Posted on 02/17/2017 12:01:31 AM PST by elhombrelibre
I'm disqualified because I've hit it with too many women.
It’s not a question on the form.
For a GREAT contrast between liberal and conservative treatment of this, read “Unlimited Access” by Gary Aldrich, who was the FBI agent in charge of vetting White House employees and appointees during the Clinton Administration.
Stunning.
Bragging is a disqualifying event?
Makes you think how many were admitted during the a@@clowns reign
I hand-printed the question on the form so I could answer it.
The implication is that these people were serious mistakes when some old minor lapse may very well be the reason.
“Applicants are warned of this and potential penalties.”
And applicants affix their signatures to documents which make it abundantly clear that falsifying information has repercussions.
In fact, providing ALL background information doesn’t necessarily mean disqualification. But the investigators and adjudicating officials definitely do not react favorably to surprises.
I read it the same way. Personnel reliability is something that can have some flexibility, but somethings you cannot get around.
Yeah, that’s right. And if you say, “No, I never smoked pot.” And everyone they talk to says, “He smoked a lot of pot,” that’s more serious than saying you tried it and didn’t like it.
“marched out”
Sounds more like N.Korea.? I am sure they were escorted out of the building by security.
Too bad we can't apply this same standard to members of Congress. We'd get rid of a lot of bad apples if they actually had to pass a security background check.
James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Democrat
“Yeah, that’s right. And if you say, “No, I never smoked pot.” And everyone they talk to says, “He smoked a lot of pot,” that’s more serious than saying you tried it and didn’t like it”
That’s true... I had a friend who’s next door neighbors girlfriends brother had an army buddy who had an in-law that knew a couple of tank drivers who tried some smoke over in ‘nam in DaNang during some R&R off base at a local buy-me-drinky bar down by the beach... uh huh... no chit!
And... lest we forget
As Marilyn Quayle admitted back in the early 90’s: she was one of those losers who did not smoke pot and sexually experiment during the 1960s...
Believe it or not there are plenty of people around who have never used drugs or alcohol and still don’t. I know several.
How many of Obama’s failed?
(or did he just grant them all waivers?)
I have no idea. I think that it would have been unlikely that the media would have reported it. There is a double standard. That’s why we must send people of good character to represent conservatism.
I’m pretty sure that congress does have to pass the background check. It’s all based on what you have access to. And frankly, getting a Secret Clearance is relatively easy. A T/S, however, means a background investigation. That’s where they come and talk to a lot of people about the applicants character. Anything that could be used to blackmail you may disqualify you. For Secret, basically no felonies are serious crimes and you’re okay.
Obama had all kinds of criminals in his Administration, what did they do? Rubber stamp the apps!
Most fell under the umbrella of having a favorable investigation (meaning that they could probably get a Secret clearance, but didn't need one for the job) in order to be deemed safe to access the government's unclassified internet.
What matters is if they have access to classified material. If they’re not in a job requiring them to have access, they may not need a clearance.
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.