Current National Security Concern Article from MSNBC and Past Historical events to prove past crimes (exceptionally long article and I'm sorry about that, but the information is much needed at this time in our nation's history of massive change now upon us.)
The MSNBC article is analyzed by Frank Figliuzzi,
former law enforcement agent who also served as Assistant FBI Director for Counterintelligence
regarding this issue and many others:
“Biden should order
background checks of Trump’s Cabinet picks”
The FBI has conducted background investigations of White House
nominees since at least the tenure of President Dwight Eisenhower’s time in
office from 1963 forward. Trump hates the FBI ergo he does not want them
screening the background and security background of his recent nominees – which
BTW could preserve and protect any threats to our national security if any
unchecked nominee falls in to the trap as those in part two of this very long
and critical topic – enjoy.
We had a fair warning, for example, last month as The New York Times reported that then-candidate Trump advisers were telling him to skip any FBI background investigations for his
high-level nominees. Also reported in VANITY FAIR as well.
Then just last week, CNN, citing “people close to the
transition planning,” reported: “Trump doesn’t plan to submit the names of at least
some of his Cabinet-level picks for FBI vetting.”
Whether you’re Republican, Democrat, or independent, and
regardless of whether you’re energized or enraged by Trump’s controversial
picks, you should be concerned about the possibility of a vetting process
that’s really no process at all.
The FBI has conducted background investigations of White
House nominees since at least the tenure of President Eisenhower’s time in
office. Even so, there’s no law clearly mandating presidents or presidents-elect
to submit their nominees and appointments to the FBI for investigation.
In 1953 for example, President Eisenhower issued EO Order 10450, calling for investigations of prospective federal employees.
Yet, executive orders don’t have the full effect of a law and are only
binding on the executive branch, and that EO remains subject to interpretation.
Take for example Section
2 which states: “The head of each
department and agency of the Government shall be responsible for establishing
and maintaining within his department or agency an effective program to ensure
that the employment and retention in employment of any civilian officer or
employee within the department or agency is clearly consistent with the
interests of the national security.”
There is lots of
wiggle room there since Section 3 reads: “The appointment of each civilian officer or employee in any department
or agency of the Government shall be made subject to investigation … but in no
event shall the investigation include less than a national agency check
(including a check of the fingerprint files of the FBI).”
In essence , that means
that Trump, who claims he’s using private firms to conduct background
inquiries, might get by with having whatever firm that is simply checking FBI
fingerprint files.
Yet, despite there being
no mandate, the intent here was a government inquiry involving the FBI.
Subsequent presidents, including Bill
Clinton and Barack Obama,
revised Eisenhower’s edict to mitigate intrusive inquiries into sexual orientation in the granting of security
clearances, but still missing is a specific mandate for FBI investigation of
White House nominees, plus any EO order law per se.
Clearly, the intent in these executive orders has always
been for a government agency, particularly the FBI, to conduct these inquiries,
but we now have an incoming president who thumbs his nose at rules and intentions.
The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 directs: “The FBI to conduct such background checks
“expeditiously for individuals that the President-elect has identified for high
level national security positions.”
But what if Trump, for example, never formally identifies and submits his picks to the
DOJ and the FBI for vetting?
Recall the impact of
that: “In his last administration, Trump overrode security adjudicators
who denied clearances for his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and many others, after FBI background checks
resulted in national security concerns.”
That leaves us with two pertinent Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) which should enable President Joe Biden and/or the Senate Judiciary Committee to quickly do something to preserve national security and the Constitution’s advice, and consent powers conferred on our Senators.
Now, this time, Trump appears
poised to dispense and go around and ignore the FBI checks and potentially with the Senate
confirmation process by making recess appointments.
First: Biden should
rely upon the existing MOU between the DOJ and his office, as well as the
Presidential Transition Act, to investigate the people Trump says he wants to
put in office.
Frank Figliuzzi continued:
“The MOU sets out procedures for requesting background investigations of
nominees “at the request of the president. It doesn’t say the president-elect,
it says “president. That is President Joe Biden. As for the transition act, it
reads as applying to people. Trump, the President-elect has identified for
high-level positions people, and since the president-elect has already publicly
identified those people, Mr. Biden should respond.”
What happens if a
nominee refuses to cooperate, won’t provide his consent to be investigated, or
won’t fill out any forms?
The MOU has a remedy for that too Figliuzzi says: “The DOJ and FBI may consider a request from the President for a name check or BI without the consent of the appointee if justified by extraordinary circumstances. With some of these nominees named by Trump, and the fact that Trump may forego FBI vetting of them, we have extraordinary circumstances.”
Second: The Senate Judiciary Committee has
its own pertinent MOU with
the Counsel to the President. That document says the committee “shall have
access to the FBI reports on nominees for AG; FBI director; or summaries for all
other DOJ nominees and non-judicial nominees.” Emphasis on all others
and non-judicial. We know Senators want the details of the House Ethics
Committee inquiry into former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump's pick for AG. An FBI
background investigation would certainly include a request to review that
report, as well as the now closed DOJ criminal investigation into Gaetz.
The Senate Judiciary Committee should make a bipartisan
request for an FBI background check of Trump's picks now. Regardless of party
affiliation, if senators relinquish their advice and consent authority or
confirm a nominee without benefit of knowing the risk they pose, then they set
a precedent for never again exercising their constitutional powers.
Frank Figliuzzi continued:
“You’d be right to ask: What’s the point? After all, Trump is unlikely to
read, let alone act upon, any derogatory information developed in FBI reports.
The point would be to force Trump’s hand. Drop the reports on his desk and let
him go forward with nominees who potentially are either found through
investigation to be unqualified, at risk of compromise, or even a national
security threat. Let Trump order White House security clearance adjudicators or
his hand-picked agency heads to grant security clearances to seemingly
unqualified candidates. Let the Senate affirm nominees after they’ve read
details about the kind of people who may lead the DOJ or serve as the director
of national intelligence.”
That is end of that excellent and very informative MSNBC article and remarks by Frank Figliuzzi – a must read with lots of factual links.
Now the history why background checks are critical and yes, in some cases
screened people who later turned out to be horrific spies. See below:
Americans who stole, held illegally, sold, or kept classified docs:
Defendants have been prosecuted for offenses related to documents marked:
Confidential; Secret; Top Secret; and Top Secret/SCI, the highest security
clearance of all. TS/SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) requires special
handling and storage and access to read in a safe secure place know as:
Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility called a SCIF (pronounced; SKIFF).
No phones, cameras, laptops, or other recording devices are allowed in a SKIFF.
TS (SCI) documents represent information, which if unauthorized disclosure were made would: “Cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.”
Two key cases appear to be characterized by
extreme carelessness without intent to share classified materials examples
follow:
1. Former Obama’s CIA director, David Petraeus: He pleaded
guilty in 2015 to giving away classified information to his mistress, Paula
Broadwell, for her book. He got two years of probation and paid a $100,000 fine.
Some of information was names of covert operatives, the Western coalition war
strategy, and notes of discussions with President Obama and the NSC. When he
resigned from the CIA in 2012 after his affair was revealed, Petraeus signed a
form falsely attesting he had no classified material.
2. Sandy Berger, NSA adviser to Bill Clinton: He pleaded guilty in 2005 to unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives. Berger visited the National Archives in 2002 and 2003, looking for intelligence documents related to extremist activity in the years before the 9/11 as a prep for his 9/11 testimony. An alert archives staffer emailed a colleague to say he may have seen what looked like paper sticking out from underneath Berger's pants. Berger was fined $50,000, given a sentence of 100 hours community service, two years’ probation, and relinquished his law license.
3. Elizabeth Jo Shirley in 2021 was sentenced
to eight years in prison for unlawfully retaining documents
containing national defense information: She admitted to unlawfully
retaining one NSA document containing information classified at the top
secret and secret levels relating to national defense that outlines intelligence
information regarding a foreign government's military and political issues.
4. Reality Winner, a former NSA contractor in Fort Gordon, GA smuggled
out one highly classified report in her pantyhose detailing the Russian
government's efforts to pierce a Florida-based voting software supplier ahead
of the 2016 presidential election: That information was later reported by The Intercept news outlet. Winner said she was
motivated to act on a belief that the American public wasn't getting the full
truth. She served 4 years in prison.
5. Kendra
Kingsbury, former FBI Analyst reported on
by the Washington Post shows that she pleaded
guilty in October 2022 to two counts of unlawful removal and
holding of 386 National Security classified records in her home in Kansas City, MO. She now
faces 12 years in prison.
Four Historically Infamous
American Spies:
1. Aldrich Ames:
1985-1993 – life in prison: Ames was known to have compromised more
highly classified CIA assets than any other person until Robert Hanssen, who was arrested seven years
later in 2001. Ames' attorney, threatened to litigate the legality of FBI
searches and seizures in Ames' home and office without conventional search warrants, although Ames' guilty plea
made the threat moot. After that mess, Congress passed a new law giving that
specific search warrant power to the FISA Court.
2. Robert Hanssen:
Biggest ever: 1979-2001 – got 15 life terms: Those two leakers resulted
in the exposure of hundreds of U.S. assets in the former USSR. The
most-direct damage to the U.S. military was from exposing one high-level U.S. asset:
Gen. Dmitri Polyakov was the head of Soviet intelligence and a major spy
for the U.S. who provided information on Soviet anti-armored missile technology, the Cuban Missile
Crisis, and China. He was shut down when revealed by Ames &
Hanssen. Polyakov was executed in 1988.
3. John Walker in
1967: A Navy Warrant Officer stole and gave the Russians over 1 million
encrypted messages involving the U. S. Navy; the Aussies; and UK Navy as well. In
late 1967 he copied a document from the Atlantic Fleet Submarine Force
Headquarters in Norfolk, Va. and carried it home. The next morning, he
took it to the Soviet Embassy in Washington where he leaked it. For the next 18
years, Walker would leak the locations and encryption codes for U.S. assets as
well as operational plans and other documents. He died in prison in 2014.
4. Edward Snowden:
NSA contractor stole over 1.7 million highly classified documents in 2013. He
then flew to Hong Kong and gave them to American & UK Journalists. He now
remains and still lives in Moscow since 2020.
5. Kendra
Kingsbury: Former FBI Analyst pleaded guilty in October 2022 to two
counts of unlawful removal and holding of 386 National Security classified
records in her home in Kansas City, MO. She now faces 12 years in prison.
My 2 Cents: Trump is taking us down a tricky and unnecessary road as outlined above and the potential for potholes and deception are real.
He
must be stopped and not conducting background checks on all Trump high-level
nominees would present us with more troubles as noted in those spies listed above
– that must never ever happen again.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment