WH gears up to fight House Dems on info on Trump family getting security clearances

[BmorePat87]

I know this topic has appeared here and there in partially related threads, but I figured we could talk about it on its own.

Recent reports suggest Trump pushed for Ivanka and Jared to receive security clearances despite reservations.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-pressure/index.html

While Trump has the authority to grant it without an FBI background check, the optics of giving his family security clearances without proper vetting would have been bad. Reports say Trump ordered John Kelly and WH counsel Don McGahn to grant them. When they refused given some concerns, Trump did it himself.

Jared's application was scrutinized given the number of revisions, including going from 0 foreign contacts to over 100 after rounds of revisions. Ivanka denied that Trump had anything to do with her or her husband getting a security clearance.

Yesterday, the White House refused to released documents to the House Oversight Committee regarding this, citing the need for privacy of a "executive department employee" (Jared Kushner). The House will likely issue a subpoena.



Given the unique circumstances of family members working in the White House, where do we draw the line? Do we accept that the President's son in law is just a private citizen and employee, or does his connection and the issues and potential nepotism warrant investigation?

[Au165]

(03-06-2019, 01:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I know this topic has appeared here and there in partially related threads, but I figured we could talk about it on its own.

Recent reports suggest Trump pushed for Ivanka and Jared to receive security clearances despite reservations.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/ivanka-trump-security-clearance-pressure/index.html

While Trump has the authority to grant it without an FBI background check, the optics of giving his family security clearances without proper vetting would have been bad. Reports say Trump ordered John Kelly and WH counsel Don McGahn to grant them. When they refused given some concerns, Trump did it himself.

Jared's application was scrutinized given the number of revisions, including going from 0 foreign contacts to over 100 after rounds of revisions. Ivanka denied that Trump had anything to do with her or her husband getting a security clearance.

Yesterday, the White House refused to released documents to the House Oversight Committee regarding this, citing the need for privacy of a "executive department employee" (Jared Kushner). The House will likely issue a subpoena.



Given the unique circumstances of family members working in the White House, where do we draw the line? Do we accept that the President's son in law is just a private citizen and employee, or does his connection and the issues and potential nepotism warrant investigation?

...This is why you don't have family members working in the White house. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-06-2019, 02:03 PM)Au165 Wrote: ...This is why you don't have family members working in the White house. 

Too bad anti-nepotism laws don't cover the White House (or so lawyers have argued)

[jj22]

(03-06-2019, 02:03 PM)Au165 Wrote: ...This is why you don't have family members working in the White house. 

Agreed.

[*michaelsean*]

If it's legal, what are they investigating? (Yes I didn't feel like reading the article) Not that his douche son-in-law should be anywhere near anything important.

[Yojimbo]

(03-06-2019, 02:30 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If it's legal, what are they investigating? (Yes I didn't feel like reading the article) Not that his douche son-in-law should be anywhere near anything important.

For Dem politicians it’s a “gotcha”, score political points. For us citizens it provides more transparency into how our government is broken, i.e. handing out Top Secret clearance to people that should not have it.

[BmorePat87]

(03-06-2019, 02:30 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If it's legal, what are they investigating? (Yes I didn't feel like reading the article)  Not that his douche son-in-law should be anywhere near anything important.

Part of their role is to investigate for Congress and handle issues regarding reform. Given the unique circumstances, it would seem worthwhile to see how nepotism is affecting the Executive Branch given past laws designed to curb it. It would also allow them to determine whether further reform is necessary. 

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is "good" or "right". 

[Dill]

(03-06-2019, 02:30 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If it's legal, what are they investigating? (Yes I didn't feel like reading the article)  Not that his douche son-in-law should be anywhere near anything important.

Good question. Here is a follow up: If it's legal, why is Trump always hiding his breaches of protocol?

In addition to BPat's points about Congressional oversight, I have to add some other concerns.

1. Our intel services have, heretofore, ALWAYS monitored the interactions of the president and his advisers (with their unreserved cooperation) with foreigners, especially representatives of foreign governments.  This involves listening in to their conversations and producing transcripts thereof (a process which Trump has repeatedly compromised). But it also involves determining who can get high level clearances. There is so far little restriction on what the president can do regarding such clearances, largely because there has been no need.  ALL presidents have recognized the need for protocols and process, and respected the expertise of the intel experts.  That Trump has scorned this precedent rightly sets the intel community and his own advisors on edge. They (and Congress) are scrambling to cope with Trump's numerous "legal" breaches of protocol by finding out what he and his family have actually done--because they have deliberately misreported that.

2. Because some of Trump's interaction, and that of his subordinates, has been off the radar, so to speak, it is not clear that his dealings with foreign powers have been entirely legal. Shameful that we have to investigate to find out.

[*bfine32*]

I'm not a fan of Congress being given security clearances simply by taking an oath; so I'm definitely, not in favor of one of these officials extended to members of their staff/family.

I hope Congress relooks it with a genuine concern about revamping the system to include policing themselves.

[GMDino]

(03-06-2019, 07:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not a fan of Congress being given security clearances simply by taking an oath; so I'm definitely, not in favor of one of these officials extended to members of their staff/family.

I hope Congress relooks it with a genuine concern about revamping the system to include policing themselves.

That's what I heard on the radio yesterday.  While there will be fight over the politics of the investigation(s) in the end they will help determine if regulations/procedures/policies need revised in the future also.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Why do they need a security clearance?

[Dill]

(03-06-2019, 11:10 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Why do they need a security clearance?

They often deal with classified information.  Their staffers do need security clearances.

Members of the House Intel Committee do have to take an extra oath, given they are daily dealing with tippy top secret stuff. 

I should add, all members of Congress are not cleared to see everything  whenever they want.  Hence briefing sessions, for example, involving only the gang of 8. 

Also, I know for a fact that many agencies compartmentalize information and sometimes refuse to clear it for Congressional access. Agencies can make the case that info is critically time sensitive and cannot yet be distributed outside of agency or department.  As far as I know, the only one who can demand classified info from anyone and any agency and get it on the spot is the president himself.

Think of the prep for killing bin Laden. Some Congressman could not just walk into an NSC or Pentagon meeting in April 2011 and demand to know what special ops are in motion right now.

[Dill]

(03-06-2019, 07:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not a fan of Congress being given security clearances simply by taking an oath; so I'm definitely, not in favor of one of these officials extended to members of their staff/family.

I hope Congress relooks it with a genuine concern about revamping the system to include policing themselves.

You have had security clearances, right?  In 2010, on a trip to the ME, I had to sit in Heidelberg, Germany, for a week once because security research discovered that I was arrested for hitchhiking in 1970 and my clearance was red flagged.

What is the incentive for a member of Congress of either house to have these people going back over a congress member's grade school high school college all jobs ever held and history of relatives with vices?  What could go wrong? LOL

 

They are more likely to vote in a resolution that they won't be paid during government shutdowns than authorize this research into their past. 

[GMDino]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jared-kushner-goes-rogue-saudi-185059333.html?.tsrc=fauxdal&fbclid=IwAR075PgtpCUnYo5Nb-gzWbxVsE8fmbLuhZF6MKQqNBQvDs1zWwgvuAbsFms

Quote:Donald Trump’s senior White House adviser once again abandoned government normalities during an official state trip to Saudi Arabia, reportedly discussing US-Saudi cooperation with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in a meeting that lacked representation from the US Embassy in Riyadh.



The 38-year-old adviser also discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the US’ economic investment in the Middle East with Saudi royalty, including King Salman, according to a White House readout from the trip that was released just as the president’s former lawyer Michael Cohen began his explosive public testimony on Capitol Hill last week.


Mr Kushner’s quiet undertaking of such high-profile meetings has raised national security concerns from military and intelligence officials, who said the president’s son-in-law was “undermining US authority” in the region.


The video above was released on Feb. 28, 2019.


Naveed Jamali — a former US Defence Department intelligence officer and double agent — told The Independent the Trump administration has frequently “blurred the lines of communication” between government agencies by sending Mr Kushner to meet with top international officials.


“We know there is a flawed system by the fact that Jared Kushner has a security clearance,” Mr Jamali — who has launched a bid for political office — said on Thursday, noting the 38-year-old adviser’s omission of Russian contacts from his initial clearance application and foreign business assets that would typically bar an official from receiving a clearance.


Mr Jamali added, “Who speaks for the government, the institutions or the family of the president?”


Multiple sources from the US embassy in Riyadh have said they were not read into the details of Mr Kushner’s Saudi Arabia visit, and have yet to receive any sort of briefing on the White House official’s meetings with Saudi leadership.


Mr Kushner was also reportedly provided security during his visit by Saudi officials — a component of a state trip typically handled by the US embassy in the region. Embassy staff also usually sits in on high-level meetings, and can include military personnel, cultural attaches and officials from across government agencies.


Those reports, first published in the Daily Beast nearly a week after Mr Kushner’s trip, were refuted by a senior administration official.


“This reporting is not true and the sources are misinformed,” that official said.


During his meetings with the Saudi crown prince, Mr Kushner seemingly failed to mention the high-profile killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post journalist and US resident who disappeared after entering a Saudi consulate last year in Istanbul. The international intelligence community and Turkish officials have claimed the crown prince was involved in the alleged murder of Mr Khashoggi, who was often critical in his reporting of the Saudi government.


Mark Hertling, a former US Army officer, lambasted the White House administration in a tweet for reportedly failing to include “critical subject matters experts” in Mr Kushner’s meetings with Saudi royalty.


Walter Shaub, the former director of the Office of Government Ethics, also asked why Mr Kushner was “having secret meetings with the Saudi government” while keeping US officials “in the dark about the substance of the meetings”.


“Are conflicts of interest at play here?” he wrote on Twitter.


Mr Kushner, long considered a security risk embedded in the West Wing by career intelligence officials, was reported to have conducted informal conversations on the chat app WhatsApp with the Saudi crown prince, who he has developed a relationship with since Mr Trump’s 2016 election.


The New York Times reported Mr Kushner was providing the prince with advice on how to weather the controversies surrounding the slaying of Mr Khashoggi.


House Democrats have launched an investigation into the White House's security clearance processes under Mr Trump, demanding a trove of documents related to the matter and other investigatory concerns from Mr Kushner and 80 contacts and entities close to the president.


“[Kushner] is somehow who is much more amenable to personal offers like financial gain,” he added. “He doesn’t seem to have the strongest allegiance to the US … that’s concerning.”

[GMDino]

I'm just throwing this here because I don't want to start a new thread and it's further proof why Trump's kids shouldn't in power any more than he is.

2. It doesn't provide paid parental leave. Rather it allows you to pay for your own leave by taking a $5000 advance on your child tax credits and then paying it back in higher taxes over the next ten years

Because if there is one thing that new parents need its higher taxes

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) July 30, 2019

 

[Belsnickel]

(03-06-2019, 07:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not a fan of Congress being given security clearances simply by taking an oath; so I'm definitely, not in favor of one of these officials extended to members of their staff/family.

I hope Congress relooks it with a genuine concern about revamping the system to include policing themselves.

The issue there, though, is that if they need a clearance for certain information for their job, how do you handle that? What if a POTUS wouldn't pass muster on a TS clearance check? I definitely get what you're saying, and I don't disagree at all. I just have to wonder about the implications that would have for our democratically elected officials. I have sincere doubts that Trump would have been granted a clearance without being POTUS.

[BmorePat87]

(07-30-2019, 02:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm just throwing this here because I don't want to start a new thread and it's further proof why Trump's kids shouldn't in power any more than he is.

2. It doesn't provide paid parental leave. Rather it allows you to pay for your own leave by taking a $5000 advance on your child tax credits and then paying it back in higher taxes over the next ten years

Because if there is one thing that new parents need its higher taxes

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) July 30, 2019

 

I'm gonna put that one on those 2 senators