Congressmen and federal judges …

One-us-government_three-branches

Do not have security clearances.

They are members of separate branches of government and the Executive Branch gives security clearances.

Federal judges and congressmen have access based on their constitutional office and need to know.

That is why Eric Swalwell was never background checked by the FBI.  pl

This entry was posted in government. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Congressmen and federal judges …

  1. jim ticehurst says:

    Walk Right In…Sit Right Down…High Stakes Poker For Free..

  2. TV says:

    Back, way back, when a security clearance actually meant that you actually deserved and needed one, could Obama have gotten a clearance?
    Now when an admitted Communist voter (John Brennan) gets a clearance and becomes head of the intelligence agency, might as well just do mass mailings of security clearances, save the cost, as leaks constantly abound from these people who seem to be a mixture of self-important and stupid – Peter Strzok being a prime sample.

  3. LER says:

    Cop Humor:
    https://lawenforcementrant.vbulletin.net/forum/main-forum/5305-rick-grenell-on-hannity-chinese-spy-scandal?p=5325#post5325

    Listen, I have a lot of sensitive information from my years in gov’t service. Stuff that’s rated at TOP SECRET. Please don’t tell the Chinese about my highly valuable info that I possess. However, if anyone should need my contact info for an interview from say the Chinese/American Committee to Fight Prejudice I’d be pleased to pass it along…

  4. M. says:

    No. They are required to get security clearances if they’re dealing with classified intel/information, just like those in the Executive Branch that work with that information. It is the information that determines whether you need clearance — not the branch of government or private corporation you work for.
    This means everyone on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees has some type of security clearance, as do the judges/clerks on the FISA court.
    The real question is why did they let it slide. Was the clearance actually granted before the affair started, and was it terminated when the routine reinvestigation determined he lied on his quarterly S86 forms? Were the investigators trying to figure out who her handler was? Or were the investigators themselves being blackmailed and ordered to help her?
    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R43216.pdf

  5. turcopolier says:

    M
    You are incorrect. Cite me the directive that supports your position. The staffs of congressmen. senators and clerks for are required to be cleared but not the members. https://www.govloop.com/community/blog/do-members-of-congress-have-security-clearances/ “The topic of security clearance for elected officials has long been a complex one. Members of congress – even those in sensitive committee positions – do not receive or obtain security clearances in the same way that a member of the public would go about obtaining a security clearance based on job or military requirement.
    Through the process of election and selection to a seat in the House of Representatives or Senate comes with it a certain public seal of access to information of a sensitive nature. (Few voters likely think about this when they vote, but it’s a key reason trustworthiness often plays a major role in politicking). Both the House and Senate do have security offices and staff – with the responsibility for overseeing access to classified information, among other things.
    According to the CIA’s Center for the Study of Intelligence: “There are no written rules, agreed to by both branches, governing what intelligence will be shared with the Hill or how it will be handled. The current system is entirely the product of experience, shaped by the needs and concerns of both branches over the last 20 years.”
    House members, beginning with the 104th Congress, do have to take a secrecy oath. Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – the committee with oversight over intelligence agencies including the CIA and NSA – have a separate oath, commensurate with their unique access to sensitive information. Again, these oaths take the way of a public pledge, vice the arduous security-clearance process, complete with SF86, undertaken by the average security-cleared professional…” An oath to protect IS NOT a security clearance. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/verify-no-congress-doesnt-need-security-clearance-to-read-classified-intel/65-6f952717-2741-496a-8e74-11449ef114e5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.