In recent news is a kerfuffle over whether president Trump insisted security clearance be given to Ivanka and Jared Kushner despite the two of them being deemed ineligible (for whatever reason) of those clearances via the usual process.
I am not sure if this has been answered here before. I want to say past SDMB posts have determined the president the the final arbiter of who can see classified documents. If he says super secret document-X can be read by Vladimir Putin then that is it…it can be read by Putin.
So it would seem to me this would fall under the same category. If the president can decide who can see what documents then he should be able to say who can or cannot have security clearance.
So, did the president do something wrong here assuming he overrode the usual procedures on who to give security clearance to?
I assume if it wasn’t wrong, he wouldn’t have lied about it.
Also, it’s a bit perverse that a person who would never earn a security clearance himself (if not elected POTUS) can override intelligence officials about who gets to have one. Yeah, I suppose a president could order the CIA to give all our secrets to Russia, including the names of our spies working in Moscow, but it wouldn’t be a good idea. It also isn’t a good idea to give access to Top Secret information to someone compromised by foreign governments.
The president has the authority to give a security clearance to anyone he wants to. But it demonstrates a considerable lack of judgement to exercise that authority, especially when someone is a family member and the security community determined the clearance should not be granted.
as mentioned above he can also declassify anything he wants so he can give out documents to anyone once they are no longer classified.
I remember when wikileaks put out classified documents the place I worked for told us not to look at them because even though they were public they were still classified.
Yes, he can grant clearances to whoever he wants. Congress can investigate him for it if they want. They can also impeach him for it if they want - impeachable offenses don’t have to be illegal.
BTW I recall the same thing being said about Clinton - he would not have been given Top Secret access if he was not elected. It’s dumb to say that because it doesn’t matter, the election is all that matters. Same is true for members of Congress , they get access due to their position on various committees.
That’s true, to some extent. Yes, it doesn’t matter. Trump gets to see secret stuff and can allow Putin to see it to if he wants. He’s just so manifestly unsuited for a security clearance that it’s a bad idea for him to have that kind of power. As far as I know, Clinton didn’t allow Roger Clinton access to top secret information. If he had, he would be justifiably criticized for it, even thought it wouldn’t have been illegal. Same with Trump and his son-in-law, IMHO.
It isn’t illegal for him to give security clearance to anyone he wants, even when warned that they should not be issued one. It isn’t illegal for him to hire his daughter for doing nothing in particular. Doing either would be quite improper. Doing both is off the charts stupidity.
The whole process is ass-backwards. It should be that if you’re not clearable you should be ineligible for any position requiring clearance. This would include higher office or cabinet positions. What’s the point of having a distinct thought out process if it can be just handwaved.
The whole clearance process is established by executive order so the president has authority to do whatever he wants. Only the president can do the hand-waving.
I know this whole situation has highlighted some problems in our system of government, but I’m not sure that the security state holding a formal veto over a citizen’s participation in the political system would actually be an improvement.
This suggests that the only reason a person would have a concern about security clearance being given to at risk individuals, is to score political points.
I believe it is entirely possible to be concerned about unsuitable people being given top security access without having a political agenda to push.
If the president cannot grant someone a security clearance because they are not “clearable” then that means that there is someone in the executive branch who has more power than the president, which would be unconstitutional.