Mishandling Classfied Material

[Que]

I think what you shovel and your handle were more congruent as "BettyPoop"

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Feel free to address the actual issue--anytime

I think what you shovel and your handle were more congruent as "BettyPoop"

 

[Que]

Feel free to address the actual issue--anytime

I did. You are engaging in whataboutism which is now forbidden, because Bill Clinton.

But okay I'll play l(just not with actual poo.) Let's pretend that it's okay for you to engage in whataboutism since you're on team whataboutism team to engage in. So let's talk about, "What about Porter??!?"

The original, non white-washed version of the foregone concluded, FBI-colluded, non-investigation said that it was "highly likely" that hostile actors accessed her server. Further, it noted the very many examples of highly classified documents. Some clearly marked as such, some the classified nature was discussed, many should have been treated as classified, regardless of specific markings; some of that material was so classified that we, the public, still cannot see it. None of it was permitted to exist outside of designated, secure areas. Removing any of those from designated, secure areas is a Federal crime. One that a reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. We know this because reasonable prosecutors have prosecuted much less egregious offenses and obtain convictions easilly, because the statute is quite clear.

On your side of the scale....

You have a (singular, non hostile actor) guy who either should not have been cleared, or was not cleared and was privy to classified materials, none of which he made of with or transfered the contents to anyone.

Yeah.

I take it back.

Not whataboutism.

Straight-up false equivalency.

So, try again.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Right. Noted for the next time you protest that you call out Rs as much as you call out Ds, because you are so pure and above partisanship

Another one who apparently cannot comprehend anything outside partisanship because they are so fucking partisan.

I'm an ideologue, not a partisan....that means I hold ideology more important than party loyalty.

Unlike you and the other pathetic lemmings.

How so?

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance......but in both cases, only for poor people.

Clearly elites don't have to worry about silly things like laws.

What I think of it is irrelevant: the issue is all the patriotic Dumb Fucks foaming at the mouth about Hillary, but not Trump

No different than those who think Hillary's security breeches were OK, because (D), but foaming at the mouth about Trump.

And I know you hate patriotism and anything pro USA....most leftist filth like you do.

But I have to ask, since you HATE the USA and pretty much every basic principal it was founded upon like liberty and civil rights and that's fine, but why do you stay in the USA??

Why not just go somewhere that also hates those things?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

His compromise was no less than what Clinton did.

Question is why is his compromise so offensive to you but not Clinton?

Fucking liar.

Trump has twice now, that we know of with certainty, been specifically notified that a person known to have daily access to Top Secret classified material was an obvious blackmail target. Flynn who has plead guilty to lying to the FBI and Porter who is a serial spousal abuser. And the fucker did nothing about it until the fourth estate made it known.

That is infinitely more of a compromise than what umpteen briefings, hearings, interrogations and witchunts lead by Trey Gowdy and his ilk and the proper investigations of the FBI over years and years ever turned up. Your bullshit is not a false equivalency - it is a lie.

That is why this is "so offensive". It is an actual offense, dipshit.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Oh Jesus

But but Hillary! Go for it--I cede completely to Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Servers and E-mails and "FBI Collusion."

I will only state: it was more than "one" actor. There's at least Jared Kushner, who the FBI has warned is vulnerable to blackmail, specifically by the Chinese, not to mention his whole involvement with the Russia collusion. We know for a fact he is allowed access to anything he wants. He should not have it. Beyond that, there are, by reports, 40 people in the WH without security clearances.

Oh right, my goodness, I forgot all about Mike Flynn, too

Secondly, you don't know what Porter, Kushner, anyone at MaraLago, the Russians in the Oval Office, or any of the dozens still in the WH are doing or have done with Classified Intel. You can't say for sure.

In any case, this is not whataboutism. It's a perfectly VALID conversation to have--how has the Trump Adminstration handled Classified Material vs. Clinton? It's a debate, with pros and cons. Nothing wrong about it at all.

Otherwise, I leave you to But Hillary

I did. You are engaging in whataboutism which is now forbidden, because Bill Clinton.

But okay I'll play l(just not with actual poo.) Let's pretend that it's okay for you to engage in whataboutism since you're on team whataboutism team to engage in. So let's talk about, "What about Porter??!?"

The original, non white-washed version of the foregone concluded, FBI-colluded, non-investigation said that it was "highly likely" that hostile actors accessed her server. Further, it noted the very many examples of highly classified documents. Some clearly marked as such, some the classified nature was discussed, many should have been treated as classified, regardless of specific markings; some of that material was so classified that we, the public, still cannot see it. None of it was permitted to exist outside of designated, secure areas. Removing any of those from designated, secure areas is a Federal crime. One that a reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. We know this because reasonable prosecutors have prosecuted much less egregious offenses and obtain convictions easilly, because the statute is quite clear.

On your side of the scale....

You have a (singular, non hostile actor) guy who either should not have been cleared, or was not cleared and was privy to classified materials, none of which he made of with or transfered the contents to anyone.

Yeah.

I take it back.

Not whataboutism.

Straight-up false equivalency.

So, try again.

 

[Que]

Oh Jesus

But but Hillary! Go for it--I cede completely to Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Servers and E-mails and "FBI Collusion."

I will only state: it was more than "one" actor. There's at least Jared Kushner, who the FBI has warned is vulnerable to blackmail, specifically by the Chinese, not to mention his whole involvement with the Russia collusion. We know for a fact he is allowed access to anything he wants. He should not have it. Beyond that, there are, by reports, 40 people in the WH without security clearances.

Secondly, you don't know what Porter, Kushner, anyone at MaraLago, the Russians in the Oval Office, or any of the dozens still in the WH are doing or have done with Classified Intel. You can't say for sure.

In any case, this is not whataboutism. It's a perfectly VALID conversation to have--how has the Trump Adminstration handled Classified Material vs. Clinton? It's a debate, with pros and cons. Nothing wrong about it at all.

Otherwise, I leave you to But Hillary

Are you mentally retarded or are you severely mentally disabled?

YOU brought Hilary into the discussion it's in your original post I'm addressing your whataboutism. Me addressing your whataboutism is not me engaging in what about ism.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

It's completely different, because I never became President by attacking Hillary Clinton for her lapses in security. I never chanted Lock Her Up. I never threatened to put her in jail.

Lol, just keep on.

You can't condemn Rs just like Trump can't condemn Neo-Nazis. When faced with it, you: attack the person bringing it to your attention (a) and (b) immediately create a false equivalency to something Ds have supposedly done.

No different than those who think Hillary's security breeches were OK, because (D), but foaming at the mouth about Trump.

And I know you hate patriotism and anything pro USA....most leftist filth like you do.

But I have to ask, since you HATE the USA and pretty much every basic principal it was founded upon like liberty and civil rights and that's fine, but why do you stay in the USA??

Why not just go somewhere that also hates those things?

 

[Hypoxia]

It was funny. I'd obsessed with radio since infancy almost, and obtained my FCC 2nd (technician) and 1st (engineer) tickets, before I joined the US Army at age 24 as a radio and radioteletype (RATT) op.

But I couldn't get clearance greater than CONFIDENTIAL because history. So there I was on a commo squad. Whenever traffic came in, I had to leave. When the signals were down, I could return inside. Fucking weird, but they kept paying me.

All these Trompkins without clearance should work the same way. Let-em hang around when nothing deeper than CONFIDENTIAL is visible. Otherwise, show them outside. Maybe over to the smoker's reservation. Take a break, Jared.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Fucking liar.

Your bullshit is not a false equivalency - it is a lie.

That is why this is "so offensive". It is an actual offense, dipshit.

Oh look who grew a pair and came out of his iggy bunker.....to defend the Queen of Wall St. no less.

No it's not you (D)ick suck.

Hillary stole classified government materials, FBI caught her red handed and said so....no matter how much you want to ignore their official statements it's still there.

She got a pass because elite, wealthy and connected, JUST like Trump.

They should both at the very least get slaps on the wrists in an official capacity but they are even above that. Any poor people behaving like either of these fucks would be doing hard fuckin' time just like all the poor people we lock up every year for making simple mistakes that breech security much less deliberately doing it.

You're another clear case of "It's ok as long as it's a Democrat doing it!".

It's completely different, because I never became President by attacking Hillary Clinton for her lapses in security. I never chanted Lock Her Up. I never threatened to put her in jail.
.

None of those things mean she didn't flagrantly violate security policies in a manner that gets poor people locked up because zero tolerance, and totally get away with it.

Just like Trump.

You can't condemn Rs just like Trump can't condemn Neo-Nazis. When faced with it, you: attack the person bringing it to your attention (a) and (b) immediately create a false equivalency to something Ds have supposedly done.

Other than I do.

It's not false equivalency, unless you're so brainwashed you really are ok with it as long as it's your party doing it, and not ok with it when the other team does it.

 

[Que]

It was funny. I'd obsessed with radio since infancy almost, and obtained my FCC 2nd (technician) and 1st (engineer) tickets, before I joined the US Army at age 24 as a radio and radioteletype (RATT) op.

But I couldn't get clearance greater than CONFIDENTIAL because history. So there I was on a commo squad. Whenever traffic came in, I had to leave. When the signals were down, I could return inside. Fucking weird, but they kept paying me.

All these Trompkins without clearance should work the same way. Let-em hang around when nothing deeper than CONFIDENTIAL is visible. Otherwise, show them outside. Maybe over to the smoker's reservation. Take a break, Jared.

That's more or less how it works except the President, whoever he is, can shoot off his mouth in the presense of whomever he wishes to include.

For example when Monica who was not cleared for that level of classification is sucking Bill Clinton's dick while he's on the phone with world leaders that isn't a security violation. Ditto for JFK boning the 19 year-old while discussing classified secrets.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Back in the day, I had a TS clearance - and I'm terrible at keeping secrets!

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Back in the day, I had a TS clearance - and I'm terrible at keeping secrets!

It's a good thing I was never at places like Roswell or Dealey Plaza or the soundstage where they filmed the moon landing cuz I'd be blabbing all over the place and probably end up being killed by the Illuminati.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

That right here is the only example of "Whataboutism."

Comparing Hillary's e-mails and Trump's security clearance problem is perfectly VALID. BOTH are security lapses (even Bitter Boy says so).

You want to dip into conspiracy theories and Clinton Derangement Syndrome to excuse Trump while continuing to fault Hillary, ok

But bringing in Monica Lewinsky and JFK as if those are somehow on the same plane of discussion is garbage.

The issue at hand, right now, is Rob Porter and all the other people (>100) without security clearance working in the WH

The issue is a President who came into office claiming to be extremely concerned with Classified Material. He said Hillary should never ever be allowed into the Oval Office if she can't understand the meaning of "Classified." When faced with the proof that he doesn't understand it, either, you deflect to whataboutism

"Oh, well whatabout Bill Clinton and whatabout JFK?"

Monica Lewinsky and JFK's lovers DIDN'T WORK IN THE WHITE HOUSE and UNLIKE ROB PORTER and JARED KUSHNER, there is no evidence whatsoever that they ever came near Classified Material, except in your fucking moronic brain

That's more or less how it works except the President, whoever he is, can shoot off his mouth in the presense of whomever he wishes to include.

For example when Monica who was not cleared for that level of classification is sucking Bill Clinton's dick while he's on the phone with world leaders that isn't a security violation. Ditto for JFK boning the 19 year-old while discussing classified secrets.

 

[Wrong Element]

It's almost as if their alleged interest in the mishandling of classified information was a mere pretext for attacking Hillary, and not something they actually deeply cared about.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That right here is the only example of "Whataboutism."

OP is "Whataboutism" .

It's almost as if their alleged interest in the mishandling of classified information was a mere pretext for attacking Hillary, and not something they actually deeply cared about.

It's clearly unimportant.

Unless it's the other party doing it....then it's an outrage I tell ya!!

 

[WandaGrabowski]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Trumptards chant Lock Her Up for two years because of Hillary "mishandling classified intelligence?" I thought you all cared about that, being patriotic and such

Seems like a good opportunity for Bitter Boy to pounce on "partisan" hypocrisy. It's ok when my guy does it, not yours.

The current White House which is SO CONCERNED with our nation's TOP SECRETS is letting all kinds of people without security clearance see everything. Some of the President's closest aides--you know, like that radical Islamic Terrorist Huma Abedin--aren't supposed to be "handling" any intelligence, much less CLASSIFIED at the highest level. Yet there they are, reading the PDB on the Metro la la la

Oh WAIT! All that was a bunch of bullshit to dupe the Dumb Fucks into voting for an Idiot who is now really compromising National Security

I thought that this was going to be another Hilary sucks because she used a private server and deleted emails, thread.

 

[adrina]

It's almost as if their alleged interest in the mishandling of classified information was a mere pretext for attacking Hillary, and not something they actually deeply cared about.

Crazy, right?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Don't tell "Que" that, you'll shatter his world

#ButHillary
#emailsemailsemails
#Server
#Crooked
#LockHerUp

It's almost as if their alleged interest in the mishandling of classified information was a mere pretext for attacking Hillary, and not something they actually deeply cared about.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The issue at hand, right now, is Rob Porter and all the other people (>100) without security clearance working in the WH

The issue is a President who came into office claiming to be extremely concerned with Classified Material. He said Hillary should never ever be allowed into the Oval Office if she can't understand the meaning of "Classified."

The real issue in this thread is your continued refusal to acknowledge the factual process of the clearance procedure for the handling of classified material -- a procedure that has been well-documented in other threads in this forum.

Kushner is and Porter was working under INTERIM security clearances WHILE their background investigations were being conducted. Porter resigned BEFORE his final clearance was issued. He no longer works in the White House or handles classified information.

Here is an article you should read, for fucks sakes. Pay particular attention to the following:

Sean Illing
Something that’s not clear to me, and I assume most readers, is who actually makes the decision to approve or deny a security clearance. Is it the FBI or the White House or some other agency?

Mark Zaid
The FBI conducts the background investigations, but they do not formally decide who gets a clearance and who doesn’t. In fact, they don’t even make recommendations one way or the other; they simply conduct the investigation and hand over their findings.

Sean Illing
So ultimately the White House decides who does or doesn’t have the ability to handle sensitive information?

Mark Zaid
For secret and top secret clearances, the White House has its own Office of Security that makes that decision. For access to what is called Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), that is done by one or more of the intelligence agencies, and usually it’s the CIA with the White House.

It could be the National Security Agency or the Defense Intelligence Agency depending on what access or information the person is going to be working with.

It’s not all that unusual to see interim secret or top secret clearances granted for over a year, but it is unusual to see SCI interim clearances for that long, because these are people who have access to the highest levels of classified information, including the president’s daily security brief.

Sean Illing
This is the level of access Jared Kushner currently has, right?

Mark Zaid
Correct.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/17003550/rob-porter-trump-kushner-security-clearance

Unlike the legal criticism directed at Hillary Clinton by no less than former FBI Director James Comey, the ONLY disconnect with regard to the clearance process at present is the precise moment in time when incriminating evidence MAY have been provided to the White House by the FBI. The White House has denied it, and Christopher Wray, testifying before Congress, has not directly revealed the specific content of what WAS provided to the White House at that time.

In other words, where Hillary Clinton was technically "guilty" of a "crime" that could have been, but the DOJ declined to, prosecute[d] (and I make no judgment that she should have been -- for that matter, even Trump himself has "declined to prosecute" his bluster notwithstanding), not a single crime has been committed in the handling of classified material by this administration.

Your partisan judgment as to the fitness of anyone (including the President himself) in this administration to have access to classified information is yours to make. But abandon the baseless fiction that 100 White House employees are handling classified material without proper security clearances. Interim clearances ARE proper security clearances. Period.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

B.S.!

1. Here is the article you quoted:

Trump’s White House has a major security clearance problem

“We might be facing a situation we’ve never faced before.”


It concludes thusly:

And again, it’s not clear that anybody could do anything about it. If Congress learned about it, it could potentially be grounds for impeachment, but that’s a political decision. Basically, this is an area governed by norms as much as anything else, and we might be facing a situation we’ve never faced before.

Thanks! You just linked to an article which says the opposite of what you're trying to say

2. Did I say anything about what's "legal" or not? Did I make any claims that what Trump is doing is "illegal?" No, I don't think I did.

To quote the Vox article, what we're talking about here is mostly "norms."

I said clearly Trump has the right to completely ignore the FBI vetting process if he wants to. I'm not accusing him of a crime--yet.

So trying to make this a legal/illegal argument is not going to work.

The question is still: given his CAMPAIGN attacking Hillary, is his own conduct in the WH hypocritical or not?

3. What is "legal criticism?" The FBI found no crime to charge Hillary with. At best, you have "careless."

4. You want to pit the WH Lie Machine against Chris Wray?

Saying "The White House denies it" is as good as saying "It's been denied by aliens in the UFO on my lawn." The WH has ZERO credibility when it comes to telling the truth. Don't forget, they've now been through no less than 3 (three) one two three shifting explanations for what happened:

1. The process is still "ongoing" and "we haven't received the Final Report"

2. General Kelly acted within 24 hours / General Kelly acted within 40 minutes

3. General Kelly didn't know anything. It was held up by "Internal Security" staffed by "Career Professionals."

To which we can now add a 4th Honey Boo Boo-level of bullshit:

4. Ok, ok, ok, we got the Full Report from the FBI. But there was nothing in there about a black eye! Nothing at all! We never knew nothing about no domestic violence

The real issue in this thread is your continued refusal to acknowledge the factual process of the clearance procedure for the handling of classified material -- a procedure that has been well-documented in other threads in this forum.

Kushner is and Porter was working under INTERIM security clearances WHILE their background investigations were being conducted. Porter resigned BEFORE his final clearance was issued. He no longer works in the White House or handles classified information.

Here is an article you should read, for fucks sakes. Pay particular attention to the following:

Unlike the legal criticism directed at Hillary Clinton by no less than former FBI Director James Comey, the ONLY disconnect with regard to the clearance process at present is the precise moment in time when incriminating evidence MAY have been provided to the White House by the FBI. The White House has denied it, and Christopher Wray, testifying before Congress, has not directly revealed the specific content of what WAS provided to the White House at that time.

In other words, where Hillary Clinton was technically "guilty" of a "crime" that could have been, but the DOJ declined to, prosecute[d] (and I make no judgment that she should have been -- for that matter, even Trump himself has "declined to prosecute" his bluster notwithstanding), not a single crime has been committed in the handling of classified material by this administration.

Your partisan judgment as to the fitness of anyone (including the President himself) in this administration to have access to classified information is yours to make. But abandon the baseless fiction that 100 White House employees are handling classified material without proper security clearances. Interim clearances ARE proper security clearances. Period.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

2. Did I say anything about what's "legal" or not? Did I make any claims that what Trump is doing is "illegal?" No, I don't think I did.

To quote the Vox article, what we're talking about here is mostly "norms."

What you said, and what I specifically quoted and took exception to, was the following:

The issue at hand, right now, is Rob Porter and all the other people (>100) without security clearance working in the WH.

That is simply inaccurate. No one handling officially classified material in employment at the White House is doing so without a security clearance.

So YOU make up YOUR mind. Is the "issue" that Rob Porter, Jared Kushner (and >100 other people) are working WITHOUT a security clearance, or that Porter and Kushner in particular and, by implication, some unspecified number upwards of 100 in general, don't deserve the issuance of ANY security clearance regardless of the perfectly valid INTERIM security clearances they are (or in the case of Porter, "were") working under?

Here's a hint: It ain't the former, because that simply isn't true. It COULD be the latter, but with the now irrelevant exception of Porter, how would you know? The President also had to fire his National Security Adviser for lying to the Vice President. That's also a "situation we've never had to face before."

I've yet to see that this is a "major" security clearance problem -- at least not an insurmountable one.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

No, the "Interim" security clearances are not, to my mind, "perfectly valid."

By the account of anyone who's worked in any other Admin, that IS perfectly acceptable . . . at the beginning. NOT more than a year in. By any other account, it would be extremely rare and unusual for "one or two" to have ONLY an "INTERIM" after 6 months--not to mention way more than "one or two" after a YEAR. THAT is unheard of.

The Liars in the WH know it's wrong, because of how they are now trying to clean it all up NOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN CAUGHT. And by spinning bullshit which you apparently believe.

It's obvious to me the WH didn't give one flying shit about vetting and security. Not one little crap. I would bet they have ignored the whole process. I would guess that there are MANY out of those 100 who "don't deserve" the issuance of a proper clearance. I would also guess that most are just fine according to the FBI, and that the Trump WH is just too lazy, ignorant, incompetent, stupid or CARELESS to keep up with it. Which wouldn't be big news, WERE IT NOT FOR HIS ATTACKS ON HILLARY

Personally, with the exception of Kushner, who has NO BUSINESS having ANY kind of "clearance" whatsoever, I don't really care, just as I don't give one flying crap about emails emails emails. But what I think about this is irrelevant. As I said, I'M NOT THE ONE WHO RODE INTO OFFICE ON "LOCK HER UP"

What I care about is the point of this thread: Given the goons chanting Lock Her Up for "Mishandling Classified Materials," how do these Dumb Fucks rationalize all these obvious problems with Trump's treatment of "Classified Material" (of which the Porter Scandal is only ONE instance--see above for more.)

Apparently, given the responses on this thread, the Dumb Fucks are going to dig their heels in and cling to Clinton Derangement Syndrome rather than admit that they never cared deeply about any of this, and it was all an excuse to attack Hillary, as WE said so well.

Also: You brought up that article describing this as "Major"

What you said, and what I specifically quoted and took exception to, was the following:

That is simply inaccurate. No one handling officially classified material in employment at the White House is doing so without a security clearance.

So YOU make up YOUR mind. Is the "issue" that Rob Porter, Jared Kushner (and >100 other people) are working WITHOUT a security clearance, or that Porter and Kushner in particular and, by implication, some unspecified number upwards of 100 in general, don't deserve the issuance of ANY security clearance regardless of the perfectly valid INTERIM security clearances they are (or in the case of Porter, "were") working under?

Here's a hint: It ain't the former, because that simply isn't true. It COULD be the latter, but with the now irrelevant exception of Porter, how would you know? The President also had to fire his National Security Adviser for lying to the Vice President. That's also a "situation we've never had to face before."

I've yet to see that this is a "major" security clearance problem -- at least not an insurmountable one.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

No, the "Interim" security clearances are not, to my mind, "perfectly valid."

By the account of anyone who's worked in any other Admin, that IS perfectly acceptable . . . at the beginning. NOT more than a year in. By any other account, it would be extremely rare and unusual for "one or two" to have ONLY an "INTERIM" after 6 months--not to mention way more than "one or two" after a YEAR. THAT is unheard of.

The Liars in the WH know it's wrong, because of how they are now trying to clean it all up NOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN CAUGHT. And by spinning bullshit which you apparently believe.

It's obvious to me the WH didn't give one flying shit about vetting and security. Not one little crap. I would bet they have ignored the whole process. I would guess that there are MANY out of those 100 who "don't deserve" the issuance of a proper clearance. I would also guess that most are just fine according to the FBI, and that the Trump WH is just too lazy, ignorant, incompetent, stupid or CARELESS to keep up with it. Which wouldn't be big news, WERE IT NOT FOR HIS ATTACKS ON HILLARY

Personally, with the exception of Kushner, who has NO BUSINESS having ANY kind of "clearance" whatsoever, I don't really care, just as I don't give one flying crap about emails emails emails. But what I think about this is irrelevant. As I said, I'M NOT THE ONE WHO RODE INTO OFFICE ON "LOCK HER UP"

What I care about is the point of this thread: Given the goons chanting Lock Her Up for "Mishandling Classified Materials," how do these Dumb Fucks rationalize all these obvious problems with Trump's treatment of "Classified Material" (of which the Porter Scandal is only ONE instance--see above for more.)

Apparently, given the responses on this thread, the Dumb Fucks are going to dig their heels in and cling to Clinton Derangement Syndrome rather than admit that they never cared deeply about any of this, and it was all an excuse to attack Hillary, as WE said so well.

Also: You brought up that article describing this as "Major"

Congratulations on getting one right (see bolded sentence above).

Tell you what. Let's make a deal. You keep focusing on the word "major" in an online article, and I'll keep focusing on the substantive questions and answers to those questions IN the article, including this exchange:

Sean Illing
There seem to be two possibilities here: Either these 30 or 40 people, including Jared Kushner, are having trouble getting clearances due to their unusual backgrounds ... or the FBI has found troubling or suspicious information about them during the course of their investigation.

Mark Zaid
Both of those scenarios could absolutely be correct for multiple people. We normally would expect the FBI to give priority to these senior White House staffers, and given who some of them are, it doesn’t surprise me that those investigations could take a lengthy amount of time.

I have clients whose investigations have taken two, three, sometimes four years for a variety of reasons — some nefarious, some trivial. There could be any number of reasons for a delay in the adjudication or investigatory process and it’s just hard to know without seeing all the specifics.

Please note that an "unusual background" does NOT equate to the FBI finding "troubling or suspicious information." Either, both or neither could be true for anyone still holding an interim clearance regardless of your (admittedly irrelevant) feelings about their "validity."

And here's another interesting fact on the same subject as reported by CNN:

A recent GAO study found that broadly throughout the government the security clearance investigation backlog was already at 190,000 cases in August 2014 and skyrocketed to more than 709,000 by September 2017.

"At the end of the day, if we are going to solve this problem, we are going to have to fix the way we issue clearances, by both getting faster and better at the process of vetting and clearing people, or ultimately denying people clearances and moving them on to other opportunities, but the current challenge cannot go unaddressed for much longer," said Jamil N. Jaffer, the founder of the National Security Institute at George Mason University Law School and a former associate counsel to President George W. Bush.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/09/politics/trump-officials-pending-security-clearances/index.html

ALL of those background investigations are conducted by the same FBI. And as the article further points out, "if that paperwork is delayed, the interim clearance stays in place."

But none of this means shit to you because you've already decided that the problem is that Trump doesn't give a shit about security vetting. In your world Trump is doing the stalling, and the FBI is ...... doing what exactly??? It's like they're not even there? If the interim security clearance holders were as derelict as you seem to think they are, then why hasn't the FBI closed the files on ALL of these fraudsters?

"Sorry Mr. President. There are numerous potentially disqualifying background facts on every degenerate you've placed in a national security position. It took us exactly six weeks to close the books on them all. It's your call, but our job here is done."

But the Bureau hasn't said that. Have they?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Porter, like Flynn before him, was reported to be a blackmail risk to the White House. The White House chose not to act. The appropriate action at the time of the notification of the risk was to revoke the temp clearance, and stop the person form handling classified material.

That did not occur. The nation's secrets continued to be knowingly and deliberately be placed in the hands of a known blackmail risk.

The purpose of a security clearance is to determine that a person is able and willing to safeguard classified national security information, based on his or her loyalty, character, trustworthiness, and reliability.

The persons were NOT persons of character, trustworthiness, and reliability.

LOCK HIM UP!