This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1prosfilaes
Courtesy of margd:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/us/politics/trump-security-clearances.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/security-clearances-house-oversight-comm...
When it was just Jared Kushner, I didn't see this as a big deal; Trump could vouch for his son-in-law himself, and if we aren't impressed, well, it's not really separate from not being impressed by Trump.
But now it seems to be a pattern, a collection of people who Trump can't reasonably vouch for, a pattern of ignoring national security to get people who seem to be big businessmen instead of people maximally competent at their position.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/us/politics/trump-security-clearances.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/security-clearances-house-oversight-comm...
When it was just Jared Kushner, I didn't see this as a big deal; Trump could vouch for his son-in-law himself, and if we aren't impressed, well, it's not really separate from not being impressed by Trump.
But now it seems to be a pattern, a collection of people who Trump can't reasonably vouch for, a pattern of ignoring national security to get people who seem to be big businessmen instead of people maximally competent at their position.
2RickHarsch
>1 prosfilaes: Strange. I thought Kushner was a particularly big deal--security clearance is one area the president should want to be separated from. But then again Dan Quayle got it, so...good precedence for Kushner.
Anyway, maybe this is Trump shouting Wake up, this is a fucking oligarchy!
Anyway, maybe this is Trump shouting Wake up, this is a fucking oligarchy!
3prosfilaes
>2 RickHarsch: security clearance is one area the president should want to be separated from.
The security clearance people may be biased against certain political or social groups; everyone on the Left was accused of being a Russian agent during the Cold War. The rules against blackmailable people are always somewhat circular; gay people can be blackmailed because they'd lose their security clearance if it was revealed they were gay, so they can't be allowed to hold security clearances.
From another side, if you have a drunk who is still the best person in the world for the job, that judgment call is ultimately the president's.
I think the President has to occasionally be involved, but what's coming out seems way too frequent and without good reasons.
The security clearance people may be biased against certain political or social groups; everyone on the Left was accused of being a Russian agent during the Cold War. The rules against blackmailable people are always somewhat circular; gay people can be blackmailed because they'd lose their security clearance if it was revealed they were gay, so they can't be allowed to hold security clearances.
From another side, if you have a drunk who is still the best person in the world for the job, that judgment call is ultimately the president's.
I think the President has to occasionally be involved, but what's coming out seems way too frequent and without good reasons.
4jjwilson61
I understand why Jared Kushner might have gotten an override, but why was it important to violate protocol to hire a particular janitor?
5prosfilaes
>4 jjwilson61: If you're worried about the red telephone to Moscow being tapped, perhaps you consider it safer to hire a janitor to deliver your messages directly to Moscow?
6margd
Kushner's security clearance was denied due to concerns of foreign influence: report
Owen Daugherty - 04/03/19
...Tricia Newbold, a whistleblower who has worked as a career official in the Executive Office of the President for 18 years...told the committee last month that officials in the Trump administration overruled her and others' recommendations not to grant security clearances to 25 individuals.
She also reportedly told the committee that a background investigation into (Jared) Kushner brought concerns regarding foreign influence, personal conduct and other business interests, according to the Post.
The issues raised by Kushner's background check were not made clear, but the Post reported in 2018 that foreign officials had allegedly discussed ways to influence Kushner by leveraging his business dealings and lack of foreign policy experience.
The United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico reportedly discussed such efforts, current and former officials told the paper...
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437292-kushners-security-clearance-w...
Owen Daugherty - 04/03/19
...Tricia Newbold, a whistleblower who has worked as a career official in the Executive Office of the President for 18 years...told the committee last month that officials in the Trump administration overruled her and others' recommendations not to grant security clearances to 25 individuals.
She also reportedly told the committee that a background investigation into (Jared) Kushner brought concerns regarding foreign influence, personal conduct and other business interests, according to the Post.
The issues raised by Kushner's background check were not made clear, but the Post reported in 2018 that foreign officials had allegedly discussed ways to influence Kushner by leveraging his business dealings and lack of foreign policy experience.
The United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico reportedly discussed such efforts, current and former officials told the paper...
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437292-kushners-security-clearance-w...
7margd
White House tells official who gave Kushner security clearance: Don't comply with subpoena
Carl Kline was supposed to appear before House committee staff Tuesday to face questions related to his handling of White House security clearances.
Laura Strickler and Peter Alexander | April 23, 2019, 10:49 AM EDT
The White House has told Carl Kline, the former security specialist who approved Jared Kushner’s security clearance over the objections of career staffers, not to comply with a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee...
...for an interview if the committee does not allow a member of the White House counsel staff to attend.
...Kline's attorney Robert Driscoll sent his own letter to the committee, saying that Kline risked jeopardizing his job at the Pentagon if he defied the White House.
...Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he plans to speak with his members about scheduling a vote to hold Kline in contempt for defying the subpoena.
“The White House and Mr. Kline now stand in open defiance of a duly authorized congressional subpoena with no assertion of any privilege of any kind by President Trump," Cummings said in a statement.
"Based on these actions, it appears that the president believes that the Constitution does not apply to his White House, that he may order officials at will to violate their legal obligations, and that he may obstruct attempts by Congress to conduct oversight."
Cummings noted that the White House wrote to his committee last Thursday threatening to order Kline to skip the scheduled deposition unless the White House counsel was allowed to participate. Four days later, Cummings said, the committee responded by explaining that it has for many years prohibited agency lawyers from participating in depositions.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/white-house-tells-official-who-gave...
_______________________________________________________
From thread Scandalwatch 9:
Contempt of Congress
Randall Eliason | April 20, 2015
...The contempt of Congress statute ... 2 U.S.C. § 192, provides in part:
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House . . . willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.
A companion statute, 2 U.S.C. § 194, provides that if a witness has been found in contempt and that finding is duly reported to the Speaker of the House or President of the Senate, “it shall be the duty” of that leader to certify the matter to the United States attorney, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”
...Congress is free to send its contempt citations to the Executive, but has no real recourse if the U.S. Attorney decides that prosecution is not appropriate.
...The contempt of Congress statute is not Congress’s only tool when it comes to contempt. Since the early 1800s, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has its own inherent contempt power – the power to hold witnesses in contempt itself and even to lock them up. Although not specifically provided for in the Constitution, the Court has found that this inherent contempt power is essential to Congress’s ability to investigate and legislate effectively...
https://sidebarsblog.com/contempt-of-congress/
Carl Kline was supposed to appear before House committee staff Tuesday to face questions related to his handling of White House security clearances.
Laura Strickler and Peter Alexander | April 23, 2019, 10:49 AM EDT
The White House has told Carl Kline, the former security specialist who approved Jared Kushner’s security clearance over the objections of career staffers, not to comply with a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee...
...for an interview if the committee does not allow a member of the White House counsel staff to attend.
...Kline's attorney Robert Driscoll sent his own letter to the committee, saying that Kline risked jeopardizing his job at the Pentagon if he defied the White House.
...Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he plans to speak with his members about scheduling a vote to hold Kline in contempt for defying the subpoena.
“The White House and Mr. Kline now stand in open defiance of a duly authorized congressional subpoena with no assertion of any privilege of any kind by President Trump," Cummings said in a statement.
"Based on these actions, it appears that the president believes that the Constitution does not apply to his White House, that he may order officials at will to violate their legal obligations, and that he may obstruct attempts by Congress to conduct oversight."
Cummings noted that the White House wrote to his committee last Thursday threatening to order Kline to skip the scheduled deposition unless the White House counsel was allowed to participate. Four days later, Cummings said, the committee responded by explaining that it has for many years prohibited agency lawyers from participating in depositions.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/white-house-tells-official-who-gave...
_______________________________________________________
From thread Scandalwatch 9:
Contempt of Congress
Randall Eliason | April 20, 2015
...The contempt of Congress statute ... 2 U.S.C. § 192, provides in part:
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House . . . willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.
A companion statute, 2 U.S.C. § 194, provides that if a witness has been found in contempt and that finding is duly reported to the Speaker of the House or President of the Senate, “it shall be the duty” of that leader to certify the matter to the United States attorney, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”
...Congress is free to send its contempt citations to the Executive, but has no real recourse if the U.S. Attorney decides that prosecution is not appropriate.
...The contempt of Congress statute is not Congress’s only tool when it comes to contempt. Since the early 1800s, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has its own inherent contempt power – the power to hold witnesses in contempt itself and even to lock them up. Although not specifically provided for in the Constitution, the Court has found that this inherent contempt power is essential to Congress’s ability to investigate and legislate effectively...
https://sidebarsblog.com/contempt-of-congress/
