https://news.clearancejobs.com/2016/07/25/kind-security-clearance-president-get/


How is this possible?

It says that a new President or any President does NOT get a Security Check...WHY?

The most powerful person in the world needs access to all info in hopes of making informed decisions. I am puzzled by why you'd think otherwise? Should we have unelected civil servants doing what they want know no one, not even the President, can know what they are up to? Sadly, however, we know the President never sees most of the crap these traitors are up to because they hide it from them. Look how often these people (FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS etc.) are lawfully ordered to provide documents for FOIA requests or even top secret clearance level committees and either flat out refuse or suddenly claim the documents were mysteriously accidentally destroyed etc It is critical that someone has a reasonable chance to keep tabs on these criminals. Why not the person nationally elected? I actually wish even more people had the same oversight ability but I doubt the deep state is going to allow it to happen. A President of either party is unlikely to see the really secret stuff because it is so secret no one knows to look for it.

This says that the President DOESN'T need or get a security clearance and I want to know why? Trump doesn't have to get one and he couldn't get one. THAT'S what I said.

Gosh Barry,
Of course he does. Don't you remember that Scene in Mash where somebody asked Col Henry Blake who gave him his clearance and and he said to Radar, didn't we clear each other? Hey I had a Secret Clearance when I was in the Navy way back in the 50's. Hey, you gotta be on top of things!

If a President can't pass an FBI Security check to work in the WH how can he receiver the CIA Report every morning. I believe Trump owes the Russian Mobs billions of dollars and is in the Launder Business. He is compromised....I followed him in NY....He was broke many times and nobody would bail him out.....Oh yeah Deutche bank lent him money also and they are a haven for Russian Money. You can't make this stuff up.

Presidents do not need a security clearance.. they get one by default. Sorry if I thought you understood how it actually worked. Since you don't apparently, all elected Presidents once they take office, they have max level clearance and additionally, they can INSTANTLY declassify anything they want at any time legally. They can also share anything they want with anyone by making it unclassified. They can't be punished or stopped from doing anything they want with classified info which is how Clinton (Bill) and Obama were legally able to give classified info to China and other countries in exchange for all sorts of things that both helped their agenda or, for example, got money for their libraries or money laundering operations... er..I mean "Foundations."

I'd change the law. If they can't pass an FBI Security Check they can't be President. Right now they can. This would be for ALL future President. The Presidency has too much power in my opinion. We don't have to agree on this...

No, we don't have to agree, fortunately I have the law and history on my side. The reason you do not want to limit access is that a President can't possibly keep an eye on the other branches of government (some of which is his constitutional duty) to keep them in check, just at THEY keep him in check. And if our highest elected official can't see Top Secret Files about National Defense or Intelligence on any given issue, how exactly would they govern and how would they keep unelected civil servants from a silent coup of the country (which many feel has already happened)? Additionally, passing such a law denies the will of the people being government meaning we have no Republic at all. On top of that, enemies of the state or party to which the President belongs could easily file false charges just to keep them from holding government positions. It would be easy for the power civil servants in government to frame anyone (which we're starting to uncover right now by the way) to attempt to overthrow a duly elected President. An overzealous VP might use that new rule you want to take over by setting up such a set of charges or factors that would deny a regular citizen from having Top Secret Clearance quite easily. If our government is working correctly, the President is representing all of us voters collectively to make sure our government isn't out of control. Sadly no Presidents of either party have done this in far more than a century though Eisenhower tried to warn us and others such as Kennedy paid with his life when he threatened to dismantle a long out of control CIA. This isn't a party thing. People with dishonest intent will always act accordingly, but if we can hire good person to help us escape the grips of the authoritarian behemoth government, then any hope is lost. We may already be there as we're seeing an attempted coup being exposed right now and those involved have not given up. At least there is a chance to keep exposing this which would not have happened had the other candidate stolen the election as they planned.

Golly Barry,
You might just be right. I sent off for my Magic Decoder Ring. Sometime later some sinister guys in dark suits and dark glasses showed up and indicated to me there is no such thing as a Magic Decoder Ring! And after I was really getting my hopes up! Foiled again!

Don't you think this should be changed? If a President can't pass a security check they shouldn't be President. I don't get your resistance to a new law for this. And it would apply to every president. Why do have a problem. This about ALL Presidents? I don't get your attitude...You seem awful defensive. We have a Constitution but it allows for Amendments....????????????

Why is this Funny Ray?

Brian is right. Not all that stuff about the attempted coup - I'm not going to get into that.

No constitution is perfect, but the way things are arranged now in this regard is the most likely to be the best solution in the most circumstances. Nobody could have predicted the current situation. We have to look beyond the current incumbent, hope to God he's an aberration, and envisage what works best in normal circumstances. If we want a better democracy, the solution lies in keeping dangerous morons as far from the levers of power as possible (electoral reform), not scrambling to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.

What is wrong with a President Elect needing to pass the same Security Checks everybody else does. There is no down side to that and cannot understand anybody's resistance to that. Every President and in the future. It seems like a no brainer.....I never new this and as new facts come to light in life we can adjust and make changes.....

Well,
Those sinister types did leave me a what looked like a badly used box that looked like it was once a Cracker Jack box that may have said, it was badly smudged, for a deplorable and about a quarter full of what looked like crumbs. Who said draining the swamp was going to be easy! Aw, yes, the current situation. Filling the swamp, that is. Not current, been going on for the last 100 years. It's gonna take a while but may never be fully drained. But cheer up, Rome may be just over the horizon!

It's mostly Lobby Quick Sand.....

Aw, Yes,
Didja know I have looked all over H and half of Georgia looking for places to pitch my songs! It is sparse out there. Oh, and
Hank Thompson recorded a song Entitled Quicksand. You can Google it.

Here is as simple as I can make it:

The US Government features 3 separate but equal branches of Government. To be equal, all 3 must hold their own equally with the other two. The Executive must have the same Top Secret access as the Legislation and Judiciary have. Without it, we have no government.

Further, once a President is duly elected in free and fair elections, he also becomes the only person who can deem ANY document, Program etc. no longer top secret and make it available, as needed, to the public. To say anyone can't be President when duly elected for ANY reason would simply mean the party in power could simply choose to removed someones Top Secret eligibility in a wide range of ways, thus making it impossible to satisfy the will of the people. Things would quickly devolve into political prisoners and authoritarian rule and the collapse of our system. If you don't believe that, imagine if any given previous or current President would have been denied their term(s) and the resulting collapse of the civil society that would have followed.

But if you're that passionate, then go to your representative and sell them on sponsoring a bill to do what you want. I look forward to hearing their response to you regardless of what party they represent. .

Brian

Gavin,

Apparently you have missed recent reports of a fake dossier, paid for by Hillary Clinton and filled in with contributions by Clinton supporters and Russian secret service operatives put together by an ex British spy who then presented it to be used in a FISA court in 2016 Pre Election to get permission to spy on Trump campaign members including a web that caught up pretty much everyone in Trumps orbit and Trump himself. When presented (and all this was confirmed by the FBI leaders at the time) to the FISA court, the FBI admitted without the fake dossier they could not have gotten approval from the FISA court. To attempt to legitimize the fake Dossier, the British Spy leaked the story to Yahoo (of all places) and Mother Jones magazine and then it was claimed that those publications were independent corroboration of the legitimacy of the Dossier when they were simply the circular source to begin with. Claims could be made they didn't realize it was fake the first time around though the FBI admits they did nothing to corroborate the Dossier and simply took the British Spy's word for it and that it was simply salacious and there was zero proof that it was true but they did not disclose this internal doubt to the court which is.. drum roll: ILLEGAL AS HELL, and before they renewed the FISA ruling (which is required every 3 months which they did 4 times), the FBI found out that the British Spy had lied and also that he was the source of the leak to Yahoo and Mother Jones, but STILL they did not share this info which is an even bigger ILLEGAL action (We're talking treason, and long sentences for each instance for all parties involved which include Barack Obama, the entire leadership of the FBI, NSA and Judicial (Lynch included). It's a big deal.

More "memo's" to follow so watch them squeal like stuck pigs and twist and lie via their media surrogates around the world. The corruption crossed into both parties by the way, so this is simply the swamp creatures being exposed.

No Brian, I didn't miss any of that. I'm just not as gullible. When Fox News and their like dump a huge pile of horse manure in my driveway, I recognize the smell and walk around it, rather than jumping in and wallowing in the muck, all the while shouting "Obama done it."

On the one side is the apparatus of the state, of which we should always be wary. On the other is a bunch of proven and compulsive liars with Nunes' slanted and deliberately misleading memo, which was pretty much debunked for what it was before the ink was dry.

I don't care who paid for the work that led to the dossier. (It was Republican rivals of Trump and then supporters of Clinton.) Calling it "fake" doesn't invalidate it any more than calling any information that is inconvenient for one's interest or world view "fake news."The dossier is either correct, mostly correct, mostly wrong or wrong. I suspect it will turn out to be mostly correct, but it remains to be seen. It's classic Trump tactics to attack the messenger. Besides, it wasn't the dossier that led to the FBI inquiry and Nunes deliberately omitted from his "memo" the fact that the judge was in fact told that the dossier was paid for by political operatives. This is all one big preemptive propaganda operation to discredit the FBI inquiry in case it turns up inconvenient truths. It's pretty inept, but that doesn't seem to matter to the faithful. I don't think it will sway anyone else.

Obama caused cancer too didn't you know?

Aw, Humm, Well,
The people took at look at Whats-Her-Name then their Economic Situation and said, another 8 years of this? Whats-His-Name went everywhere ant talked to anyone, including those who were Bad Mouthing him. The "Peasants" figured they would be no worse off with Whats-His-Name and changed their vote. Those good pay raises, Bonuses, more jobs, Corporations coming back to the U.S. The Future looks better than it has in a long time. The President was thoroughly examined by the masses. He passes with flying colors. Now if somebody would pass on some of my songs! Record them I mean. Geronimo!!

I stopped reading after you falsely suggested I got ANY of that information from FoxNews, a network I haven't watched in years as they are nearly as corrupt as CNN and MSNBC. This is no longer a right versus left thing. That is a false construct created by the authoritarian power holders that control both parties and have them play their roles to keep people divided. Ask yourself a few simple questions Gavin:

1. Are you for free speech?
2. Are you against illegal government surveillance against private citizens?
3. Should elected officials have to follow the same laws as everyone else?

If you answered yes to those 3 questions, then we're on the same side. If you answered no to any of them, then you're with the authoritarians and that would explain your denial of the facts in this instance. If you answered YES to those questions, you need to open your eyes and read the facts first hand, removing the party letter (R) or (D) from the equation because at this point it is meaningless. There are guilty parties from each side involved (John McCain especially). All of this is public information. Read the documents first hand yourself rather than have talking heads on TV interpret them for you. The Memo is only about 4 pages and readily available online and all over youtube. But don't listen to others, read it yourself. .

I did read it, Brian, which is why I was able to identify it for the tendentious nonsense it was.

I'm definitely on the same side. I just disagree about what I'm looking at, especially when it comes to that memo.

Sorry for the Fox News thing. I used "Fox News and their like" as shorthand for conspiracy theory peddlers. It was sloppy and lazy.