Oh, So It WAS Overlooked?
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Topic list
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-02-13 18:35 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 247 references Ignore this thread
Oh, So It WAS Overlooked?
[Comments enabled]

The plot thickens....

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified Tuesday that former White House staff secretary Rob Porter had completed a background check months before he was forced to resign over domestic allegations against him -- conflicting with White House timelines that said the check was ongoing.

So Wray has testified that the partial report was filed with the White House in March of last year, which would be reasonably prompt.  It's hard to believe there was nothing about the domestic abuse allegations in that report, incidentally -- assuming they were found somewhere in a court or police file. 

Further, in the case of a clearance investigation you are expected to list all of your significant personal contacts, past and present, which would certainly include your ex-wives who they will interview.  If you try to leave someone THAT significant out on purpose you won't get away with it either.

Wray also said there were two follow-ups -- one in November, and again recently.

He did not say what was in the follow-ups.

The problem is that the White House has said the investigation was not completed, implying they had no adverse information on which to make further inquiries or act.

So either that's a lie or the FBI director is lying under oath.

The Administration has claimed that The White House personnel security office had not finished their work, but that's not the question, really.  The question is whether or not the White House knew that Porter had stood accused of serious domestic violence which was not in the public sphere of knowledge and granted him access to sensitive information despite that.

This is the very sort of thing that is supposed to not happen for people with clearances.  The issue is not just whether you hit your wife (which is and darn well ought to be a factor anyway) -- it's whether you're trying to hide it as well and thus you could be blackmailed with that information.

The latter is the more-serious part of the problem from a national security point of view, and with good reason.  Being a jackass (maybe even a criminal jackass) is bad enough but being able to be blackmailed over that is extremely serious, especially when you're working with sensitive and classified information.  I note that Porter had an interim clearance and the White House appears to have taken no action to rescind or restrict it until he was fired.

That sounds ****ed up folks, and if the White House was shielding Porter they better have a damn good explanation for it.

No, "I'm President and I'll do what I damn well please" won't cut it.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info Oh, So It WAS Overlooked? in forum [Market-Ticker]
Lobo
Posts: 433
Incept: 2013-12-25

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
The problem is that the White House has said the investigation was not completed, implying they had no adverse information on which to make further inquiries or act.

So either that's a lie or the FBI director is lying under oath.


While I agree that it appears that the White House was shielding Porter, I wouldn't be surprised if either side of your "either/or" statement above were correct. I haven't been much impressed with the White House or the FBI lately.

----------
Village Idiot
Orionrising
Posts: 52
Incept: 2017-01-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
dunno in this situation there have been serious problems with background investigations for a long time.

https://federalnewsradio.com/management/....

faked or not done checks etc.

Considering Pakistani nationals somehow had access and presumably clearance to work on congressional systems...
Bjonsson
Posts: 1106
Incept: 2010-03-10

Ventura County, California
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
No, this isn't a case of a background investigation being done half assed, or checks not done.

The investigation WAS done for Porter. And his security clearance was denied. MONTHS ago.

And the administration has been outright lying about it over the past week. And they've been trying to protect Porter, and even PROMOTE him, despite his security clearance being denied.

And as I mentioned on a previous thread, they still have Jared Kushner with no clearance yet.. for a YEAR. Meanwhile this guy is conducting elements of our foreign policy, meeting with world leaders, and working in the Oval Office.

This is a ****show. Kelly should be fired, he's the one who is supposed to have a handle on all these things. But, I suspect that there's a kind of "wink and nod" attitude towards Kelly because it sounds like he's one of the more competent people that works in the Oval Office.

----------
"If you don't have borders... if you don't have laws... you don't have a country."
Tickerguy
Posts: 151591
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Exactly.

----------
Winding it down.
Ckaminski
Posts: 4461
Incept: 2011-04-08

Mass-Hole!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Hey, if Hillary can get away with clearly illegal violations of security clearances and practices, why can't Trump?

I shouldn't need a sarcasm tag for this...

Lobo
Posts: 433
Incept: 2013-12-25

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
In my previous post, I said:
Quote:
While I agree that it appears that the White House was shielding Porter


The "while I agree" is an overstatement of Karl's position. What he said was:
Quote:
... if the White House was shielding Porter


My apologies for taking a conditional statement and making it declarative.

----------
Village Idiot
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ