White House whistleblower says 25 security clearance denials were reversed during Trump admin...
Source: The Washington Post
White House whistleblower says 25 security clearance denials were reversed during Trump administration
By Rachael Bade April 1 at 10:00 AM
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 nations 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.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/white-house-whistleblower-says-security-clearance-denials-were-reversed-during-trump-administration/2019/04/01/9f28334e-542c-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html
Firestorm49
(4,032 posts)You either trust in your procedures and abide by the conclusion, or you screw the process over in a selfish, ignorant fascist manner.
Just out of curiosity, have any democratic presidents ever overridden the security clearance vetting?
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)I'm pretty sure they would have been rare and an exception made for a good, documented reason - not more than 2 dozen done at the whim of Donny Dollhands
ck4829
(35,069 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)a newsworthy story to prove me wrong that cnn and msnbc are only slightly better than Fox.
I'm going to sit back and wait for cnn and msnbc to move this issue to the top of the heap.
Meanwhile, one of the people who was given his clearance by daddy-in-law, in return for getting bailed out for his devil tower, is going to give SA nukes in return. This issue is related to Kushner being given security clearance and not earning it right?
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)This is insane. Cuff them all and cart them off to Gitmo.
Stuart G
(38,420 posts)gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)We deserve to see a full list of names.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,183 posts)elleng
(130,872 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,000 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,183 posts)What Would Obama Do? Can you imagine if he had? Instead they make a major case about a bike helmet, a tan suit and Michelle's bare arms!
tblue37
(65,336 posts)druidity33
(6,446 posts)I have to agree to the arugula part. That shit is disgusting. It shows how strongly i feel about that given i chose my 5000th post to say it. I never plant Mesclun mix or "salad greens" mix anymore... damn arugula is a force. Even 5% in the mix TAINTS EVERYTHING!
just sayin'
TexasBushwhacker
(20,183 posts)and others don't. I hate cilantro but have no problem with arugula.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)ck4829
(35,069 posts)ScratchCat
(1,988 posts)being covered right now and the media shouldn't quit until Trump resigns.
BigmanPigman
(51,585 posts)We are in Hell and have been for over two years.
rainin
(3,011 posts)People snooze when they hear a number...as shocking as it is. Name them!
orleans
(34,051 posts)"The memo does not specify the names of the individuals whose security clearances were initially denied -- only to be overruled by the White House. But it does provide some detail about situations involving two senior White House officials and another who used to work for the National Security Council."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/security-clearances-house-oversight-committee-tricia-newbold/index.html
tblue37
(65,336 posts)ck4829
(35,069 posts)Kablooie
(18,628 posts)For this president it will be "yawn, what else is new?"
Maxheader
(4,373 posts)and winger admins in general don't give a shit about those undercover...those that might get outed from irresponsible use of high security clearances.
If ever there was a real "national emergency"..
duforsure
(11,885 posts)Before its exposed trump approved them all to lie and leave out all russian contacts off their security clearance forms. They all didn't do it with out his ok first.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)RANDYWILDMAN
(2,672 posts)all those people who are NOT involved the Collusion/conspiracy!
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)and he gave them clearance anyway. The REASON they were unqualified was because of something in their past. If their past makes them a security risk, they should not ignore the professionals and do it anyway. SO, are those GOPers SERIOUS about national security or not?
It's not a matter of "well, they are a risk, but I LIKE THEM ANYWAY." that is not security.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)The pResident has the final say on it, unfortunately, even if we don't like his decisions. The PR side is different of course, but it seem "whistleblower" is being used incorrectly here.
htuttle
(23,738 posts)I remember a Congressional committee requesting information on this topic from the Trump administration, and getting denied recently.
on edit:
Here's the reference from early in March:
On Tuesday, the White House rebuffed a request from House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, who asked for documents pertaining to the security clearance process. White House counsel Pat Cipollone said the committee's request for the information was "without legal support, clearly premature, and suggests a breach of the constitutionally required accommodation process."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-pressure/index.html
ck4829
(35,069 posts)Stuart G
(38,420 posts)I wonder who those 25 were that could not pass "security tests"?
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)Always mystified me how he got clearance with his near paranoid, wingnut,int'l grifter past.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,000 posts)DeminPennswoods
(15,285 posts)nt
Stuart G
(38,420 posts)White House. Stupid is, what stupid is.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)Like reality winner. makes me so mad
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Whistleblower protection against retaliation is when you report illegal behavior. In this case, the behavior she's reporting (poor security decision clearance decisions) is highly undesirable but unfortunately perfectly within the scope of the pResident's authority. It's the equivalent of an insider reporting that Drumpf spends too much time on Twitter. Concerning to be sure, but legallly irrelevant.
I can see why she and her lawyers will want to try to make a whistleblower/retaliation argument but it's a very thin thread legally.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,000 posts)stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)among many other nightmare consequences to our national security.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Stuart G
(38,420 posts)orangecrush
(19,546 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 2, 2019, 12:31 AM - Edit history (2)
It's bad PR for sure, but can't really to anywhere legally since making shitty clearance decisions is within the pResident's authority.
Perseus
(4,341 posts)I think that what I have learned from a corrupt president is that the position carries too much power, and that should not be. I am not sure what needs to be done, but something needs to be done.
The rules must assume that a very corrupt person may take on the presidency because so much power is dangerous to the republic.
If power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does that leave when they person taking over the position is already absolutely corrupt? which is the case with the orange buffoon, a person who came to power with a proven record of corruption.
The AG must also have set rules that prevent situations like the one with the Muller report. I know he has and he is breaking some of them, but the consequences need to be tougher to prevent a corrupt AG to bend them.
It is a terrible situation because it can become a vicious cycle where the watcher watches the other watcher, and so on in a circle, until the last watcher watches the first watcher.
And last but not least, the "policy" about not indicting a sitting president must be removed. It was an opinion and nothing else, the media and some politicians have made it into a "policy" which is not, it was just an opinion and nothing else, but the opinion must be scratched as it does not serve as policy or rule. Imagine if Barr came up with his opinions to try to convert them into policy.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,000 posts)kwijybo
(228 posts)I've had a clearance (not at that level, even). They either lied on the SF86 (but Jared revised his like 3 times and still wasn't granted one), had blackmail issues that wouldn't clear up (financial issues, drug problems, pee tape issues, etc), or close ties with foreign intelligence services. I've heard the CIA is the holdup, which scares me.
At best, I'd have been denied a clearance for those problems. Jailed for lying on the SF86.
ck4829
(35,069 posts)moondust
(19,976 posts)This kind of irresponsible behavior may cause some allies to limit their intelligence sharing if they no longer feel confident it will remain secure. That just helps the world's bad guys and autocrats, but maybe that was the plan all along.
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)IronLionZion
(45,433 posts)to America's national security secrets and intelligence?
At least these are nice white Americans, amirite?
The disappointing truth is that far too many Americans support denying people security clearances based solely on the brown-ness of their skin and not on their ability to pass extensive background checks, interviews, references, etc. I've dealt with this my whole career. Clearance jobs just aren't very diverse.
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)a foreign sovereignty on WhatsApp is a bad idea?