Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

SZ James (banned)

Wapo: John Kelly lied about the wife beater Rob Porter situation

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

I saw someone speaking about this last night.  That there would have to have been a specific request from Trump and only Trump to continue in the position with the application file closed and no clearance issued. 

If he was cleared by anyone outside of Trump that is in violation of policy.

 

 

 

Trump always boxed in.  He defends abusers because he has too....because he is one

He didn’t kick Porter out and kept him on....because his own son-in-law can’t get clearance either.  He never will.  So Trump has to treat Porter the same way....attempt to let those who will never gain clearance intact with a permanent temporary one and just BS it until he can get them to go somewhere else 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


DNI Coats to Senate:

Sometimes “necessary to have some kind of preliminary clearance in order to fill a slot but…if that's the case the access HAS TO BE LIMITED in terms of the kind of information they can be in a position to receive"

Trump has the guys with interim clearance receiving the whole enchilada.  Imagine the shady poo Jared gets that he then uses to try to bail his indebted family out with.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CRA said:

DNI Coats to Senate:

Sometimes “necessary to have some kind of preliminary clearance in order to fill a slot but…if that's the case the access HAS TO BE LIMITED in terms of the kind of information they can be in a position to receive"

Trump has the guys with interim clearance receiving the whole enchilada.  Imagine the shady poo Jared gets that he then uses to try to bail his indebted family out with.  

That's not how Interim clearances work. That's how Limited Access Authorization works but those two are not even remotely similar.

At least not in DoD. Perhaps the White House and the FBI do it differently...but I'm gonna go with I seriously doubt it. Also, just because DNI Coats said it doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. I see so many politicians and even some military (or former military) members who get basic stuff about clearances wrong. And don't even get me started with how clueless journalists are. It's cringeworthy, to me, because that's what I do everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Moorgan said:

That's not how Interim clearances work. That's how Limited Access Authorization works but those two are not even remotely similar.

At least not in DoD. Perhaps the White House and the FBI do it differently...but I'm gonna go with I seriously doubt it. Also, just because DNI Coats said it doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. I see so many politicians and even some military (or former military) members who get basic stuff about clearances wrong. And don't even get me started with how clueless journalists are. It's cringeworthy, to me, because that's what I do everyday.

my take on what he was saying...is he was addressing what a prudent WH should be doing given what is currently going on.  I mean he was asked about the subject because if that just got exposed. 

For example, a year in someone who can’t get cleared....shouldn’t be sitting in on the President’s Daily Briefing and reading it.  You would indeed limit their access....or should be.  Not giving them the granddaddy on Intel scoops 

I would wager Coats knows a little something about the topic 

call it politely calling this current Admin out on their BS.  I think he did that and not much more.  Not sure it was meant to be a real break down.   Wray IMO did that as well today with his timeline.  He opted to give that up for one reason only.  Support his people and to stick it back to the WH. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CRA said:

my take on what he was saying...is he was addressing what a prudent WH should be doing given what is currently going on.  I mean he was asked about the subject because if that just got exposed. 

For example, a year in someone who can’t get cleared....shouldn’t be sitting in on the President’s Daily Briefing and reading it.  You would indeed limit their access....or should be.  Not giving them the granddaddy on Intel scoops 

I would wager Coats knows a little something about the topic 

No. You're wrong about being a year in and people should be limited. An Interim exists solely to get the person working immediately (often used for young Intel recruits but obviously not always). That Interim is based on the form they filled out (SF 86) and an initial check of major databases (basically identifying MAJOR issues like outstanding warrants, etc). If they pass that initial scrutiny, they are granted the Interim. An Interim functions exactly like a real clearance because it has to or the system would break down.

As for it being a year, this is where Interims expire comes from. They used to years ago. They don't anymore. The investigation process can be very quick for a 17 year old from Fargo or it can take a very long time for someone who is traveled and done a lot of things that would need to be looked at. I would say, anyone working in the White House probably has a lot to go through from the investigators perspective. But even more so with Trump's WH because they were never in government so it's likely a nightmare for the investigator. So an investigation lasting a year is not uncommon. Additionally, when they interviewed the ex-wives, they would've taken that information and later confronted the subject with it to get his response. After all that was done the investigation would be given to an impartial adjudicator and they would have to decide who to believe and what to do from there.

However, in this case, it seems the FBI wanted to give a heads up to the WH if the report about a partial report about this subject was given to the WH after a few months. They don't normally do status updates so I'm guessing it wasn't that. However, it's the WH and it could be different in some ways than the military. Regardless, him not being cleared for a year means nothing and has no bearing on whether or not he was going to get a clearance or not. And also, I would wager Coats knows very little about the subject but perhaps he could surprise me. But his comments don't reflect any deep knowledge of the process or the system.

Edited by Moorgan
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Moorgan said:

No. You're wrong about being a year in and people should be limited. An Interim exists solely to get the person working immediately (often used for young Intel recruits but obviously not always). That Interim is based on the form they filled out (SF 86) and an initial check of major databases (basically identifying MAJOR issues like outstanding warrants, etc). If they pass that initial scrutiny, they are granted the Interim. An Interim functions exactly like a real clearance because it has to or the system would break down.

As for it being a year, this is where Interims expire comes from. They used to years ago. They don't anymore. The investigation process can be very quick for a 17 year old from Fargo or it can take a very long time for someone who is traveled and done a lot of things that would need to be looked at. I would say, anyone working in the White House probably has a lot to go through from the investigators perspective. But even more so with Trump's WH because they were never in government so it's likely a nightmare for the investigator. So an investigation lasting a year is not uncommon. Additionally, when they interviewed the ex-wives, they would've taken that information and later confronted the subject with it to get his response. After all that was done the investigation would be given to an impartial adjudicator and they would have to decide who to believe and what to do from there.

However, in this case, it seems the FBI wanted to give a heads up to the WH if the report about a partial report about this subject was given to the WH after a few months. They don't normally do status updates so I'm guessing it wasn't that. However, it's the WH and it could be different in some ways than the military. Regardless, him not being cleared for a year means nothing and has no bearing on whether or not he was going to get a clearance or not. And also, I would wager Coats knows very little about the subject but perhaps he could surprise me. But his comments don't reflect any deep knowledge of the process or the system.

Did you listen to his full statement outside of what I posted?  He was addressing a broken system (his words) and the problems it can create and IMO what he said should of been done specifically talking about the current topic. 

Based on all the legit  IC guys that have commented....this doesn’t seem to be normal per them. Specifically when you factor in who it is and the type clearance they seek.  I mean these aren’t just more standard DOD clearances.  This is for the highest level Intel.  Especially, a year in if they don’t pass (being key WH staff and the priority they get) they suggest it is because they simply can’t pass or refuse to give up what would be required to pass.  

obviously you know more than I.  But you don’t think there are drastically different things in play for standard people seeking clearances in a certain department and the one a Jared Kushner is seeking? Criteria? Time? Etc.  Lots of guys that do know have suggested this whole year long thing can apply to some people and departments but that this is a different ball game.  That either they would be cleared by now.....or aren’t willing to give up the info.  

Clearly the Trump Admin regardless handled it poorly.  Like everything.  They knew he wasn’t getting cleared.   They sat on it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FBI told the WH about the abuse.

That should have been the end of the story - any talk about how long is moot.  He had red flags and they continued and according to CNN the WH was looking to INCREASE his role beyond his already highly powerful secretary one.

 

 

--

 

 What I can tell you is that the FBI submitted a partial report on the investigation in question in March. And then a completed background investigation in late July. That soon thereafter, we received request for follow-up inquiry and we did the follow-up and provided that information in November and that we administratively closed the file in January," Wray said in response to questions from Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

 

--

 

 

Edited by Fryfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot to say about this because I am likely the person with the most knowledge on this topic than anyone on this site has ever known. But I won’t type it on my phone. :)

So I’ll answer tomorrow. And as I’ve said, there could be differences in how things are done but I have a good idea how the structure works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Moorgan said:

I have a lot to say about this because I am likely the person with the most knowledge on this topic than anyone on this site has ever known. But I won’t type it on my phone. :)

So I’ll answer tomorrow. And as I’ve said, there could be differences in how things are done but I have a good idea how the structure works.

Enjoy your input.  Thanks for sharing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2018 at 2:12 PM, Harbingers said:

There is always voter suppression. But it’s not really candidate or even party based.

Roh roh

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meanwhile John Kelly is having a nice cold adult beverage thanking a typical Trump week that featured the playboy story, the indictments, Gates, Bannon, etc.  Ain't no one got time to discuss ol Kelly.  One of the few perks of the Trump WH.   If you can survive a couple days, something else will steal your thunder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 7:34 AM, CRA said:

Enjoy your input.  Thanks for sharing it. 

I'm sorry. I totally forgot about this post and haven't been on the huddle until I heard we resigned Gano today. Not sure if any talk about clearances are relevant now but I'm sure the topic will come up again. Again, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×