Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TryLogic

(1,719 posts)
Mon Sep 2, 2019, 06:35 PM Sep 2019

Are you kidding me???

Presidential candidates are not required to pass a security clearance background check???

That is an enormous hole in our national security structure.

If they had to pass a security check before finalizing the nominees, we would have...

No more refusing to produce tax returns.
No more playing patty cake with foreign oligarchs.
No more sharing top secret information with foreign dictators.
No more presidents compromised by their sexual exploits.
No more presidents suspected of having a history of money laundering for Russian mobsters.
No more presidents who are owned by the Russian controlled NRA.

And so on...

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Are you kidding me??? (Original Post) TryLogic Sep 2019 OP
The ultimate security check should be the election. Of course, it failed us in 2016. Hoyt Sep 2019 #1
How could the public have access to all the info we need? TryLogic Sep 2019 #4
The public had access to all we needed. Republicans just didn't care. JHB Sep 2019 #18
I am curious if Trump ever passed a regular security check?? riversedge Sep 2019 #2
Not unless it was a sham. TryLogic Sep 2019 #3
There's no way in hell he would have passed happybird Sep 2019 #6
If he did, it was like his health report from Dr. Area 51 JHB Sep 2019 #19
It never would have been required NewJeffCT Sep 2019 #27
It's never been an issue before now. Poiuyt Sep 2019 #5
+100 happybird Sep 2019 #7
Yeah, well, Presidential candidates are usually patriotic... Wounded Bear Sep 2019 #9
Plus if his nominees for vital security jobs doc03 Sep 2019 #8
A president who cannot pass a security check SCVDem Sep 2019 #10
It would be unconstitutional. Sorry, but that's the case. bitterross Sep 2019 #11
Thanks. good points that I had not thought about. riversedge Sep 2019 #17
Disclosure is not unconstitutional unblock Sep 2019 #28
We'll find out about the tax returns soon. bitterross Sep 2019 #29
Yeah, few things ever are completely simple unblock Sep 2019 #31
The Constitution lists the qualifications for the office of President. Mariana Sep 2019 #12
states could implement it Hermit-The-Prog Sep 2019 #30
It would be a terrible idea to require a security clearance before running for office CloudWatcher Sep 2019 #13
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2019 #21
Welcome Back to DU! RandiFan1290 Sep 2019 #22
Some are arguing that no one before trump has been unpatriotic - we didn't need security checks erronis Sep 2019 #14
don't ask don't tell CloudWatcher Sep 2019 #24
I blame the RNC for not vetting Trump mainstreetonce Sep 2019 #15
Disagree. He was very well vetted by those that counted - the money that funds the RNC/NRA/Tpotters erronis Sep 2019 #25
This is one of the many many things that will have to change as a resullt of the Trump presidency. patphil Sep 2019 #16
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2019 #20
That check would disqualify most goppers. Joe941 Sep 2019 #23
I'll bet he couldn't pass a citizenship test n/t lordsummerisle Sep 2019 #26

JHB

(37,122 posts)
18. The public had access to all we needed. Republicans just didn't care.
Tue Sep 3, 2019, 05:17 AM
Sep 2019

That wasn't a "Trump" problem, either. They let Romney get away with an incomplete fig leaf of a tax return disclosure, which gave Trump the leeway to blow off disclosure entirely.

happybird

(4,482 posts)
6. There's no way in hell he would have passed
Mon Sep 2, 2019, 07:17 PM
Sep 2019

Same goes for his kids and lil' Jared. Too much debt, too many sketchy loans, too much incentive to sell access or info for personal gain. And that's just the tip of the uglyass iceberg.

We absolutely need to have the laws pertaining to candidates updated and clearly, unequivocally defined.

JHB

(37,122 posts)
19. If he did, it was like his health report from Dr. Area 51
Tue Sep 3, 2019, 05:20 AM
Sep 2019

"More stupendous than stupendous! Healthiest, most secure human ever! Passed, with flying colors! Billy!"

Poiuyt

(18,073 posts)
5. It's never been an issue before now.
Mon Sep 2, 2019, 07:09 PM
Sep 2019

Before 2016, every candidate has been a true patriot (even if I didn't agree with their policies). I've never doubted anyone's allegiance to America before Trump.

I posted a question a week or two ago about what laws or policies should be changed in the wake of trump. Maybe this should be one of them.

happybird

(4,482 posts)
7. +100
Mon Sep 2, 2019, 07:19 PM
Sep 2019

Exactly.

My thinking has been the RNC failed in their duty. They should have rejected his candidacy after vetting him.

doc03

(35,078 posts)
8. Plus if his nominees for vital security jobs
Mon Sep 2, 2019, 08:14 PM
Sep 2019

can't pass he can just give them clearance. I had to pass a TS clearance to work at AT&T.

 

SCVDem

(5,103 posts)
10. A president who cannot pass a security check
Mon Sep 2, 2019, 08:36 PM
Sep 2019

Should not be sworn in.

It also cost us a shitload of money on a wasted election. We need to have these checks and we should have had them forever.

There is just no way in hell we would have an orange disaster golfing away our money and giving away our treasure!

Another thing to do in the new congress.

 

bitterross

(4,066 posts)
11. It would be unconstitutional. Sorry, but that's the case.
Mon Sep 2, 2019, 08:42 PM
Sep 2019

The Constitution sets out the requirements for becoming President. To add a background check would be to add a requirement not in the Constitution.

Yes, gaping hole that didn't matter until 2016. The Electoral College was supposed to be able to prevent a Trump Presidency, not facilitate it.

unblock

(51,920 posts)
28. Disclosure is not unconstitutional
Tue Sep 3, 2019, 06:13 PM
Sep 2019

Requiring a candidate to "pass" a background check would indeed be unconstitutional, and rightly so as a tyrannical administration could abuse that power to determine the next candidates.

However, requiring candidates to *disclose* the information one would normally supply for a background check is not unconstitutional, afaik.

There are already other requirements to get on the ballot, such as petitions with many signatures, etc.

I think it's not a constitutional problem to require tax returns to be disclosed in order to be on the ballot, e.g.

 

bitterross

(4,066 posts)
29. We'll find out about the tax returns soon.
Tue Sep 3, 2019, 07:34 PM
Sep 2019

Since CA made that a requirement it has been challenged. I suspect, given the current make up of the courts, that will be found unconstitutional.

It's not that far from your example of "passing" a background check. A tyrannical administration could put unreasonable disclosure requirements into law to try to limit the candidates. Even now, some people say tax returns are a "private" matter that should not be required. That is not just the Trump supporters.

What about sealed criminal court files? Are those fair game? If a state made the requirement that all criminal and civil court records be disclosed is that okay? There is possible harm to the people who are a part of those cases who are not running for office. This could cause some good people to not run in order to protect others.


It's not quite as simple a question as it seems.

unblock

(51,920 posts)
31. Yeah, few things ever are completely simple
Tue Sep 3, 2019, 11:16 PM
Sep 2019

I agree that even "disclosure" could be taken too far.

I had a security clearance once upon a time, and I don't think political candidates should have to go through that entire process even if the information gathered is merely disclosed, not evaluated or used as a bar to the ballot.

If nothing else, a lie detector test would be ridiculous. Even if you believe that they are accurate when the person running it is fair, it's obviously easily manipulated if the person running it has a bias.

That said, there's plenty of room for reasonable disclosure about candidates, including basic financial information such as tax returns and investments.

The public interest in knowing financial incentives of their elected officials generally outweighs other considerations, imho.

Mariana

(14,830 posts)
12. The Constitution lists the qualifications for the office of President.
Mon Sep 2, 2019, 08:45 PM
Sep 2019

Passing a security clearance background check is not one of the requirements, unfortunately.

CloudWatcher

(1,829 posts)
13. It would be a terrible idea to require a security clearance before running for office
Mon Sep 2, 2019, 09:05 PM
Sep 2019

The current administration could simply refuse to grant security clearances to any opposition candidates.

At one point I might have dismissed this level of paranoia, but Trump would use it in a nanosecond to keep power.

Response to CloudWatcher (Reply #13)

erronis

(14,853 posts)
14. Some are arguing that no one before trump has been unpatriotic - we didn't need security checks
Mon Sep 2, 2019, 09:24 PM
Sep 2019

A security check is not to see if someone can recite the pledge of allegiance.

It is to see if they have the ability to withstand corruption and enticements. That they have exhibited a moral character and don't have stuff in their closet that the can be blackmailed with.

You can be a pot-smoking ex-commie-symp with some interesting life under your hood and still get a Top Secret/Q/compartmentalized (I did). The main thing is that you are honest with the interrogators and that you don't have something hanging over your head (debt, scandals, bribery, crimes) that can be used to turn you against the country.

Dotard/durak (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B4%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA) fails on almost all tests. How banks actually loan him money beats me. Unless the bankers are in the same sleaze bucket.....

CloudWatcher

(1,829 posts)
24. don't ask don't tell
Tue Sep 3, 2019, 03:07 PM
Sep 2019

Yes. And this is why Clinton's policy of Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell was obscene from the start. The point is to not have something that can be used as leverage.

erronis

(14,853 posts)
25. Disagree. He was very well vetted by those that counted - the money that funds the RNC/NRA/Tpotters
Tue Sep 3, 2019, 05:13 PM
Sep 2019

If there was a decent honest human in the RNC that might have disagreed with bringing in the corrupt dumpster, that human was evicted, shunned, exiled.

This was a planned coup of the repuglicon potty and an attempted coup of whatever-we-call democracy in the US.

To benefit? Perhaps foreign states. Perhaps US-based oligarchs.

Not to benefit: the poor dump whites that got their dander stoked with careful messaging.

patphil

(5,989 posts)
16. This is one of the many many things that will have to change as a resullt of the Trump presidency.
Mon Sep 2, 2019, 09:41 PM
Sep 2019

There's going to be a whole new rule book for candidates and for presidents.
One thing I would like to see is making the Attorney General a civil service position, along with a lot of other jobs in the justice department.
We can't really trust the president to nominate/appoint anyone anymore.
Unfortunately most of these appointments are just about impossible to take out of the hands of the president.
Trump, and Mitch McConnell, have shown us how vulnerable our government is to totally amoral, self-absorbed, callous, unpatriotic shitheads that don't have any concern for the people.
They, and many more like them, have put this nation at risk and there is no easy fix for the damage they have done.

Patrick Phillips

Response to TryLogic (Original post)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Are you kidding me???