As a previous Personnel Reliability Program certifier, I applaud the extension of constant monitoring to the classified information sphere. I felt like that was a missing piece when I was in both worlds
But we've never elected such a patently unqualified POTUS before, have we? How can we make the POTUS the original classification authorit…
As a previous Personnel Reliability Program certifier, I applaud the extension of constant monitoring to the classified information sphere. I felt like that was a missing piece when I was in both worlds
But we've never elected such a patently unqualified POTUS before, have we? How can we make the POTUS the original classification authority when he has such a complete lack of grasp of even the broad outlines of the program?
I don't know what the right answer is, beyond "the law needs to change," but allowing this kind of situation is a threat to national security. POTUS is not a god or a king; they have to be subject to some regulation too. And when they flaunt them, there have to be real consequences. Or we have to stop electing jackwagons. I figure the law would be easier to change...
I agree with the constant monitoring as well. Cleared personnel know they have to live their lives above board. This is just one way to ensure that happens.
I do believe, however, the median American voter doesn't comprehend the risk of someone holding a clearance who's utterly unfit to have one. Can you imagine Trump trying to get a clearance the old fashioned way? Drug use? Check. Multiple bankruptcies? Check. Unrepentant adultery? Check. Shady foreign sympathies? Check. Trying to overthrown the government of the United States? Check.
There's no reality where this person would be cleared, but when you bring up that very fact -- and it is a fact -- the median MAGA either doesn't get it or doesn't care. And that's because these people don't understand risk. They only understand that Trump is *their* guy, and they will, like good little mindless sycophants, support him whatever he does. So I don't trust the people to make responsible decisions on national security. You'd have a better chance teaching one of Sykes' dogs how to code a method of moments algorithm. So I support a change in the law. I'm not sure how it would work. To be POTUS, all the Constitution requires is to be a natural born citizen and 35 or older. At the same time, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and it's clear that unscrupulous men can gain power and access to information they shouldn't have access to. Maybe a Mark Zaid or a Bradley Moss can think of something?
I like a "probationary period" for a newly elected president...if they can't pass a security test and earn a PRP cert in the first six months, then we toss them out and run another election... ;-)
Seriously, I don't think a constitutional amendment to establish a somewhat more comprehensive set of requirements for president is unreasonable. If you don't meet the standards, you don't go on the ballot.
The rules were written for an age when stuff wasn't quite so complicated and (good, bad, or indifferent) being a "gentleman" meant something. We're leaving a lot to chance, and to the grievances of folks who, frankly, may not have made good decisions for themselves. Now they're making bad decisions for me...
Oh, I agree. I forget how old the modern classification system is, but it is absurd that a man of Trump's character can be elected POTUS and become by law the original classification authority. We've seen the consequences of that. Of course, if there were requirements in place back in 2016 and Trump didn't meet them, he'd say it was rigged against him and 35% of the voters would believe him. What really needs to happen is someone telling that 35% of the voters to shut the fuck up, grow up, and make better decisions.
As a previous Personnel Reliability Program certifier, I applaud the extension of constant monitoring to the classified information sphere. I felt like that was a missing piece when I was in both worlds
But we've never elected such a patently unqualified POTUS before, have we? How can we make the POTUS the original classification authority when he has such a complete lack of grasp of even the broad outlines of the program?
I don't know what the right answer is, beyond "the law needs to change," but allowing this kind of situation is a threat to national security. POTUS is not a god or a king; they have to be subject to some regulation too. And when they flaunt them, there have to be real consequences. Or we have to stop electing jackwagons. I figure the law would be easier to change...
I agree with the constant monitoring as well. Cleared personnel know they have to live their lives above board. This is just one way to ensure that happens.
I do believe, however, the median American voter doesn't comprehend the risk of someone holding a clearance who's utterly unfit to have one. Can you imagine Trump trying to get a clearance the old fashioned way? Drug use? Check. Multiple bankruptcies? Check. Unrepentant adultery? Check. Shady foreign sympathies? Check. Trying to overthrown the government of the United States? Check.
There's no reality where this person would be cleared, but when you bring up that very fact -- and it is a fact -- the median MAGA either doesn't get it or doesn't care. And that's because these people don't understand risk. They only understand that Trump is *their* guy, and they will, like good little mindless sycophants, support him whatever he does. So I don't trust the people to make responsible decisions on national security. You'd have a better chance teaching one of Sykes' dogs how to code a method of moments algorithm. So I support a change in the law. I'm not sure how it would work. To be POTUS, all the Constitution requires is to be a natural born citizen and 35 or older. At the same time, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, and it's clear that unscrupulous men can gain power and access to information they shouldn't have access to. Maybe a Mark Zaid or a Bradley Moss can think of something?
I like a "probationary period" for a newly elected president...if they can't pass a security test and earn a PRP cert in the first six months, then we toss them out and run another election... ;-)
Seriously, I don't think a constitutional amendment to establish a somewhat more comprehensive set of requirements for president is unreasonable. If you don't meet the standards, you don't go on the ballot.
The rules were written for an age when stuff wasn't quite so complicated and (good, bad, or indifferent) being a "gentleman" meant something. We're leaving a lot to chance, and to the grievances of folks who, frankly, may not have made good decisions for themselves. Now they're making bad decisions for me...
Oh, I agree. I forget how old the modern classification system is, but it is absurd that a man of Trump's character can be elected POTUS and become by law the original classification authority. We've seen the consequences of that. Of course, if there were requirements in place back in 2016 and Trump didn't meet them, he'd say it was rigged against him and 35% of the voters would believe him. What really needs to happen is someone telling that 35% of the voters to shut the fuck up, grow up, and make better decisions.