Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Six Trump aides marched out of the White House for FAILING national security (trunc)
Daily Mail ^ | 17 Feb 17 | David Mortosko

Posted on 02/17/2017 12:01:31 AM PST by elhombrelibre

Six White House staffers were marched out of the building on Thursday after they failed national security background checks.

Politico reported that the unlucky half-dozen included one who was the president's director of scheduling.

Caroline Wiles is also the daughter of Susan Wiles, a former chief of staff to Florida Gov. Rick Scott and the Trump campaign's director in Florida.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: securityclearance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: elhombrelibre
But, just to be accurate, you cannot say you’ve done certain crimes either.

I'm disqualified because I've hit it with too many women.

21 posted on 02/17/2017 3:17:36 AM PST by Lazamataz (TRUMP LIED TO ME!!!! ....He said I'd get sick of winning.... AND I'M NOT SICK OF WINNING YET!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

It’s not a question on the form.


22 posted on 02/17/2017 3:25:56 AM PST by elhombrelibre (Cogito ergo sum a conservative pro-American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: blackdog

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.


23 posted on 02/17/2017 4:05:13 AM PST by rlmorel (Orwell described Liberals when he wrote of those who "repudiate morality while laying claim to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Bragging is a disqualifying event?


24 posted on 02/17/2017 4:10:34 AM PST by Gadsden1st
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

Makes you think how many were admitted during the a@@clowns reign


25 posted on 02/17/2017 4:12:53 AM PST by ronnie raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
It’s not a question on the form.

I hand-printed the question on the form so I could answer it.

26 posted on 02/17/2017 4:18:02 AM PST by Lazamataz (TRUMP LIED TO ME!!!! ....He said I'd get sick of winning.... AND I'M NOT SICK OF WINNING YET!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
LOL! "Marched" - they probably would have like to have said "Duck walked"....I was a security manager for a long time and knew many good people who failed to get security clearances for pretty mundane reasons - in some cases a commander could waiver the person as long as they wouldn't be in contact with classified but that was mainly used for folks who had been on board then failed a re-check due to financial woes, etc.

The implication is that these people were serious mistakes when some old minor lapse may very well be the reason.

27 posted on 02/17/2017 4:19:50 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

“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.


28 posted on 02/17/2017 4:39:07 AM PST by Clutch Martin (Hot sauce aside, every culture has its pancake, just as every ulture has its noodle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: trebb

I read it the same way. Personnel reliability is something that can have some flexibility, but somethings you cannot get around.


29 posted on 02/17/2017 5:03:41 AM PST by elhombrelibre (Cogito ergo sum a conservative pro-American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Clutch Martin

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.


30 posted on 02/17/2017 5:05:07 AM PST by elhombrelibre (Cogito ergo sum a conservative pro-American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

“marched out”

Sounds more like N.Korea.? I am sure they were escorted out of the building by security.


31 posted on 02/17/2017 5:14:07 AM PST by Leep (Cyclops Network News (CNN). The Most Trusted Source Of Fake News.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
Peace, elhombrelibre,

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

32 posted on 02/17/2017 5:36:28 AM PST by James R. McClure Jr.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

“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.


33 posted on 02/17/2017 5:51:08 AM PST by Clutch Martin (Hot sauce aside, every culture has its pancake, just as every ulture has its noodle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

How many of Obama’s failed?
(or did he just grant them all waivers?)


34 posted on 02/17/2017 6:37:21 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

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.


35 posted on 02/17/2017 6:43:05 AM PST by elhombrelibre (Cogito ergo sum a conservative pro-American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: James R. McClure Jr.

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.


36 posted on 02/17/2017 6:46:06 AM PST by elhombrelibre (Cogito ergo sum a conservative pro-American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

Obama had all kinds of criminals in his Administration, what did they do? Rubber stamp the apps!


37 posted on 02/17/2017 6:56:03 AM PST by Ambrosia ('If it walks like a duck, quakes like a duck...., unless it's an imposter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
 photo bannerfr.jpg
38 posted on 02/17/2017 6:57:15 AM PST by MomwithHope (The pendulum is swinging our way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
Yep - the Obama "boom economy" resulted in a number of low-level civilians having financial/bankruptcy problems and commanders had to file a lot of waivers (accepting personal responsibility for their access to the NIPRNet so they could do their jobs) to keep from letting them go - lots of secretaries on the list.

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.

39 posted on 02/17/2017 7:08:04 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ambrosia

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.


40 posted on 02/17/2017 7:59:12 AM PST by elhombrelibre (Cogito ergo sum a conservative pro-American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson