @Karen Pearce "Jared Kushner has no clearance...."

    Jared Kushner has an interim clearance and is awaiting the results of an FBI background investigation. Regardless, the President as chief executive may give clearance to anyone he wishes.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Feb. 19, 2018 7:08 p.m.

    If a tenth of the security issues happened when Obama was President, the GOP, Fox news and AM radio would be screaming, non-stop for his impeachment and arrest. But, now that Trump's giving state secrets to anyone he pleases, they are suddenly silent. There's more than a few walking the line of treason. You can only hope that career department heads and officials, are withholding critical info from Trump and his staff.