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.
@redshirtAfter 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.
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.
@redshirt"Obama's administration had just as many security
issues"Cite a single source that supports your claim.
@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."
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@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.
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.