Trump advisers propose bypassing FBI background checks for appointees

[essentialsaltes]

Trump advisers propose bypassing FBI background checks for appointees​

Donald Trump’s aides have floated the idea of granting immediate security clearances to officials in a second term and doing away with FBI background checks for appointees who might otherwise fail the process, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The plan would be intended to eliminate the risk of the former president’s nominees for senior posts being subject to intrusive background investigations intended to check for criminal histories, conflicts of interest or other potential liabilities that would normally be deemed disqualifying.

The goal is to avoid a repeat of Trump’s presidency when several appointees – including Jared Kushner, the ex-president’s son-in-law – experienced long delays to their security clearance while the bureau conducted extensive and intrusive checks.

Kushner, who was a senior White House adviser and Middle East envoy under Trump, underwent months of background investigations for reasons that were never disclosed before the then president eventually overrode the process and ordered him to be given clearance.

 

[essentialsaltes]

GOP senators deride idea of replacing FBI background checks for Trump nominees​

“The FBI should do the background checks, in my judgement,” said Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), who serves as the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and as a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that the FBI has access to information gathered by law enforcement on the federal, state and local levels that private firms don’t.

[Murkowski] “It’s not just for the [executive branch] positions. If you’re a Senate staffer seeking to get that security clearance, you go — we all go — through that same process,” she said.

 

[okay]

This is nuts.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Trump advisers propose bypassing FBI background checks for appointees​

Donald Trump’s aides have floated the idea of granting immediate security clearances to officials in a second term and doing away with FBI background checks for appointees who might otherwise fail the process, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The plan would be intended to eliminate the risk of the former president’s nominees for senior posts being subject to intrusive background investigations intended to check for criminal histories, conflicts of interest or other potential liabilities that would normally be deemed disqualifying.

The goal is to avoid a repeat of Trump’s presidency when several appointees – including Jared Kushner, the ex-president’s son-in-law – experienced long delays to their security clearance while the bureau conducted extensive and intrusive checks.

Kushner, who was a senior White House adviser and Middle East envoy under Trump, underwent months of background investigations for reasons that were never disclosed before the then president eventually overrode the process and ordered him to be given clearance.

Key phrase:

according to a person familiar with the matter.

Oh boy another conspiracy theory - that is unsubstantiated against Trump - well that how it's been for the last seven years

 

[Always in His Presence]

GOP senators deride idea of replacing FBI background checks for Trump nominees​

“The FBI should do the background checks, in my judgement,” said Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), who serves as the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and as a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that the FBI has access to information gathered by law enforcement on the federal, state and local levels that private firms don’t.

[Murkowski] “It’s not just for the [executive branch] positions. If you’re a Senate staffer seeking to get that security clearance, you go — we all go — through that same process,” she said.

Key phrase from the link:

Senate Republicans are rejecting a proposal floated by some advisers to President-elect Trump to take the job of conducting background checks for high-level nominees away from the FBI and give it to private investigators.​

​

who? oh, we do not know - that is what most conspiracy's start with = repeat often and it becomes reality for some.

Name who these advisors are and when they said it. Until then - it is not anything more than an unsubstantiated claim - ie rumor

 

[Always in His Presence]

This is nuts.

your right - why on earth should we accept something with no proof whatsoever as true.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

OK, so if this is unconfirmed, I'm sure there will be absolutely zero Trump supporters in this forum who will find an excuse for this proposal if it ever did get up.

 

[wing2000]

Donald Trump’s aides have floated the idea of granting immediate security clearances to officials in a second term and doing away with FBI background checks for appointees who might otherwise fail the process, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Quite simple: No back ground check. No security clearance.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Quite simple: No back ground check. No security clearance.

The president can just give people security clearances, as Trump did for Jared Kushner and others in his first term.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Key phrase:

according to a person familiar with the matter.

Oh boy another conspiracy theory - that is unsubstantiated against Trump - well that how it's been for the last seven years

If the Senate is actually allowed to provide advice and consent, as spelled out by the Constitution, we may find out the truth of the matter.

 

[wing2000]

The president can just give people security clearances, as Trump did for Jared Kushner and others in his first term.

...but a review was done. Security concerns were over ruled. In this case, unnamed aides are floating the idea of simply bypassing the FBI background check.

NBC News reported:
Jan. 24, 2019, 6:14 PM MST / Updated Jan. 24, 2019, 8:17 PM MST
WASHINGTON — Jared Kushner's application for a top-secret clearance was rejected by two career White House security specialists after an FBI background check raised concerns about potential foreign influence on him — but their supervisor overruled the recommendation and approved the clearance, two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.
The official, Carl Kline, is a former Pentagon employee who was installed as director of the personnel security office in the Executive Office of the President in May 2017. Kushner's was one of at least 30 cases in which Kline overruled career security experts and approved a top-secret clearance for incoming Trump officials despite unfavorable information, the two sources said. They said the number of rejections that were overruled was unprecedented — it had happened only once in the three years preceding Kline's arrival.
The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information, said the Trump White House attracted many people with untraditional backgrounds who had complicated financial and personal histories, some of which raised red flags.

Officials rejected Kushner for top secret clearance, were overruled

Jared Kushner was rejected for a top-secret clearance by two career security specialists, but their supervisor overruled them and approved him, sources say.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Postvieww]

Trump advisers propose bypassing FBI background checks for appointees​

Donald Trump’s aides have floated the idea of granting immediate security clearances to officials in a second term and doing away with FBI background checks for appointees who might otherwise fail the process, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The plan would be intended to eliminate the risk of the former president’s nominees for senior posts being subject to intrusive background investigations intended to check for criminal histories, conflicts of interest or other potential liabilities that would normally be deemed disqualifying.

The goal is to avoid a repeat of Trump’s presidency when several appointees – including Jared Kushner, the ex-president’s son-in-law – experienced long delays to their security clearance while the bureau conducted extensive and intrusive checks.

Kushner, who was a senior White House adviser and Middle East envoy under Trump, underwent months of background investigations for reasons that were never disclosed before the then president eventually overrode the process and ordered him to be given clearance.

Current FBI leadership is corrupt and would not do PROPER background checks. This would just be another circus out to sabotage Trump.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Current FBI leadership is corrupt and would not do PROPER background checks. This would just be another circus out to sabotage Trump.

I don't believe you. Since Trump can override any objection, there is no 'danger' to allowing the FBI to do its job.

 

[Always in His Presence]

If the Senate is actually allowed to provide advice and consent, as spelled out by the Constitution, we may find out the truth of the matter.

Hogwash. What on earth does that have to do with yet another unnamed, unverified anonymous report from the Democratic Media.

With no verified evidence they want to once again sway public opinion and people are still actually falling for it.

 

[RDKirk]

Current FBI leadership is corrupt and would not do PROPER background checks. This would just be another circus out to sabotage Trump.

They do background checks on Congress members as well. Although the Constitution prevents an Executive Branch agency from preventing an elected member of Congress taking office, the reports are provided to the appropriate Congressional committees (auditors and the Intelligence Committees), and Congress itself decides how to manage the matter. For instance, Congress itself has denied some Congress members certain committee memberships based on background checks. That information is rarely released outside of Congress, and people usually don't notice that certain Congress members were never on certain committees. But it did leak in the past that, for instance, Congressman Ron Dellums was denied Intelligence and Armed Services committee membership because of his connections to Cuba.

 

[wing2000]

Hogwash. What on earth does that have to do with yet another unnamed, unverified anonymous report from the Democratic Media.

With no verified evidence they want to once again sway public opinion and people are still actually falling for it.

Providing the House Ethics Report to the Senate Judiciary Committee should be a no brainer.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Hogwash. What on earth does that have to do with yet another unnamed, unverified anonymous report from the Democratic Media.

If the Senate asks for FBI background checks on a candidate (as per the link), the FBI could say "We have already done so at the request of the president; here are the results." This would disprove the unnamed, unverified anonymous report that Trump is bypassing FBI background checks on his appointees.

If the FBI carries out a background check, it would verify the unverified report.

 

[Always in His Presence]

two sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.

The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity

Hearsay is generally not admissible in court because it's difficult to establish credibility when the person who made the statement isn't present.

All these accusations lack proof, evidence and credibility. It's conspiracy theory accepted as fact - not acceptable for reality -

 

[Always in His Presence]

This would disprove the unnamed, unverified anonymous report

being hearsay already does that. Why not just provide proof?

I understand the desperation. I understand the incredible need to find something to accuse Trump with. I even understand the non stop accusations and the multi millions of dollars in cost that has been happening for seven years.

What I do not understand is why people still think it works when the process has failed time after time after time.

We should hold both sides accountable - if you do not accept unsubstantiated claims from Trump - you should not accept unsubstantiated claims from anyone.

 

[essentialsaltes]

being hearsay already does that.

Haha, no. If Bob rushes in to tell you "Alice says she saw your house on fire," this is not evidence that your house is not on fire.