[molson209]

Don’t Presidents have to go through a Security clearance ? If not it’s insane

[MrB]

Nope. Presidents don’t have to get security clearance.
And since Clinton, neither do their staff.

Leftists don’t tend to qualify for security clearances.
I doubt even Bill himself could have gotten one.

[atc23]

Don’t Presidents have to go through a Security clearance

When I worked at ITT Industries, I was in charge of doing background checks for visitors to the manufacturing plant. The president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama would not have gotten clearance - to visit a MACHINE SHOP - but he's got the country's nuclear football. It is, it's just insane

[ml/nj]

Don’t Presidents have to go through a Security clearance ? If not it’s insane

Nope. Presidents do not. And my guess is that staff doesn't either anymore. (They used to. See Gary Aldrich's Unlimited Access.)

ML/NJ

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

:: Don’t Presidents have to go through a Security clearance ? ::

Nope. Having been elected by The People negates such action. Reason: If a duly elected POTUS failed a Security Clearance check, would that over-turn a legal election?

[Reily]

No they do not !
No candidate does, the act of electing someone gives them the security “vetting” be they congress-pig, senator-creep or pResident! That's why elections are important and voting to deny power is as important (maybe more so!) then voting to give power.
Read the Constitution! You see any procedures for security vetting? The Founding Fathers actually thought we would take elections seriously!
Anyway think about it, what politician would put himself at risk for a security clearance. If the clearance process uncovers anything that is is illegal the investigators are bound by law to report it. Also the “party-out-of-power” could claim that the “party-in-of-power” was denying clearances to their candidates. How would it proved that wasn't that case? In today's political world it would happen!

We are reaching a third world level of political corruption and their is no cross party consensus against it. Also the public mouths platitudes about being against it but does little, particularly at the state, county and local level.

We desperately need term limits (a decade in an elected office is enough!) at all levels, its not a panacea, but at least it makes corruption more complicated to undertake.

[Molon Labbie]

If they truly did, do you think any of them would become President?

I have had background checks that took six months to complete to work for the Feds, and still getting therapy for the microscope in my posterior.

No, I believe at some point, the politicians in Washington reach a status level that their background (and loyalties) and not investigated.

Look at this way. If I as a police officer admitted to using coke like Obama did, I would not be a police officer, yet he is the CINC, and determines who my ultimate LE boss is? Something wonky there.

[butterdezillion]

No, they don’t. The election is considered the security clearance. I got that from an audio interview with an FBI guy who said that, and I also got that from Nebraska’s SOS, John Gale - who also said that the media would never let an ineligible person go unvetted...

We are in serious doo-doo unless the people realize we are our only defenders. The system does not protect us against itself.

[TexasVoter]

Don’t Presidents have to go through a Security clearance ? If not it’s insane

It's insane, molson. FBI agents and other law enforcement professionals have admitted that it is not their job to second guess the electorate on the suitability of candidates. Obama could not be cleared to work as a janitor in any governmental building, if only because his SSN flunks the e-verify test. Yet, there he sits writing one Excutiuve Order after another and shoring up his phalanx of czars...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2740018/posts

[Smokin' Joe]

Don’t Presidents have to go through a Security clearance ?

Nope. If they did, this guy couldn't join the tour group.