At what point to loyalty oaths and stringent background checks disqualify people?
At what point to loyalty oaths and stringent background checks disqualify people?
Certainly not during a democrat administration...
20 years in a federal pen sounds about right.
There are too many people like her that need to go.
Flow just the kind of information she's been dreaming of to/past her, wait for specifics to show up in the public sphere.
Yeah...she joins NSA contractor Pluribus, then steals TS information a few months later. She no doubt had a complete FB profile and other online rantings about “resistance” that should have DQ’d her immediately in any background security check. What the hell is wrong at Pluribus? They should lose all their fed contracts and be DQ’d for any new contracts for five years.
“At what point to loyalty oaths and stringent background checks disqualify people?”
In the olden days comments like hers on social media (public) would have disqualified her for the job, and most certainly would have caused non-issue or revocation of her clearance.
Just like the jihadi menace, these people are generally well-known and would have been identified in the Special Background Investigation. SBI was required for ALL TS access, not to mention the special endorsements (SCI/LIMDIS/Crypto etc.).
But I’m willing to bet good money that Obama loosened the guidance profoundly. Hell, James Clapper admitted to voting for a Communist and went right to the top.
The firm and direct order from POTUS to DOJ and all Federal Intel/LEO agencies must be:
1. Find EVERY leaker, try and imprison them.
2. And, don’t ever grant another clearance to anyone that can be blackmailed, cajoled or otherwise persuaded to not protect it with their lives. This one obviously was a revolutionary, anti-government agent who intended harm to the entire nation, and admitted to that fact.
Proudly.