-PJ
Posted on 03/04/2025 9:07:17 AM PST by cgbg
The definition of SCIF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_compartmented_information_facility
A revealing nuance about AG Bondi’s visit to the particular floor and SCIF she visited was that she discovered both Biden’s and Harris’s official government portraits were displayed, but President Trump’s and Vice President Vance’s official Chain of Command government portraits were absent.
AG Bondi remarked that she physically removed the portraits from the wall where they were hung.
Let that sink in. OPEN REBELLION in the “much vaunted” (shout out to Sean Hannity-Vanity) FIB!
<> Burn the building down to the ground. Removing staff first is optional. <>
The common denominator in every SCIF I’ve been in: Damp and roaring Air Conditioners. Usually gave me a sinus infection by the time we were done...
“not the cone of silence Max!”
Here's the rub...
In 1803 (before SCIFs) at the beginning of our constitutional republic, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Marbury v. Madison:
74
By the constitution of the United States, the president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.75
In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion...
The earliest courts recognized that the Department heads appointed by the President were to be treated by their subordinates AS IF THEY WERE DEALING WITH THE PRESIDENT.
If the President can't be denied access to the SCIF on demand, then neither should his appointed designee.
-PJ
I spent 6 months on a ship, that was too long. A year in a ventilation duct had to have been pretty bad.
Excellent point.
I am still convinced some FBI offices need to be closed USAID style.
We have just seen the top of the treasonous iceberg.
I could not care less about FBI morale after what they did to the J6ers.
There were 1,550 arrests for J6.
More than 5,000 FBI agents worked on these cases.
My goal: 1,550 Deep State clowns arrested, indicted and convicted.
Another goal: 5,000 FBI agents fired.
They can put “I was just following orders” on their resumes.
“Refusing Cabinet Officials or Department Heads access to SCIFs in their agencies or departments is blatant treason...”
No. There are two requirements to getting compartmental clearance that are the basics of protection of sensitive documents: “Security clearance level” and “need to know.”
This is why SCIF’s are in existance. To protect sensitive information from those that either aren’t qualified or don’t need to be there. If a cabinet official or department head does not qualify on either, then the door is shut. And they have to have a specific reason for going into a scif and not going on a fishing trip. And that reason has to be laid out to demand entrance. They can still get it done, but it has to be done properly and precisely.
wy69
As I noted earlier President Trump needs to change that if he wants to gain control over government operations.
Did you post this? “The education secretary does not need to know where our subs are. “
More stupid pointless misplaced logic: “The agriculture secretary does not need to know about covert SEAL missions overseas.”
-PJ
That’s the way we stored them.
It’s not that bad, or at least it wasn’t.
I agree with you, though the guy blocking the door is truly in a tough spot:
(1) He ain’t a lawyer and shouldn’t be expected to know all that... even if it truly applies to a security situation (there’s a host of rules you sign up for when you’re granted a clearance, which absolutely includes the protection of classified materials from unauthorized personnel);
(2) if he allows her in and shouldn’t have done so, then he’s committed a bad security violation and could be subject to prosecution;
(3) if he blocks her and shouldn’t have done so, that’s at least the safer option by security standards because he protected the classified material inside from someone who didn’t (maybe? probably?) present proper credentials... but he might also lose his job.
I am speculating here, of course, because we don’t know if she was blocked merely because the people on site didn’t want her in the SCIF. That would be a whole ‘nother matter entirely. But there’s a chance this was done for all the right reasons (#3 in my list above).
Who would “need to know” concerning the Epstein files?
It’s merely a federal case involving a sex trafficker.
Or is it something more?
IIRC, the President, in his role as the ultimate classification authority, can clear anyone for anything.
I don’t know if he did this, but it might come with the job.
-PJ
<> THIS <>
Some are like that. The one where didn’t have to put stuff away was a project where everyone had the same clearance and need to know. Everything about the project was top secret.
It’s where you park your classic Corvette?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.